Results of the use of strains isolated from the intestinal microflora of juvenile sterlet as probiotics

This paper presents the results of a study examining the probiotic potential of microbial strains isolated from the natural microbiota of sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus). The strains studied were Enterococcus muntdii, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bacillus licheniformis 2336 and 162 St. The study was conducted using groups of similar in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) for 60 and 70 days. The impact was assessed using the following parameters: average weight, absolute, average daily, and relative gain, mass accumulation coefficient, and relative growth rate. Feeding rates were calculated based on the feed manufacturer’s recommendations, and preparations containing the strains were sprayed onto the feed. Weighing was performed every 10 days. According to the results of the first experiment, high values of relative increase were shown by the groups of young sterlet fed with Enterococcus muntdii – 20.50 %, Lactobacillus plantarum – 16.61 % and the relative growth rate was Enterococcus muntdii – 1.55 %, Lactobacillus plantarum – 1.28 %. According to the results of the second experiment, the control group showed the lowest results in terms of average weight (123.2 ± 5.21), the highest values were in the experimental group using the strain 162 St – 130.58 ± 5.33, in the Bacillus licheniformis 2336 group – 128.31 ± 7.63. In terms of relative increase and relative growth rate, the experimental groups also outperformed the control. A conclusion was made about the need to study the isolated strains both with an increase in the observation period and with an analysis of hematological parameters, an analysis of the intestinal microbial community at the end of the studies.

1. Dun S., XXV yubileynye Tsarskosel’skie chteniya (25th Anniversary Tsarskoye Selo Readings), Scientific conference materials, Sankt-Peterburg 2021, pp. 77–82, DOI: 10.21443/3034-1434-2024-2-3-64-82. (In Russ.)

2. Chelyadnikova Yu.A., Musatov G.A., Sovremennye problemy estestvennykh nauk i meditsiny (Modern problems of natural sciences and medicine), Scientific conference materials, Yoshkar-Ola, 2020, pp. 517–520. (In Russ.)

3. Kim P.S., Shin N.R., Lee J.B. [et al.], Host habitat is the major determinant of the gut microbiome of fish, Microbiome, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 1, ppt. 166, DOI: 10.1186/s40168-021-01113-x.

4. Adamovsky O., Buerger A.N., Wormington A.M. [et al.], The gut microbiome and aquatic toxicology: An emerging concept for environmental health, Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2018, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 2758–2775, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4249.

5. Park J., Kim E.B., Insights into the Gut and Skin Microbiome of Freshwater Fish, Smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis), Current microbiology, 2021, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 1798–1806, DOI: 10.1007/s00284-021-02440-w.

6. Spilsbury F., Foysal J., Tay C.Y. [et al.], Gut Microbiome as a Potential Biomarker in Fish: Dietary Exposure to Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Metals, Metabolic Functions and Cytokine Expression in Juvenile Lates calcarifer, Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, Vol. 13, DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.827371.

7. Zueva M.S., Miroshnikova E.P., Arinzhanov A.E., Kilyakova Yu.V., Zhivotnovodstvo i kormoproizvodstvo, 2023, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp. 198–213. (In Russ.)

8. Khamad Kh.A., Baltiyskiy morskoy forum (Baltic Maritime Forum), Scientific conference materials, Kaliningrad, 2022, T. 3, pp. 143–148. (In Russ.)

9. Shilova V.A., Gayduk E.A., Ivanov A.A., Ponomarev G.A., Innovatsionnye tekhnologii v APK: teoriya i praktika (Innovative technologies in the agro-industrial complex: theory and practice), Scientific conference materials, Penza, 2024, pp. 265–268. (In Russ.)

10. Maslikov V.P., Legkodimova Z.I., Sil’nikova G.V. [i dr.], Rybovodstvo i rybnoye khozyaystvo, 2022, No. 1, pp. 70–79. (In Russ.)

11. Kilyakova Yu.V., Miroshnikova E.P., Arinzhanov A.E., Saldeeva K.A., Rybovodstvo i rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2022, No. 11, pp. 775–782. (In Russ.)

12. Esavkin Yu.I., Zhigin A.V., Maksimenkova A.A., Grikshas S.A., Pavlov A.D., Rybovodstvo i rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2023, No. 1, pp. 53–65. (In Russ.)

13. Wang A.R., Ran C., Wang Y.B. [et al.], Use of probiotics in aquaculture of China-a review of the past decade, Fish. Shellfish Immun, 2019, Vol. 86, No. 11, pp. 734–755, DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2018.12.026.

14. Anokyewaa M.A., Amoah K., Li Y. [et al.], Prevalence of virulence genes and antibiotic susceptibility of Bacillus used in commercial aquaculture probiotics in China, Aquac. Rep, 2021, Vol. 21, DOI: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100784.

15. Pronina G.I., Sanaya O.V., Dernakov V.V. [i dr.], Rybovodstvo i rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2022, No. 3, pp. 201–09. (In Russ.)

16. Pronina G.I., Bubunets E.V., Fedotova A.R., Zhelankin R.V., Rybovodstvo i rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2023, No. 1, pp. 53–65. (In Russ.)

17. Yurin D.A., Maxim E.A., Osepchuk D.V. [i dr.], Sbornik nauchnykh trudov Krasnodarskogo nauchnogo tsentra po zootekhnii i veterinarii, 2022, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 100–04. (In Russ.)

18. Geraskin, P.P., Kovaleva A.V., Grigoriev V.A., Fundamentalnye issledovaniya, innovatsionnye tekhnologii i peredovye razrabotki v interesakh dolgosrochnogo razvitiya Yuga Rossii (Fundamental research, innovative technologies and advanced developments for the long-term development of Southern Russia), Rostov-na-Donu, 2023, pp. 223–26. (In Russ.)

19. Nechaeva T.A., Ilina L.A., Nazarov V.A., Kovalchuk M.I., Zaikin V.A., Rybovodstvo i rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2023, No. 11, pp. 744–754, DOI: 10.33920/sel-09-2311-04. (In Russ.)

20. Kochetkov N.I., Nikiforov-Nikishin D.L., Smorodinskaya S.V. [i dr.], Rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2024, No. 4, pp. 96–107, DOI: 10.36038/0131-6184-2024-4-96-107. (In Russ.)

21. Tsitskieva K.R., Betlyaeva F.Kh., Markin Yu.V., Rybnoe khozyaystvo, 2025, No. 2, pp. 91–99, DOI: 10.36038/0131-6184-2025-2-91-99. (In Russ.)