Byron Morales-Lange1*
Maria del Mar Ortega-Villaizan2
Sérgio D. C. Rocha1
Ruth Montero1
Margareth Øverland1*- 1Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Faculty of Biosciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
- 2Instituto de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación en Biotecnología Sanitaria de Elche, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche, Spain
Editorial on the Research Topic
Chrono-immunonutrition in aquaculture towards robust and resilient fish
Introduction
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) from the United Nations, aquaculture fish production surpasses fisheries and it will continue to grow globally in the coming decades (1), contributing to high quality food production for the increasing human population. Thus, fish farming is an important actor to achieve UN-Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) and SDG 14 (Life below water) (2). However, this industry faces several challenges that negatively impact its sustainability. For instance, sub-optimal nutrition, infectious diseases (caused by parasites, bacteria and virus) and environmental problems (e.g., increased seawater temperature, algal blooms) can decrease fish performance and overall health, as well as increase fish mortality, leading to economic losses for the aquaculture sector (3–5). Therefore, to achieve a resilient fish capable of coping with stressful conditions and to strengthen aquaculture to meet high quality protein demands from an increasing global population, it is essential to deepen the understanding of fish metabolism, immune responses against pathogens and host-microbiota interaction.
In mammals, the “immunonutrition” concept has been described as nutritional interventions to produce health-related effects, such as reducing the risk of pathogen infection and improving healing process (6, 7). To contribute with knowledge on this topic in fish with economic importance (i.e., Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar; rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss; European seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax), the scientific articles in the Research Topic “Chrono-Immunonutrition in Aquaculture towards Robust and Resilient fish” focused on alternative feed ingredients, fish growth performance, immune modulation, health responses against challenges (e.g., exposure to microbe-associated molecular patterns and sub-optimal nutrition), as well as microbiota characterization and its interaction with the host.
Furthermore, an analysis based on the different abstracts comprising this Research Topic revealed that words such as “fish immune response”, “diet effects”, “feed”, “microbiota”, “gene expression”, “stimulus” and “meal” were the most used concepts by the different authors (Figure 1). This proposes the importance of immunonutrition as an experimental approach to modulate fish physiology and to overcome the needs of the aquaculture industry.
Figure 1. Word cloud based on abstract analysis related to the Research Topic “Chrono-Immunonutrition in Aquaculture towards Robust and Resilient fish”. Credits to Wordclouds.com.
Gut as a primary target for immunomodulation and the potential coordination of systemic responses
The gut is as a mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) that contains cells (e.g., granulocytes, macrophages, antigen-presenting cells and lymphocytes) and molecular components such cytokines (e.g., polarizing, pro- and anti-inflammatory) and effector molecules (e.g., enzymes, antimicrobial peptides, immunoglobulins) (8, 9), which can coordinate innate and adaptive immune mechanisms locally in the distal intestine as well as at the systemic level (8, 9) linked to immune-related organs [e.g., head kidney (10), spleen (11), and liver (12, 13)]. Therefore, the gut is a primary target for nutritional strategies that seek to improve overall fish health and welfare, without compromising their growth performance.
Recently, Vicente-Gil et al. reported that extracellular vesicles (EVs) from Bacillus subtilis induced a differential gene expression on rainbow trout intestinal cells (RTgutGC). For instance, the authors detected an upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines (il-1β, il-8), antimicrobial peptides (hepcidin, cathelicidin 2) and biomarkers involved in intestinal barrier integrity and homeostasis (claudin 3, ZO-1), as well as mucin production (imuc). In addition, primary cultures of trout splenic leukocytes stimulated with EVs from B. subtilis showed a higher number of IgM-secreting cells. Also, splenic IgM+ B cells increased MHC II surface levels and antigen-processing capacities. Interestingly, antigen presentation process is the bridge between the innate and adaptive mechanisms of the immune response (14) and these in vitro results suggest the immunomodulatory potential of EVs from B. subtilis as adjuvants or immunostimulants for aquaculture.
