So what?

[saltshop]

Can you please point to the part of the article where Vibrio coralyticus YB is shown to be the pathogen responsible for recent problems with Catalaphyllia (Elegans coral), since you are apparently trying to rebut statements regarding the lack of any known research relating to the recent problems with the genus? In fact, can you even point to any information showing that Vibrio coralyticus YB even exists on the tissue of Catalaphyllia since many of these bacteria exist as a one-host/one-pathogen relationship? Also, I am highly doubtful that the author that you mentioned believes that bacteria are not responsible for any coral disease...please read this as it discusses both the Rosenberg article you "review" as well as his past works with Oculina:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/eb/index.htm

I also invite you to read any past discussions on the bacterium Serratia marcescens and its effects on Acropora palmata. I don't think anyone would be floored if a microbe of some type was responsible for any coral ailment. The point is, until it is at least fairly reasonable to associate a problem with a microbe the blind use of antibiotics is likely to cause more harm than good for all members of this planet. Everyday, more and more antibiotic resistant strains of bacterium are found mainly due to the widespread abuse of antibiotics. That is the point...sorry you missed it.

 

[AF Founder]

For me, the important point is the association of high temperatures with dangerous bacterial growth to corals The anecdotal relationship that many experienced reef keepers have observed between the high temperatures recommended by some experts and RTN is now entering scientific literature.

 

[saltshop]

I think virulence genes being expressed at certain elevated temperatures is definitely VERY interesting and its possible implications could be enormous. The problem is that it is too soon to blow the panic whistle just yet. My personal problem is with the article title that seems to infer that Vibrio coralyticus YB could in anyway be related to the problems with Catalaphyllia, a different genus being collected in a different region showing different signs. If I am reading the title and the opening paragraph wrong where a link is then provided to Rosenbergs works that somehow the two are related my apologies in advance. Even when it comes to the infection of Pocillopora there is nothing to say that this same bacterium is at work in bleaching events in the Indo-Pacific where the bleaching only occurs at higher temperatures. Since you brought it up, I know of nowhere in the Rosenberg work that SDR (RTN as we call it) is ever mentioned. This is the problem with blowing the panic whistle based on very limited work to date in this field. We have a case of a single species being infected by a single strain of bacteria, actually two cases with two different microbes, and there is already talk of this being related to RTN in aquaria...that is both scary and premature IMHO. I would not be surprised if SDR/RTN was microbial with temperature playing a big role along with other possibilities such as limited water motion, high nutrient loads, UV radiation, etc.. I guess some of us prefer a little more conservative stance before we are willing to attempt to make any direct cause and effect when it comes to complex issues. I think in the coming years we will learn a great deal about microbes and corals and there will probably be a direct change in the way we approach certain methodologies, but until the new information comes out I hope we can all kind of relax and take things as they come. FWIW, when it come to the author in question the only time I have ever seen him give his opinion on temps. in aquaria he stated he prefers keeping coral slightly below what is considered "optimal" in the wild mentioning the virulence genes that are discussed by Rosenberg.

On a side note to Terry, do you think it would be much more productive to have a discussion on why natural temps. might not be so natural when it comes to keeping a closed system rather than having an editorial about "since Greg's tank is nice that should be considered optimal"? Just a thought, but I do know those discussions always end up in a mud-slinging contest with very little calm discussion taking place...too bad really.

 

[delbeek]

Can you please point to the part of the article where Vibrio coralyticus YB is shown to be the pathogen responsible for recent problems with Catalaphyllia (Elegans coral), since you are apparently trying to rebut statements regarding the lack of any known research relating to the recent problems with the genus?

My personal problem is with the article title that seems to infer that Vibrio coralyticus YB could in anyway be related to the problems with Catalaphyllia, a different genus being collected in a different region showing different signs.

Sorry I did not choose the title for the article, nor did I even submit one, you'll have to take that up with the editor. I too thought it suggested a causitive link when there isn't one ...

