The Exploitation of

Aquaculture International (2020) 28:1017–1041
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00509-0
The exploitation of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics

in aquaculture: present study, limitations and future
directions. : a review
Eric Amenyogbe 1,2 & Gang Chen 1,2 & Zhongliang Wang 1,2 & JianSheng Huang 1,2 &
Baosong Huang 1,2 & Hongjuan Li 1,2
Received: 28 November 2019 / Accepted: 8 January 2020 / Published online: 10 February 2020
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract
The incidence of infections by pathogenic microorganisms, coupled with the experimen-
tal manifestation of infections, refers to a regular phenomenon in aquaculture species. A
number of environmental changes generally give rise to traumatic scenarios, and activat-
ing the transient provocative reactions in the gut normally constitutes a factor to the
anatomical and efficient intestinal diseases. These infections have frequently given birth
to the momentous economic chaos in aquaculture sector. Putting efforts into resolving this
issue, the inclusion of antibiotics in the diets of aquaculture species has been introduced
either as growth promoters or the stimulation of the immune system against diseases.
Nevertheless, both the fears and discussions of consumers and scientists over the
antibiotic-resistant microbes and drug remains in meat have resulted into contentious
views concerning the uses of antibiotics. This has resulted into forbidding the use of
human antibiotics as growth promotants in the diet of animal since the year 2006 by the
European Union; also, subsequent to that, in the year 2013, the United States also initiated
a plan for the removal of human antibiotics in the diet as growth promotants. Making use
of the prebiotics, synbiotics and probiotics as an alternative has proven as improving not
just the growth but also the immunity and maintenance of intestine health of cultured
species. They are administered in the feeds of culture species for the purpose of
stimulating the good health, safeguarding the intestine against pathogenic microorgan-
isms and reducing the inflammation. In the current investigation, we throw discussion on
the present uses, together with the limitations and future directions, the immunomodula-
tory exploit of probiotics, synbiotics and prebiotics, which triggering directly or enhanc-
ing the non-specific immune structure of aquaculture species.
Keywords Probiotics . Prebiotics . Synbiotics . Limitations . Aquaculture . Immunomodulatory
* Gang Chen
gdoucg@126.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

1018 Aquaculture International (2020) 28:1017–1041
Introduction
The key challenges facing the aquaculture industry nowadays include the physical, chemical
and biological stresses for cultured fish owing to the extensive densities of stocking and per
production unit of feed input for complementing the capture fisheries. This has given rise to
numerous challenges associated with the explosion of infections or diseases, compromising the
quality of production and quantity, thereby resulting into the use of prescriptions and antibi-
otics as a means of the management of the health of fish for the promotion of the growth of
aquaculture industry. The effectiveness of those prescriptions and antibiotics has emerged as a
topic of debate and discussions between the scientists within the aquaculture industry. A
multiplicity of valuable feed additives, comprising prebiotics, synbiotics and probiotics, which
benefit the aquatic organisms, in particular, fish, are put to use in fish farming in a bid to fight
diseases and augment the growth, weight gain and size, in some scenarios, together with
behaving as substitute compounds of antimicrobial (Irianto and Austin 2002a), and encour-
aging the organisms’ immunity response. Probiotics are defined by FAO to be the live
microbial feed supplements, conferring the health benefits on the host and are found in the
bacterial food additives, which modify the gastrointestinal microbial communities (Wang et al.
2017; FAO, 2001). Prebiotics refer to the non-digestible feed additives, motivating the actions
of the advantageous gastrointestinal microorganisms (Bozkurt et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2011).
Both the prebiotics and probiotics have received extensive consideration; they manifested the
enhancement of production, well-being and resistance of aquatic organisms, in particular,
mostly fish to pathogens (Dimitroglou et al. 2011). Also, the intensive exploration for the
advancement of the innovative approaches of diet supplementation, which was evaluated in a
number of well-being and development stimulating compounds, include the following:
phytobiotics, synbionts, probiotics, prebiotics, and the rest of serviceable diet supplements
are assessed as well (Denev 2008).
