Well ...
As previously mentioned, the field studies conducted in the last 5 years, even though they had detected the ciliated protozoan Philaster lucinda, and some of their cousins, in the typical WBS lesions around the world, none of them directly pointed out the Philaster lucinda as the primary cause, but ... just for the love of controversy, suppose yes, be yes ...
Philasterides, in general, are free living ciliate protozoans and also parasitic, heterotrophic, widely distributed in the globe, aerobic and also microaerophilic, capable of living both in the water column and in the benthic zone, in more acidic and more alkaline environments, having for this purpose alternative enzymatic mechanisms that allow it to adapt to these changing circumstances by changes in its metabolism, which gives them great environmental adaptability.
They are also, by some of their representatives, cause of disease in fish of cultivation, being therefore of interest for the aquaculture, for the damages that cause to some species of commercial interest. Disease that, in this activity, is known as Scuticociliatosis, name that derives from the subclass Scuticociliatia Small, 1967, to which belongs the genus Philasteride.
If the focus of interest in RTN control was Philaster lucinda, that would be the kind of enemy we would be facing: a very versatile enemy and prepared to fight.
However, many of the adaptive mechanisms of the Philasterides, which offer them so many alternatives, are archaic, distant in the past from their evolutionary line, when they were derived from the same organisms that derived the plants and, therefore, make them fragile to a therapeutic plane well-conducted, targeting these old structures that are no longer present or are not critical to survival in other animals.
Some drugs that we already have are capable of reaching these targets, to a greater or lesser degree, but they have a narrow therapeutic window, that is, the effective dose to control the disease approaches the dose toxic to the host and, therefore, any error in the dosage can compromise the goal either because it does not work at lower doses or because it compromises the host at higher doses or, in the case of aquaculture, because its use could pose risks to human consumption, and therefore are not allowed in this activity.
I'll continue in another post ...
As previously mentioned, the field studies conducted in the last 5 years, even though they had detected the ciliated protozoan Philaster lucinda, and some of their cousins, in the typical WBS lesions around the world, none of them directly pointed out the Philaster lucinda as the primary cause, but ... just for the love of controversy, suppose yes, be yes ...
Philasterides, in general, are free living ciliate protozoans and also parasitic, heterotrophic, widely distributed in the globe, aerobic and also microaerophilic, capable of living both in the water column and in the benthic zone, in more acidic and more alkaline environments, having for this purpose alternative enzymatic mechanisms that allow it to adapt to these changing circumstances by changes in its metabolism, which gives them great environmental adaptability.
They are also, by some of their representatives, cause of disease in fish of cultivation, being therefore of interest for the aquaculture, for the damages that cause to some species of commercial interest. Disease that, in this activity, is known as Scuticociliatosis, name that derives from the subclass Scuticociliatia Small, 1967, to which belongs the genus Philasteride.
If the focus of interest in RTN control was Philaster lucinda, that would be the kind of enemy we would be facing: a very versatile enemy and prepared to fight.
However, many of the adaptive mechanisms of the Philasterides, which offer them so many alternatives, are archaic, distant in the past from their evolutionary line, when they were derived from the same organisms that derived the plants and, therefore, make them fragile to a therapeutic plane well-conducted, targeting these old structures that are no longer present or are not critical to survival in other animals.
Some drugs that we already have are capable of reaching these targets, to a greater or lesser degree, but they have a narrow therapeutic window, that is, the effective dose to control the disease approaches the dose toxic to the host and, therefore, any error in the dosage can compromise the goal either because it does not work at lower doses or because it compromises the host at higher doses or, in the case of aquaculture, because its use could pose risks to human consumption, and therefore are not allowed in this activity.
I'll continue in another post ...