ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative efficacy of Bacillus probiotics and formalin-killed bacterin against Vibrio anguillarum in European eel elvers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Probiotics: Postbiotics for Healthy Aquaculture.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated and compared the effectiveness of Bacillus species probiotics and formalin-killed bacterin to control vibriosis caused by Vibrio anguillarium in European eel (Anguilla anguilla) elvers. Fish were allocated into four triplicate groups defined as follows: a control non-vaccinated (CON) group that fed on a basal diet without additives, two groups fed on diets supplied with Bacillus species probiotics (PRO; Sanolife PRO-F) in a dose of 0.5 g /kg diet (PRO-F1) and 1.0 g /kg diet (PRO-F2), and the fourth group was vaccinated with immersion formalin-killed bacterin and got a booster vaccination at 14th day (VACC). The experiment lasted for 28 days. In the end, the immune responses, including antibody titers, lysozyme activities (in serum and skin mucous), and bactericidal activity, were evaluated. The relative percent survival (RPS) after intraperitoneal challenge with V. anguillarium was calculated after an additional 10-day observation period. A one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison test was used to compare the experimental groups (VACC, PRO-F1, and PRO-F2) with the CON group. The results revealed significantly higher antibody titers, lysozyme activities (in serum and skin mucous), and serum bactericidal activity in the VACC and PRO-treated groups over the CON group. Of interest, the lysozyme activities (in serum and skin mucous) and antibody titers were significantly higher in the VACC group over both PRO groups. After the experimental infection, it was noticed that both VACC and PRO significantly protected eel elvers against V. anguillarium compared to the CON group. In addition, the RPS were 41.67%, 29.17%, and 37.50% in the VACC, PRO-F1, and PRO-F2 groups, respectively. This study unveils the vital roles of PRO and VACC and their effective roles in enhancing innate and mucosal immunities and protecting European eel elvers against vibriosis caused by V. anguillarium. Based on our findings, immersion vaccination emerges as the superior strategy for managing vibriosis in eels. This approach offers greater protection than feed-based probiotics, underscoring its potential as a viable vaccination method in eel aquaculture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.