Linked to nutrient absorption and utilization, Martin et al., investigated the immunomodulatory properties of L-methionine on spleen leukocytes from rainbow trout. Following this characterization, they evaluated the potential effects of dietary supplementation with this amino acid during a one-month experiment with rainbow trout, followed by anal immunization with 2,4,6-trinitrophenyl hapten conjugated to lipopolysaccharide (TNP-LPS). Their data showed that fish fed MET1 (diet containing 44% more L-methionine than commercial control diet) had a significantly higher number of blood IgM-secreting cells. Also, after the anal immunization, trout fed MET1 had higher titers of TNP-specific IgMs. This demonstrates the positive effects of methionine supplementation to modulate adaptive immune responses in rainbow trout, which could contribute to strengthening the effect of immunological strategies (i.e., vaccines) currently used in aquaculture to prevent and/or control infectious biological agents.
Nutritional programming, novel feeds and aquaculture sustainability
To promote more sustainable aquaculture and increase animal welfare, nutritional programming can be part of the solution. Nutritional programming is influenced by the source of functional compounds (ingredients or additives), their feed inclusion level, feeding period, season, as well as the stage of animal development (15). In Atlantic salmon, Tawfik et al. reported that nutritional programming, using plant-based diets for two weeks at early life stages, can improve physiological responses when fish are exposed to a similar feeds 20 weeks later. For example, after a dietary challenge with plant ingredients, Atlantic salmon showed changes in their gut transcriptome, including regulatory epigenetic responses and lipid metabolism were up-regulated, while genes involved in innate immune response were down-regulated. These results are relevant, when considering the shift that aquaculture has made from marine to plant-based ingredients over the past 20 years. Atlantic salmon is a carnivorous fish and the use of plant ingredients has been limited due to the documented negative health effects associated to the presence of antinutrients (e.g., saponins, phytic acid, enzyme inhibitors and lectins), which can reduce growth performance and cause intestinal inflammation (16, 17).
In another important aquaculture species, European seabass fed two months with a novel feed containing 10% Salicornia ramosissima (a halotolerant succulent) showed no differences in fish growth, while a modulated immune gene expression in the head kidney (i.e., upregulation of mcsf1r1 and cd8β) (Machado et al.) was detected. Then, after an intraperitoneal bacterial challenge with Photobacterium damselae piscicida, fish fed 10% S. ramosissima had a higher number of peritoneal leucocytes and an upregulation of mcsf1r1, il-1β and gpx (Machado et al.). This supports the idea that functional feeds containing bioactive ingredients or additives can modulate the immune response of fish to address challenges without compromising their performance. Regarding microbiota modulation (trough 16S rRNA gene sequencing), Monteiro et al. have proven that juvenile European seabass fed a diet with 40% fishmeal replaced by polychaete-based meal (from Alitta virens) had a lower relative abundance of Mycobacterium, Taeseokella and Clostridium both in mucosa and intestinal digesta samples. Then, using a predictive functional analysis of bacterial communities in the mucosa, the authors described differences in phenylalanine metabolism and sulfur relay system, whereas valine, leucine, thyroid hormone signaling, and isoleucine degradation and secretion system pathways varied in the digesta samples. This type of analysis is important since the gut is a key organ for host-microbiota interactions, which can be related to amino acid metabolism, secretion-related pathways and the production of secondary metabolites. Moreover, host-microbiota interactions can be part of the link between nutrition, immune response and host health (18, 19).