Probiotic microbes are put to use for a number of purposes, for instance, increasing the
economic evolution, stimulating the digestion, and fascinating and overpowering the
contagious diseases (Balcazar et al. 2006a; Nayak 2010). Other than immunomodulation,
probiotics are considered as possessing the various means of exploit in active organisms.
In the land-dwelling animals, for instance, they competitively eliminate possible patho-
gens by means of the straight rivalry for space, nutrients and oxygen in the animal
gastrointestinal region (Akhter et al. 2015; Fuller 1987). Conversely, in aquatic organisms,
the probiotics, which are attached to the digestive tract’s mucosal epithelium such as
Vibrio harveyi, Vagococcus fluvialis, lactic acid bacteria, and Brevibacillus brevis (Sorroza
et al. 2012a, 2012b; Mahdhi et al. 2012; Korkea-Aho et al. 2012; Lazado et al. 2011;
Sugimura et al. 2011; Chabrillon et al. 2005) help fight pathogens (Luis-Villaseñor et al.
2011). Other research works also put forward that probiotics do not reside the gastroin-
testinal tract (Ridha and Azad 2012). A different approach of exploiting the probiotics is
that they boost the digestibility of diet (ten Doeschate and Coyne 2008) as in the type of
enzymes, for instance, proteases, amylases and alginate lyases, (Zokaeifar et al. 2012). The
productions of the nutrients like vitamin B12, biotin and fatty acids are improved by
probiotics as well (Vine et al. 2006; Sugita et al. 1992; Sugita et al. 1991), thereby
positively impacting the well-being of organisms. Probiotics also serve as the supplemen-
tary diet for the cultivation of the intestinal microbial stability, capable of positively
impacting the animal (Soleimani et al. 2012; Fuller 1989). They are also recognized as
having the immune stimulating outcome (Verschuere et al. 2000; Gatesoupe 1999).
Aquaculture International (2020) 28:1017–1041 1019
The present studies lack the proof that prebiotics and probiotics positively impact their host.
Resultantly, the viability of animal for the duration of its application and retention of valuable
effects for the period of the repetitive sub-culturing is still questioned. There are a number of
commercially accessible and used probiotics and prebiotics nowadays. Despite the fact that
probiotics and prebiotics involve financial expenditure, they not just improve the production
proficiency but also lower the incidence of disease, besides effectively lowering the costs of
production. A different possible means of the simultaneous application of prebiotics and
probiotics is termed as synbiotic, which is expected to augment the endurance and instituting
of the live bacteriological complement in the gastrointestinal tract. Nonetheless, there are
scanty facts existing on the use of synbiotics in fish farming, which are known as aquaculture
as well. The appreciative of the benefits associated with the prebiotics and probiotics in
aquaculture would make us capable of administering them symbiotically. Currently, the use
of probiotics, synbiotics and prebiotics has proven as benefiting the possible control of
pathogen owing to the fact that such effectively resulted into the increased production in
aquaculture. In the current investigation, we throw discussion on the present utilization,
limitations and future directions, in addition to the immunomodulatory exploit of probiotics,
synbiotics and prebiotics, triggering directly or enhancing the non-specific immune structure
of aquaculture species.