I never claimed this bacterium was responsible for anything in Catalaphyllia. What I DID say was that there were claims that a bacterium could not be responsible for coral diseases, including what is being seen with Catalaphyllia. Rosenberg's research clearly shows an instance where a coral can be affected in a very novel way. My point was, here is an instance where a bacterium has been shown to be the cause of an apparently fatal reaction in a coral. It then COULD be possible, could it not, that A bacterium is also responsible for what is happening with Catalaphyllia or any other coral for that matter, in aquaria?

Also, I am highly doubtful that the author that you mentioned believes that bacteria are not responsible for any coral disease...

What I said was:

This author brought into question the probability that bacteria could be held accountable for any coral or invertebrate disease, pointing out the lack of published work in this area.

What Borneman wrote was:

As far as I know, no aquarium diseases in invertebrates have ever been properly characterized or assigned a causative agent.

I was speaking in the context of aquaria, which I thought was evident. I'll change the sentence to make that clearer, thanks for bringing that up.

please read this as it discusses both the Rosenberg article you "review" as well as his past works with Oculina:

I read it and could find no reference to the article I am reviewing, there is mention of Rosenberg and the Oculina work, but nothing on this paper. That column was in March 2002, this paper came out in July 2002.

I also invite you to read any past discussions on the bacterium Serratia marcescens and its effects on Acropora palmata.

Great ... do you have a reference or link?

FWIW, when it come to the author in question the only time I have ever seen him give his opinion on temps. in aquaria he stated he prefers keeping coral slightly below what is considered "optimal" in the wild mentioning the virulence genes that are discussed by Rosenberg.

Sorry but I don't understand ... what point you are trying to make here?

I don't think I pushed any panic buttons, I don't make any recommendations on antibiotic usage for treating Catalaphyllia nor do I give any dosages. I did suggest that keeping aquarium temperatures close to a corals thermal maximum should be avoided, something I have long advocated because, as you mention, an aquarium and its conditions are not the same as in the wild, and the presence of other stressors is more likely, as you also pointed out. IMO this article provides evidence that small increases in temperature can cause coral mortalites, and keeping temps down is not such a bad idea. If you don't agree with that, thats fine.

. Everyday, more and more antibiotic resistant strains of bacterium are found mainly due to the widespread abuse of antibiotics. That is the point...sorry you missed it.

I did not miss it and I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[saltshop]

Sorry I did not choose the title for the article, nor did I even submit one, you'll have to take that up with the editor. I too thought it suggested a causitive link when there isn't one ...

So Terry is the one I am after! My apologies to you. I do tend to get a tad emotional when something is put into print that I feel may lead to premature and false conclusions if one were not to read the references which sometimes are hard to come by.

It then COULD be possible, could it not, that A bacterium is also responsible for what is happening with Catalaphyllia or any other coral for that matter, in aquaria?

Of course, but.... then again it could be a host of other possibilities.


I read it and could find no reference to the article I am reviewing, there is mention of Rosenberg and the Oculina work, but nothing on this paper. That column was in March 2002, this paper came out in July 2002.

From the article I linked to above (sorry it is a bit long), I assume Eric got wind of the article well before its publication date:

The reader may ask the same question that has occurred before, and was described above. So what? It's a Vibrio that is found not on coral reefs, but is specific to one coral species that we don't keep and will likely never see. The implications are certainly interesting, but what does it mean to tropical corals? Rosenberg had an answer to this, too. Knowing the skepticism that existed in the community, he has recently gone into the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea and looked at bleached Pocillopora damicornis. Is everyone ready?

A new species of bacteria, Vibrio corallyticus, was consistently found in the tissues of the bleached Pocillopora at a level that already fulfills the first of Koch's postulates. The virulence is even more amazing. At 23° C, there are no visible signs of disease. At 25° C, bleaching occurs. At 27° C, there is rapid tissue lysis. A virulence factor is being produced by this bacteria that correlates extremely well with the temperatures commonly cited as causing coral bleaching. Furthermore, Rosenberg describes the bleaching as spreading; a characteristic seen all too often by both field observers and aquarists.