In industrial aquafeed production, incorporating novel ingredients derived from the bioconversion of underutilized biomass or industrial side-streams can help to reduce the environmental footprint of aquaculture (20). This is particularly important as feeds are the largest contributor to its carbon footprint in fish production (21). However, the inclusion of novel ingredients in fish feeds is still low (22) and their evaluation during field trials is limited. Nevertheless, Radhakrishnan et al. studied Atlantic salmon fed black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) meal at 5% and 10% for 13 months in open sea-cages, replicating real farm conditions. Their results showed that while 10% BSFL meal did significant effected general growth performance, welfare or survival, 5% BSFL meal induced positive responses in mucosal tissues, as well as hematological and gene expression profiles of salmon. For instance, an upregulation of il-1β in skin and gills, along with mm-9 and mucin18 in gills were detected, as well as a decreased cortisol response, higher mucus secretions, and an increased number of erythrocytes. These findings suggest that 5% inclusion of BSFL meal can modulate fish immune response under farm conditions. Thus, depending on regulatory restrictions, BSFL meal could be an alternative ingredient to improve the sustainability of fish farming industry.
Summary and future perspectives
The use of immunonutritional approaches, such as novel feeds applied through nutritional programming, is gaining increasing interest. These approaches aim to coordinate immune-related mechanisms in fish (e.g., cellular and humoral responses in MALTs and lymphoid organs), modulate microbiota composition and function, and support fish growth. This can help control mortality, resistance to pathogens and increase fish welfare. Also, immunonutritional strategies could contribute to reducing economic losses in aquaculture associated with health problems during intensive production cycles. However, comparative research is still lacking to elucidate if the effects of bioactive ingredients or additives are species-specific or whether they depend on specific stages of fish development. In addition, efforts should be focused on strengthening the evaluation of overall fish performance and health under field conditions. This is crucial giving the emerging challenges related to climate change (e.g., more frequent pathogen outbreaks or emergence of new diseases), the raw material crisis (driven by e.g. climatic change, growing human population, as well as global health issues and political instabilities disturbing important supply chains) and growing public demand for more a more sustainable aquacultural production. Finally, one of the major bottlenecks remains the limited commercial availability of novel ingredients, largely due to low production volume and high cost, limited access to biomass for upscaling, and high processing costs.
Author contributions
BM-L: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MO-V: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SR: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MØ: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. BM-L, SR, RT and MØ were funded by Foods of Norway (Centre for Research-based Innovation: 237841/030) and Trained immunity and nutritional programming for resilient salmon project (RCN 294821). In addition, MO-V had the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2021-126710OB-C22).
Acknowledgments
We thank all the authors and reviewers who contributed to the Research Topic entitled “Chrono-Immunonutrition in Aquaculture towards Robust and Resilient fish”.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that MO-V was an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. However, this had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2024 blue transformation in action. Rome (2024). doi: 10.4060/cd0683en
2. Morton S, Pencheon D, Squires N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: A national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level. Br Med Bull. (2017) 124(1):81–90. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldx031
3. Sommerset I, Wiik-Nielsen J, Moldal T, Oliveira VHS, Svendsen JC, Haukaas A, et al. Norwegian fish health report 2023. Norwegian Veterinary Institute (2024).
4. Rowley AF, Baker-Austin C, Boerlage AS, Caillon C, Davies CE, Duperret L, et al. Diseases of marine fish and shellfish in an age of rapid climate change. Iscience. (2024) 27(9). doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110838
5. Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge M, Cochrane KL, Funge-Smith S, Poulain F. Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) 12(4):628–35.