Prebiotics and probiotic supplementation in aquaculture
Probiotics refer to the word, stemming from the Greek words “pro” and “biotic,” which imply
“for the life.” This, at times, is referred to as the “direct-fed microbials”. The living microbial
cells, termed as probiotics (despite the fact that a heat-inactivated form has proven as
remaining beneficial for animals) (Hill et al. 2014; FAO, 2002; 2001; Gibson and
Roberfroid 1995; Parker 1974). While probiotics were originally put to use as the regulator
of diseases, the use of probiotics in aquaculture industry has now stretched, aimed at
enlightening the fish development and duplication by means of the addition to the water or
diet (Patterson and Burkholder 2003). The probiotics act as the sources of nutrient, together
with providing the enzymes, which not only enhance digestion but also control the immune
system; also, they increase the responses of the immune system against pathogenic bacteria
(Merrifield et al. 2010; Silva et al. 2013). Probiotics are currently put to use in aquaculture for
the purpose of improving the growth of cultured species without any reported negative impact
on the cultured species (Wang et al. 2008; Nicolas et al. 2007). Accomplishing the use of
probiotics in fish farming, which is popularly termed as aquaculture, appears placing emphasis
on the fish size and species, besides the adopted feeding administration. This refers to the
outcome of a sequence of the research works addressing the utilization of probiotics or mixture
probiotic and prebiotics in the early stage like the juvenile stage of the two commercially
important freshwater fishes Pangasianodon hypophthalmus and Channa striata (www.global-
engage.com/life-science/prebiotics-probiotics-synbiotics-aquaculture). Furthermore, the
commonest probiotics, presently put to use in aquaculture industry, include the yeast,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Enterococcus sp., and Lactobacillus sp., Bacillus sp. all lactic
acid bacteria (Rahiman et al. 2010; Gibson and Roberfroid 1995; Tinh et al. 2008).
It is termed as a modest conception; feed the sufficient quantities of microbes to the host for
the purpose of modifying the gut microflora and substituting the destructive microorganisms
with the useful ones. It requires mandatory observation that the outcome of effects is
multipronged (Ringø et al. 2010). By means of the colonization of the gut, these decent strains
of bacteria help fight the destructive pathogens, impacting the organisms’ “performance and
are a live microbial feed additive, positively impacting the animal by enlightening its intestinal
balance” thwarting the adhesion of pathogens to the wall of intestinal, restricting the contact to
nutrients and concealing the antibacterial constituents such as organic acids and bacteriocins
(Martínez Cruz et al. 2012; Ringø et al. 2010). With regard to the promotion of growth, the
multiplication of these decent strains of microorganisms proliferate digestive enzymes, for
instance, lipases, proteases, and amylases in the gut, caused the improved digestive develop-
ments and nutrient exploitation or utilizations (Boonthai et al. 2011; Roberfroid 2007; Gibson
and Roberfroid 1995; http://www.global-engage.com/life-science/prebiotics-probiotics-
synbiotics-aquaculture/).
Probiotics are likely to be used alone or in a mixture with prebiotics (Allameh et al. 2015;
Chi et al. 2014). In the same vein, the sole supplementation of S. cerevisiae and L. acidophilus
with the diet protected aquatic organism through the improvement of the immune responses
and development performances (Dhanaraj et al. 2010). The administration of either single or
mixed L. rhamnosus (Lactobacillus) or Lactobacillus sporogenes (Sporolac) brought about
improvement to the well-being state and pathogens resistance of aquatic organisms (Dawood
and Koshio 2016; Harikrishnan et al. 2010). Also, probiotics grounded on a lone strain do not
benefit in comparison with the effectiveness of those grounded on combined strains (Wu et al.
