Ingrid:
You are mixing up serum and secretory antibodies
In the serum are found numerous antibodies, IgM (acute), IgG (convalescent),
etc, etc
In the secretory coat ('slimelayer") are PRIMARILY IgA
There are no studies that I have seen that show the role of secretory
antibodies in living cold water ornamental fish.. none. They have been in
vitro tests, which have generated many hypotheses, which have not been
confirmed to date, hence the continuing discussions on this topic.
This is very similar to the argument of the potential benefits of IgA found
in nasal secretions in many mammals, including man, as I told you last time
we discussed this topic (see older post I referenced below ).
You have commented on the thickness of the slime coat, not I. I have
continually stated the slime coat is simply secreted in response to
stressors/irritants and its thickness bears no direct relation to the health
of the fish in question. None.

wrote in message
...
It has nothing to do with creating a THICK slime coat. Low levels of salt
stimulate
the slime coat and it "turns over", it doesnt thicken the slime coat.

Actually many irritants cause increased secretion, which thicken the coat.
It is a non-specific repsonse. As fish become more stressed, they are less
motile, and have less opportunity to lose the increasing slimelayer.

Really high levels strip the slime coat.

Strip it.. is that what you are endeavoring to do when you treat with higher
salt levels? By your logic, you are now removing the antibodies and proteins
you refer to as a protective benefit??!!??

The antibody produced by fish is secretory IgM, NOT IgA.

Nope, IgA is the primary antibody in the slime layer, not IgM

" Detection of specific antibodies in the serum of animals is recognized
as a useful
indicator of previous exposure to pathogens.

Serum of course, but we were talking secretory, not serum
Let's not mix apples with oranges

* ADL produces probes (AquaMab-F) to enable the detection of IgM by
ELISA in a
range of fish species used in aquaculture.

Of course this is on serum samples, and refers to aquaculture. (raising
fresh water game fish, etc)

Snip

Under laboratory conditions
fish can be routinely immunized by exposure to controlled numbers of
parasites.

That's interesting. It would seem the parasites in the lab would have to be
inhibited from multiplying to maintain that "controlled" number.

Snip again

antibodies from immune fish immobilize free-swimming theronts
in vitro (IN THE LAB .. me), suggesting (THIS IS THE HYPOTHESIS .. me)
several potential antibody-mediated mechanisms of protection.
For instance, antibodies in mucus could block penetration of theronts into
the
epithelium of the skin and gills.

I certainly hope this hypothesis will be found true. It would save stressing
our fish with the chemicals/antibiotics we currently use!

Snip again

IgM is the most primitive type of antibody. But fish also have been found
to produce
anti-micriobial proteins,

Actually IgM is an immediate antibody response in most living organisms,
with IgG representing long term response and immunity.

http://www.cvm.ncsu.edu/cbs/noga_ed.htm
Ingrid


Another trip down memory lane:
From: "Gregory Young"
Subject: Adding salt to pond
Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 21:15 PM

Hi all:
See my thoughts below:
wrote in message
...
This summer a friend was having hellatious problems with domestic koi she
bought for resale. I found a heavy load of trichodina and gyros in
different batches from different places. After a single treatment with
salt and potassium permanganate, both were gone. This koi were raised in
ponds with salt.

I don't disagree with that. My point was that salt resistant protozoans have
now been identified, as stated below, coming from ponds from Japan in which
the fish were constantly exposed to low level salt. That demonstrates
selection of salt resistant protozoa. As you stated you successfully treated
them with BOTH salt and Potassium permanganate. You may have been able to
just treat with salt, but there's no way of knowing that now.
I hope I didn't convey ALL trich are salt resistant, some may still not be,
but an significantly increasing percentage are.

The Goldfish Guru treats ich (on fish from China that use salt in their
ponds) with salt and increased temps only.
I still think the main benefit of low levels of salt (0.1%) is in
stimulating the slime coat, causing it to "turn over". Fish dont have
much
in the way of antibodies, but the ones they do are secretory and they have
other "anti-microbial" proteins secreted into their slime coat as well.
As
the slime coat is turned over, more antibiotic and anti-microbial proteins
are secreted. High salt is used to strip the slime coat off, removing
most of the parasites with the slime and exposing the rest to the
medications long enough to kill them. If the slime coat is not removed,
it
protects the parasites from the medication.