6. Zapatera B, Prados A, Gómez-Martínez S, Marcos A. Immunonutrition: methodology and applications. Nutr hosp. (2015) 31(3):145–54. doi: 10.3305/nh.2015.31.sup3.8762
7. Grimble RF. Immunonutrition. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. (2005) 21(2):216–22. doi: 10.1097/01.mog.0000153360.90653.82
8. Lee P-T, Yamamoto FY, Low C-F, Loh J-Y, Chong C-M. Gut immune system and the implications of oral-administered immunoprophylaxis in finfish aquaculture. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:773193. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.773193
9. Martin SA, Dehler CE, Krol E. Transcriptomic responses in the fish intestine. Dev Comp Immunol. (2016) 64:103–17. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2016.03.014
10. Lin-Zhao Z, Tong-Yang B, Yi-Xuan Y, Ning-Guo S, Xing-Zhang D, Nan-Ji S, et al. Construction and immune efficacy of recombinant Lactobacillus casei expressing OmpAI of Aeromonas veronii C5–I as molecular adjuvant. Microb Pathog. (2021) 156:104827. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.104827
11. Morales-Lange B, Agboola JO, Hansen JØ, Lagos L, Øyås O, Mercado L, et al. The spleen as a target to characterize immunomodulatory effects of down-stream processed cyberlindnera jadinii yeasts in atlantic salmon exposed to a dietary soybean meal challenge. Front Immunol. (2021). doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.708747
12. Deng Y, Zhang Y, Chen H, Xu L, Wang Q, Feng J. Gut–liver immune response and gut microbiota profiling reveal the pathogenic mechanisms of Vibrio harveyi in pearl gentian grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus♂× E. fuscoguttatus♀). Front Immunol. (2020) 11:607754. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.607754
13. Wang J, Li S, Sun Z, Lu C, Zhao R, Liu T, et al. Comparative study of immune responses and intestinal microbiota in the gut-liver axis between wild and farmed pike perch (Sander Lucioperca). Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1473686. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1473686
14. Mokhtar DM, Zaccone G, Alesci A, Kuciel M, Hussein MT, Sayed RK. Main components of fish immunity: An overview of the fish immune system. Fishes. (2023) 8(2):93. doi: 10.3390/fishes8020093
15. Rocha SD, Valenzuela CA, Morales-Lange B. Immunonutrition—Contributing to the future of sustainable aquaculture by supporting animal performance, health and welfare. MDPI. (2024) 14(15):2275. doi: 10.3390/ani14152275
16. Francis G, Makkar HP, Becker K. Antinutritional factors present in plant-derived alternate fish feed ingredients and their effects in fish. Aquaculture. (2001) 199(3-4):197–227. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00526-9
17. Samtiya M, Aluko RE, Dhewa T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: an overview. Food Prod Process Nutr. (2020) 2:1–14. doi: 10.1186/s43014-020-0020-5
18. Verma M, Hontecillas R, Abedi V, Leber A, Tubau-Juni N, Philipson C, et al. Modeling-enabled systems nutritional immunology. Front Nutr. (2016) 3:5. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2016.00005
19. Zhang B, Yang H, Cai G, Nie Q, Sun Y. The interactions between the host immunity and intestinal microorganisms in fish. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. (2024) 108(1):30. doi: 10.1007/s00253-023-12934-1
20. Couture JL, Geyer R, Hansen JØ, Kuczenski B, Øverland M, Palazzo J, et al. Environmental benefits of novel nonhuman food inputs to salmon feeds. Environ Sci Technol. (2019) 53(4):1967–75. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03832
21. Ziegler F, Jafarzadeh S, Skontorp Hognes E, Winther U. Greenhouse gas emissions of Norwegian seafoods: From comprehensive to simplified assessment. J Ind Ecol. (2022) 26(6):1908–19. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13150
Keywords: fish farming, immunonutrition, nutritional-programming, novel feeds, bioactive compounds, gut health, systemic immune responses
Citation: Morales-Lange B, Ortega-Villaizan MdM, Rocha SDC, Montero R and Øverland M (2025) Editorial: Chrono-immunonutrition in aquaculture towards robust and resilient fish. Front. Immunol. 15:1547738. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1547738
Received: 18 December 2024; Accepted: 27 December 2024;
Published: 31 January 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Miki Nakao, Kyushu University, JapanCopyright © 2025 Morales-Lange, Ortega-Villaizan, Rocha, Montero and Øverland. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Byron Morales-Lange, Ynlyb24ubWF4aW1pbGlhbm8ubW9yYWxlcy5sYW5nZUBubWJ1Lm5v; Margareth Øverland, bWFyZ2FyZXRoLm92ZXJsYW5kQG5tYnUubm8=