2012). Even though the mixtures of probiotics have indicated numerous benefits to organisms
as compared with that of single one, a mixture does not always supply that benefit, for
instance, to common carp. Huang et al. (2015) reported that the combination of probiotics
of B. amyloliquefaciens and S. cerevisiae does not impact the performance of growth of
aquaculture species, for instance, common carp, even though nourishing fish with these
probiotics independently have established that they improved feed conversion (Dawood and
Koshio 2016). There are carried out a number of investigations of the research works
addressing the impact of diverse prebiotics as well as their performance on survival, immune
responses, digestibility, feed efficiency and growth proportion of fish (Dawood and Koshio
2016; Song et al. 2014; Hoseinifar et al. 2014; Ganguly et al. 2013). For instance, in the year
2012, an investigation put forward that the uses of BG and MOS as feed complement have
improved the diet effectiveness and performance of growth of young common carp (Dawood
and Koshio 2016; Ebrahimi et al. 2012). In accordance with Akrami et al. (2015), prebiotic
complements also improved the resistance of fish to infection of A. hydrophila, thereby serving
as a competent immunostimulant. The combinations of prebiotics and probiotics are termed as
synbiotics (Akrami et al. 2015). The use of the synbiotic theory could provide the advantage of
both probiotics and prebiotics on the development of fish primarily owing to the synergistic
impact (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995). As Collins and Gibson (1999) put forward, the reason
leading to their combination in the use is that they have the potential of improving the
endurance of the organism of probiotic, since fermentation could be carried out successfully
as its requisite explicit substrate is freely existing; in this manner, the simultaneous availability
of the living microorganisms, which are probiotic and prebiotics, impact the organisms
positively (Dawood and Koshio 2016). Presently, a number of efforts are put into using inulin,
FOS and MOS, as a prebiotic, with a combination of probiotics, aimed at accomplishing the
continuing health benefits by means of the immune system of the gastrointestinal of aquatic
organisms, for instance, fish (Dehaghani et al. 2015; Abdulrahman and Ahmed 2015).
Moreover, the concept of combining prebiotics and probiotics, termed as synbiotics in
aquaculture nourishment, might be quite a stimulating option for the improvement of diet
effectiveness and well-being of aquatic organisms like fish. Till today, not much information is
available regarding the use of synbiotics in fish farming (Akrami et al. 2015; Mehrabi et al.
2012; Nekoubin et al. 2012; Ye et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2010). It is quite interesting to observe
that numerous research works have proved that synbiotic has the potential of considerably
enriching the growth parameters, for instance, the specific growth rate, length gain, and weight
gain, in addition to improving the digestive enzyme action, accordingly causing the stimulation
of the efficiency of the digestive system.
Differences between prebiotics and probiotics and their sources
Prebiotics and probiotics are the progressively extensively held choices despite the fact that the
dissimilarity among them is incompletely understood. Prebiotics refer to the non-digestible
sugars that have discriminatory impacts on the intestinal microbes and immunity of animals,
which include fish as well (Bozkurt et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2011). Prebiotics function by
serving as a diet source in the benefits of the decent microorganisms, present in the gastroin-
testinal tract, besides proving to maintain the animal performance and well-being (Refstie et al.
2010; Van Hai and Fotedar 2009; Baurhoo et al. 2007). Both World Health Organization and
FAO of the United Nations working Group describe the “probiotics as the live microorganisms
that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host.” (FAO,
2002; 2001; 2016). Conversely, prebiotics refer to the “specialized, non-digestible carbohy-
drate” usefully sustaining the decent microorganisms that have presence in gastrointestinal
tract (Bozkurt et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2011). It requires mandatory notice that prebiotics are not
microorganisms. Probiotics refer to a kind of nutrition source for the prevailing bacteria,
permitting the prevailing typical colony inside animal’s gut for the natural development and
replication (Alloui et al. 2013). Prebiotics could be gotten from a number of sources, which
comprise some yeast cell walls such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Lavergne 2017). They are
complex sugars, normally oligomers, but it requires mandatory observation that not every
sugar constitutes a prebiotic (Lavergne 2017). A number of prebiotic complexes have been
amalgamated into animal nourishment, which consists of the indigestible oligosaccharides, for
instance, fructooligosaccharide and indigestible mannanoligosaccharides (Boonthai et al.
