Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27066778›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Gene expression comparison of resistant and susceptible Atlantic salmon fry challenged with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis virus reveals a marked contrast in immune response.

Diego Robledo, John B Taggart, Jacqueline H Ireland, Brendan J McAndrew, William G Starkey, Chris S Haley, Alastair Hamilton, Derrick R Guy, Jose C Mota-Velasco, Almas A Gheyas and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Deciphering European Sea Bass (International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Unravelling turbot (Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genomic Selection in Aquaculture Species.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Diego RobledoThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
John B TaggartInstitute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Jacqueline H IrelandInstitute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Brendan J McAndrewInstitute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
William G StarkeyInstitute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Chris S HaleyThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Alastair HamiltonLandcatch Natural Selection Ltd., 15 Beta Centre, Stirling University Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Derrick R GuyLandcatch Natural Selection Ltd., 15 Beta Centre, Stirling University Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Jose C Mota-VelascoLandcatch Natural Selection Ltd., 15 Beta Centre, Stirling University Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
Almas A GheyasThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Alan E TinchLandcatch Natural Selection Ltd., 15 Beta Centre, Stirling University Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
David W Verner-JeffreysCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK.
Richard K PaleyCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK.
Georgina S E RimmerCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK.
Ian J TewCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK.
Stephen C BishopThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
James E BronInstitute of Aquaculture, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Ross D HoustonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. ross.houston@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Landcatch (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Stirling · GBCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science · GBRoslin Institute · GBUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F001959/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F002750/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F002750/2Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H022007/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) is a highly contagious birnavirus disease of farmed salmonid fish, which often causes high levels of morbidity and mortality. A large host genetic component to resistance has been previously described for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.), which mediates high mortality rates in some families and zero mortality in others. However, the molecular and immunological basis for this resistance is not yet fully known. This manuscript describes a global comparison of the gene expression profiles of resistant and susceptible Atlantic salmon fry following challenge with the IPN virus.

resultsSalmon fry from two IPNV-resistant and two IPNV-susceptible full sibling families were challenged with the virus and sampled at 1 day, 7 days and 20 days post-challenge. Significant viral titre was observed in both resistant and susceptible fish at all timepoints, although generally at higher levels in susceptible fish. Gene expression profiles combined with gene ontology and pathway analyses demonstrated that while a clear immune response was observed in both resistant and susceptible fish, there were striking differences between the two phenotypes. The susceptible fish showed marked up-regulation of genes related to cytokine activity and inflammatory response that evidently failed to protect against the virus. In contrast, the resistant fish demonstrated a less pronounced immune response including up-regulation of genes relating to the M2 macrophage system.

conclusionsWhile only the susceptible phenotype shows appreciable mortality levels, both resistant and susceptible fish can become infected with IPNV. Susceptible fish are characterized by a much larger, yet ineffective, immune response, largely related to cytokine and inflammatory systems. Resistant fish demonstrate a more moderate, putative macrophage-mediated inflammatory response, which may contribute to their survival.

Indexed as

AnimalsBirnaviridae InfectionsCytokinesDisease ResistanceFish DiseasesInfectious pancreatic necrosis virusMacrophagesSalmo salarTranscriptomeCytokinesaquaculturedisease resistanceinfectious pancreatic necrosisinnate immunityinterferonSalmo salartranscriptomevirus

Identifiers

PMID27066778
PMCPMC4827185
OpenAlexW2317821047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.