Salt kills the protozoans and crustaceans osmotically, independent of the
slime coat.
Many over the years, and on the internet newsgroups have maintained the
slime coat protects the fish from disease, which as I stated below was the
way I was originally trained.
Current teaching no longer holds that tenant to be true. Its true role is
still disputed by some, so I will not say it IS this, or NOT that, nor
should anyone else, until the definitive answer stands the test of challenge
studies, and time.

35 years after my training, and people are still arguing about it in the
academics centers, which tells me we still really don't know its function.
My personal opinion is that its role probably has several functions, some of
more import than others.

The FDA cannot "approve" ANYTHING it hasn't studied. When the FDA says
something is of low priority, it means it is so benign that it isn't worth
studying.

I partially agree. Many substances are not tested by the FDA, not due to
their potential for adverse reactions, but rather the lack of funding
available to the FDA.
A good example is the whole family of herbal remedies people are using these
days. Many problems are now occurring with a number of these, including
fatal adverse reactions (seen esp. in people on "prescription" and over the
counter medication). The FDA has not made an effort to review those due to
the above constraints, and probably won't until there are, sadly, enough
adverse reactions (ie. fatalities) to warrant the review. (a cost benefit
issue)

Dr. Floyd makes it clear: "Finally, a light solution of 0.01 to 0.2
percent salt may be used as a permanent treatment in recirculating
systems."

I don't argue that fact for recirc. systems. I have read that treatise. The
issues there are different from water gardens, that was the point I was
attempting to make.

While the slime coat may aid in "drag" I doubt whether this is a primary
reason for its evolution. Mammals that have returned to the sea have no
need of slime coats and porpoises, those mammals that swim after and catch
slimey fish, have no need of a slime coat as they have the full and
complete internal immunity of all mammals. Come to think of it, I dont
think sharks (other fast predators) have slime coats either.

They don't, but none the less, current thinking in marine biology by a
number of researchers favors the drag concept, as they believe the slime
coat role in immunity is not significant.

A human corollary is our own nasal secretions, which secrete IgA antibodies.
With infection/irritation, the secretion of these increase significantly.
Yet in upper respiratory infection, this secretion is discouraged by the
"ENT/allergist experts" who use decongestants, as they:
1) believe these surface antibodies play a very insignificant role,
2) feel congestion increases the risk of bacterial overgrowth by blocking
drainage, and
3) want their patients to feel better (less callbacks). They do this even
for people they don't prescribe antibiotics to. (Fortunately even the ENT
surgeons have come on board with the risks of over prescription of
antibiotics for what now is understood as self limited sinusitis disease.)

INgrid

Nice discussion Ingrid.

I hope others don't misconstrue this discussion, as anything other than a
difference of views.

From what I have read elsewhere in this newsgroup, people can get very upset
when others disagree with the viewpoints of those they hold in high regard.
That may be a natural reaction, but that has been shown to hold back new
discoveries.

I will conclude saying we all have to keep open minds, because the gospel
(at least the scientific one) has had its dogma, (those things that "we know
as fact"), changed on more than one occasion!

Happy ponding,
Greg




"Gregory Young" wrote:
Eliminating the single cell protozoans? That used to be true, but just
like
in humans, indiscriminate use (prophylactic) has turned the tables on us.
Is there no downside to routine salt administration as some of you claim?
I
say there is, and here are 2 examples:
Trichodina and Costia, which are both commonly found ciliated protozoa
that
can cause fatal infection to our finned friends, that USED to be
eliminated
by salt concentrations of 0.3%, now have been shown to be resistant to
levels of 0.6%, or higher!
" While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use
of
salt in aquatic animals, FDA considers the use of salt in aquaculture to
be
of low regulatory priority".
That is self explanatory.
"Concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3 percent may be used to enhance mucus
production and osmoregulation in freshwater fish DURING HANDLING AND
TRANSPORT". (my emphasis)
Also, I must comment on the slime coat. Many fresh water fish folks seem
convinced that the slime coat, (which by the way is stimulated
(increased)
by many factors (ie disease, irritants ie salt, and osmotic changes, etc)
is
there to protect the fish from parasites/bacteria.

That was the predominant thought back in the 60's and 70's when I
trained,
but now many reputable biologists (marine and otherwise) feel its
function
may be more a function of physics rather than physiology
this coat decreases surface resistance of the fish, (due to its
lipophilic
nature) as it navigates through the water.
This is something divers and racing bicyclists employ when then put on
their
"skins". They understand the drag coefficient, which is obviously much
more
of a factor in water, than in air.
NO ONE has all the answers as to the functioning of the slime coat.

That last statement still is holding true today.. maybe in the near future
we will have the answers we seek..

Happy ponding
Greg