2011). Prebiotics are largely the non-digestible food ingredients that are attained from fibre,
for instance, inulin, which acts on the gut to prompt the development of worthy bacteria
present in the gastrointestinal. They could be dietary fibres, soluble fibres or carbohydrate
being (Refstie et al. 2010; Van Hai and Fotedar 2009; Baurhoo et al. 2007). They are found in
a number of plants, in particular, the plants, rich in fructan, for instance, onion, garlic,
artichoke, kiwi and soybeans, in addition to asparagus, which is also a valuable means of
prebiotics, besides the oats, wheat and plants that are rich in inulin, for instance, jicama and
chicory root, together with acting as the natural sources of prebiotics (Bozkurt et al. 2014;
Sohail et al. 2012; Refstie et al. 2010; Van Hai and Fotedar 2009). They are recognized for
prompting the metabolic action, which is deemed as worthy for the general well-being of
organisms. Conversely, probiotics are natural existent in food and play the role as a controller
for the immune system (Yirga 2015).
Synbiotics
Synbiotics are the nutritious complements that are a mixture of “probiotics and prebiotics in
the form of synergism,” accordingly improving the beneficial impact on individual organisms
(Cerezuela et al. 2011). Gibson and Roberfroid (1995) define synbiotics as “to characterize
some colonic foods that have the interesting nutritional characteristics, making these com-
pounds candidates for classification as the health-improving functional ingredients”. Synbiotic
has a useful impact on organisms by not just improving the existence but also implanting the
“live microbial dietary supplements in the digestive tract” through the selective encouragement
of the development, and by triggering the activities of metabolism of restricted amount of the
health-improving microorganisms, thereby stimulating the welfare of organisms (Cerezuela
et al. 2011; Das et al. 2017).
Importance of the synbiotics in aquaculture industry
The synbiotics could be administered by means of the supplementation or peripheral bathing to

the advance performance of the growth, appropriate diet utilization, stimulation of the immune
system of aquatic organism’s digestibility and disease resistance (Dehaghani et al. 2015).
Some of the examples of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics on the diverse aquatic entities,
which has been put to use in aquaculture industry, are demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2.
Manner of operations on disease resistance
A number of research works shed light on the useful impact of probiotics on the organism’s gut
resistances, which are quite significant for not only diseases deterrence but also digestive tract
tenderness management (Modanloo et al. 2017; Azimirad et al. 2016). Besides that,
immunomodulation, probiotic microbes, for instance, Vibrio harveyi, Vagococcus fluvialis,
Brevibacillus brevis, and lactic acid bacteria (Mahdhi et al. 2012; Korkea-aho et al. 2012;
Sorroza et al. 2012a, 2012b; Sugimura et al. 2011; Lazado et al. 2011), attach to the
gastrointestinal tract’s mucosal epithelium, together with helping counterattack pathogens
(Luis-Villaseñor et al. 2011). In various functions, they improve diet digestibility through
the advancement of the diverse excavators such as proteases, amylases and alginate lyases
(Zokaeifar et al. 2012). Probiotics are termed as yielding not only the lysozyme but also the
siderophores, bacteriocins, biotin and vitamin B12, hydrogen peroxide, organic acids, fatty
acids, and antibiotics (Hoseinifar et al. 2018; Vine et al. 2006; Yan et al. 2002) beneficially
impacting the organisms’ well-being. Different kinds of literature prove the fact that probiotics
bring about improvement to the health in aquaculture species, for instance, black tiger prawns
(Rengpipat et al. 1998; Hai 2015), Japanese flounder (Heo et al. 2013), western king prawns
(Hai et al. 2010), and whiteleg prawns (Chiu et al. 2007). Figure 1 sheds light on the normal
probiotics and microbiota performance in collaboration with the host.