The implications of Rosenberg's work are almost indescribable. He is of the opinion that probably all bleaching is caused by bacteria. Unfortunately, there are many studies where bleaching has been caused by low temperature, UV radiation, darkness, chemicals, etc. (see Borneman 2002). However, the importance of looking at bleaching in an entirely new light is now at hand. It has often been questioned why corals in the wild would bleach with only a 1-2° C temperature change when other areas (including tanks) routinely experience far greater vacillations without any bleaching incidence. The fact that virulence can be expressed with this small temperature increase makes such accounts explainable. Furthermore, with temperatures in the oceans having warmed over the past fifty years, and with bleaching events being more common in recent years, the existence of bacterial bleaching under such temperature increases may explain not only the increased incidence of bleaching, but also explain why mortality is so common in some bleaching events while recovery happens in others.

As an example, if corals have been growing in water averaging 26° C, more or less, for the past several thousand years, and over the past fifty years the temperatures in the water are now 27° C. Virulence of a microbe is expressed at 28° C to cause bleaching. Now, it only takes a 1° C change to cause virulence genes to be turned on and cause bleaching, and this occurs much more frequently than the 2° C change that it took previously. Furthermore, if the water temperature gets to 29° C, it may not be that the corals have exceeded their upper thermal limit, but that virulence genes that cause tissue lysis have been expressed.

Several points regarding this work should be made, however. First, Oculina patagonica is a facultatively zooxanthellate temperate to sub-tropical coral. It is not from coral reefs, and as far as we know, neither is the Vibrio that causes a problem. The results with a bleaching Vibrio may still be relatively unique to this coral and bacterium. Second, the results involving P. damicornis and V. corallyticus are in their infancy. The degree to which bacteria play a role in any other events is a long way away, and no conclusions should be drawn at this point regarding other similar events. The water temperatures were low compared to most reef areas and other factors (both biotic and abiotic) have not yet been fully considered in this finding. The potential implications are what are notable.

FWIW, when it come to the author in question the only time I have ever seen him give his opinion on temps. in aquaria he stated he prefers keeping coral slightly below what is considered "optimal" in the wild mentioning the virulence genes that are discussed by Rosenberg.

Sorry but I don't understand ... what point you are trying to make here?

I was referring to Terry's posting and was not sure if he was referring to Eric or Dr. Shimek.

Links dealing with S. marcescens:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/092260099v1

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/sh ... adid=94395

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... highlight=

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... highlight=

Thanks for your thorough reply!

 

[delbeek]

Of course, but.... then again it could be a host of other possibilities.

yes it could be, but then this article offers yet another case where bacteria is a causitive agent ... the case for bacteria is mounting ...

The point is, until it is at least fairly reasonable to associate a problem with a microbe the blind use of antibiotics is likely to cause more harm than good for all members of this planet.

If Sprung indicated that antibiotic treatments were 100% effective in treating Catalaphyllia ... then I think that is another indication that bacteria are involved ... I would call that "fairly reasonable" wouldn't you?

I assume Eric got wind of the article well before its publication date:

Ah okay ... I did not have time to read his entire article so scanned it for the reference and did not find it .. he could have mentioned a citation with title and simply stated IN PRESS.

I am not sure why you placed the word "review" in paretheses in your first message ... what are you implying? I reviewed an article that is cited and available as opposed to alluding to work yet to be published.

Links dealing with S. marcescens:

Okay thats the fecal bacterium found off FL, the first link only provides an abstract, can't get the rest without being a subscriber.

Okay read the threads .. thanks for the links. Interesting stuff though nothing earth shattering in the discussions. I don't frequent the boards very often ... too busy! Too many boards and too many threads! AArrggggg!!

Now if you'd like to discuss the actual article as opposed to the wording in my review I'd love to hear your thoughts. I saw in one of the threads that Eric has problems with how they conducted the study. I'd like to hear what he thinks the problems are. How come he doesn't post here?