The indications on growth performance of probiotics
Fish culture is termed as the most pivotal component of aquaculture industries. As likened to
capture fisheries, where fish is freely captured for consumption, the diet availability for
cultured fishes is, at times, limited for the constrained sources of food, coupled with the high
cost of feeds. It is signified in a way that it is the declined variety of the community of the
intestinal microbial in cultured fish (Dhanasiri et al. 2011). The Administration of numerous
kinds of nutritional additives, for instance, crude plant extracts, vitamins, probiotics,
synbiotics, or prebiotics, could be put to use as supplemental feeds, providing as positively
impacting the aquaculture production (Cerezuela et al. 2011; Ganguly et al. 2010; Galli and
Table 1 Uses of some probiotic and prebiotic substances in aquaculture system (Cruz et al. 2012; Song et al. 2014; Susmita et al. 2017)
Uses of probiotic Probiotic species Gram positive/negative Target aquatic species Reference
bacteria
Water quality Bacillus sp. +ve Penaeus monodon Shishehchian et al. (2001); Rahiman
Vibrio sp. NE 17 -ve Macrobrachium rosenbergii et al. (2010) and Dohail et al. (2009)
Lactobacillus acidophilus +ve Clarias gariepinus
Control of diseases Enterococcus faecium SF 68 +ve Anguilla anguilla Chang and Liu (2002); Gram
Pseudomonas fluorescens -ve Oncorhynchus mykiss et al. (1999); Zhang et al.
Lactococcus lactis +ve Epinephelus coioides (2012a, 2012b); Spanggaard
Pseudomonas sp. -ve Oncorhynchus mykiss et al. (2001); Moriarty (1998);
Bacillus sp. +ve Penaeids Austin et al. (1995) and Truong
Vibrio alginolyticus -ve Salmonids Thy et al. (2017); Nguyen et al.
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 54A, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (2017); Xie et al. (2017); Liu
and Bacillus pumilus 47B Olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus et al. (2017); Beck et al. (2017)
Lactococcus lactis WFLU12 Oreochromis niloticus
Bacillus subtilis HAINUP40 Olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus
Lactococcus lactis BFE920
Growth promoter Lactobacillus lactis AR21 +ve Brachionus plicatilis Harzeveli et al. (1998); Queiroz
Bacillus sp. +ve Catfish and Boyd (1998); Gatesoupe
Streptococcus thermophiles +ve Scophthalmus maximus (1999); Lin et al. (2012); Rahiman
Bacillus coagulans +ve Cyprinus carpio koi et al. (2010); Truong Thy et al.
Bacillus NL 110 +ve M. rosenbergii (2017); Nguyen et al. (2017);
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 54A, Olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus Xie et al. (2017); Liu et al.
and Bacillus pumilus 47B Oreochromis niloticus (2017); Hien et al. (2015);
Lactococcus lactis WFLU12 Pangasius catfish, Pangasius bocourti Guo et al. (2016)
Bacillus subtilis HAINUP40 Grass carp, Ctenopharynodon idellus
Lactobacillus plantarum
Bacillus subtilis
Digestion Lactobacillus acidophilus +ve Clarias gariepinus Dohail et al. (2009); Rahiman et al.
Vibrio NE 17 +ve M. rosenbergii (2010) and Lin et al. (2012)
Lactobacillus helveticus +ve Scophthalmus maximus
Improvement of Clostridium butyricum +ve Rainbow trout Sakai et al. (1995); Hernandez et al.