Aloha!
J. Charles Delbeek

 

[saltshop]

yes it could be, but then this article offers yet another case where bacteria is a causitive agent ... the case for bacteria is mounting ...

Yes, it is and I presume it will continue to do so as more and more research is done.


If Sprung indicated that antibiotic treatments were 100% effective in treating Catalaphyllia ... then I think that is another indication that bacteria are involved ... I would call that "fairly reasonable" wouldn't you?

If it actually were 100% effective that would be great, but being a wanderer of the boards there have been instances where the treatment has been tried and made the situation even worse. I do hope I do not have to search through everyplace to find those threads as it would be a real PITA. Believe me there are folks out there dipping their corals and having some major problems with the results.


I am not sure why you placed the word "review" in paretheses in your first message ... what are you implying? I reviewed an article that is cited and available as opposed to alluding to work yet to be published.

Don't know, I suppose it was when I thought you were trying to make a correlation between the Rosenberg article and Catalaphyllia...probably being snotty I suppose.


Okay thats the fecal bacterium found off FL, the first link only provides an abstract, can't get the rest without being a subscriber.

Don't know if it would be legal but I have the whole thing, got a fax?


Now if you'd like to discuss the actual article as opposed to the wording in my review I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Now that my misunderstanding about the title and what was being inferred is straightened around sure. The Rosenberg article I was already familiar with, but am curious as to why you mention the pictures of RTN/SDR when discussing the article? Was it just to imply that you believe that RTN is microbial? I really enjoy the articles relating to water flow as IMO it is something that we aquarists often underestimate the importance of.

I saw in one of the threads that Eric has problems with how they conducted the study. I'd like to hear what he thinks the problems are. How come he doesn't post here?

As far as I know, it probably has to do with the limited location/region in which the study was conducted, butthat is just a guess While the study met Koch's postulates for the coral species in that area it does not reveal whether the same microbe is responsible for problems with the same or other species even a few hundred miles away. I know he said he would return to the issue after reading the whole thing and has yet to do so, but I really did not want to push the issue as he normally has a lot on his plate between working on a Ph. D., speaking engagements, doing coral surveys, and yucking it up with us/the masses. I know he is aware of this thread.

Thanks for your continued time! Has Dr. Carlson now left Waikiki? Nice fellow. Just curious.

 

[delbeek]

If it actually were 100% effective that would be great, but being a wanderer of the boards there have been instances where the treatment has been tried and made the situation even worse. I do hope I do not have to search through everyplace to find those threads as it would be a real PITA. Believe me there are folks out there dipping their corals and having some major problems with the results.

Well who knows what is going on there ... without knowing the specifics of how they performed the task and what they used I can't comment on that. What % of those trying the treatment were effective?

Don't know if it would be legal but I have the whole thing, got a fax?

Thats okay, I read your summary and can look at the paper next time I am at the library.

The Rosenberg article I was already familiar with, but am curious as to why you mention the pictures of RTN/SDR when discussing the article? Was it just to imply that you believe that RTN is microbial? I really enjoy the articles relating to water flow as IMO it is something that we aquarists often underestimate the importance of.

I just thought the similarity in appearance was interesting. As for whether RTN is microbial or not I believe it is. Whether the bacteria are primary or a secondary response to other problems is neither here nor there, I think the bottom line is that the bacteria cause the sloughing off of tissue. Antibiotic treatments have been effective in many instances in halting this. I know, cause I have done it. So my hypothesis is for bacteria. Now if someone could just isolate it ....

As far as I know, it probably has to do with the limited location/region in which the study was conducted, butthat is just a guess While the study met Koch's postulates for the coral species in that area it does not reveal whether the same microbe is responsible for problems with the same or other species even a few hundred miles away.

Well I don't think those points are really relavent since they make no claims about that ... I'm not sure I understand your objection. They looked at corals at a locale in Zanzibar ... there is no mention of other coral problems in that or adjacent areas. Have you read the article?

Has Dr. Carlson now left Waikiki?

yup he left at the end of April.

Aloha!
JCD