immune response L. casei +ve Poecilopsis gracilis (2010); Laranja et al. (2017)
L. acidophilus +ve Paralichthys olivaceus
Penaeus monodon postlarvae
1023
Table 1 (continued)
1024
Uses of probiotic Probiotic species Gram positive/negative Target aquatic species Reference
bacteria
Bacillus sp. amorphous poly-

betahydroxybutyrate (PHB)
Prebiotic substances Subtype Aquatic organisms Reference
Oligosaccharide Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) Salmo salar L. Grisdale-Helland et al. (2008);
Mannanoligosaccharide (MOS) Megalobrama terminalis Zhang et al. (2012a, 2012b);
Galactooligosaccharide (GOS) Paralichthys olivaceus Ye et al. (2011); Akrami
Arabinoxylan-oligosaccharide Acipenser stellatus et al. (2013); Samrongpan
Oreochromis niloticus et al. (2008); Torrecillas
Dicentrarchus labrax et al. (2011); Sang and Fotedar
Panulirus ornatus (2010); Zhou et al. (2010);
Sciaenops ocellatus Grisdale-Helland et al. (2008)
Atlantic Salmon and Geralylou et al. (2012)
Siberian sturgeon
Polyoligosaccharide Inulin Nile tilapia Ibrahem et al. (2010); Ahmdifar
Huso huso et al. (2011) and Mpurino
Pseudoplatystoma sp. et al. (2012)
Table 2 Application of synbiotic on different aquatic organisms (Cerezuela et al. 2011; Susmita et al. 2017)
Synbiotic (probiotic/prebiotic) Aquatic organisms Reference
Enterococcus faecalis/MOS, PHB Oncorhynchus mykiss Rodriguez-Estrada et al. (2009)

Bacillus clausii/MOS, FOS Paralichthys olivaceus Ye et al. (2011)
Bacillus subtilis/Chitosan Rachycentron canadum Ai et al. (2011)
Bacillus subtilis/FOS Larimichthys crocea Geng et al. (2011)
MOS, mannanoligosaccharide; FOS, fructooligosaccharide; PHB, polyhydroxybutyrate acid
Calder 2009). The results on the two commercially important freshwater fish species, “Lac-
tobacillus acidophilus outclassed live yeast, (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in not just physical,
but also physiological and immunological parameters” assessed, together with also improving
the gut morphology as well as the digestive enzyme action. The improved in feed digestibility
was fully evident when the juveniles of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus were fed with the diets
that comprised 45% soybean protein, attaining the same weight as the fish fed with a diet of
100% fish meal protein feed. For that of “Channa striata, the beneficial impacts of Lactoba-
cillus acidophilus” ingestion were maintained at least fortnight more subsequent to the pulling
out of supplementation matched to the yeast and selected prebiotics, which implied that the
continuous demonstration of probiotics is not essential (www.global-engage.com/life-
science/prebiotics-probiotics-synbiotics-aquaculture).
The improved growth was complemented by the increase in the bacterial population’s
abundance as well as the uniformity and improvement in “gut morphology”. Besides that,
there were also the augmented actions of gut amylase; protease and lipase for continuous
8 weeks even following the supplementation was ended. As assumed, the improved develop-
ment was the significance of the improved fish well-being grounded on the improved
“haematological parameters, total immunoglobulin content and lysozyme action, when
Pangasianodon hypopthalmus and Channa striata” are fed with the supplemented probiotic
feed (www.global-engage.com/life-science/prebiotics-probiotics-synbiotics-aquaculture). In
accordance with Yassir et al. (2002), the administration of probiotic microorganisms as
Fig. 1 The normal microbiota and probiotic performance in collaboration with the host in metabolic activities
and immune function and prevent colonization of opportunistic and pathogenic microorganisms. Source:
(Sullivan and Nord 2005; World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2008)
development agent on tilapia has utmost impact on the growth performance, wherein
Micrococcus luteus was distinguished; in addition, the finest diet conversion propor-
tion was observed by means of the same microorganism of probiotic. Accordingly,
they reached the conclusion that M. luteus was counted among the best growth
enhancer in fish farming. Another research work also indicates the lactic acid bacteria
as the growth enhancer as a result of its effectiveness on the growth performance in
immature carp (Shishehchian et al. 2001).
Diseases control and water quality improvement
The pollution of a number of compounds of nitrogen, for instance, nitrate, nitrite and ammonia,
brings about serious challenges in aquaculture industry. These compounds in concentration
could be extremely dangerous, besides causing the bulk mortality in huge concentrations
(Michael et al. 2014). In accordance with Ma et al. (2009), Lactobacillus sp. concurrently
eliminates pathogens and nitrogen as of the contaminated shrimp farms. The gram-positive
microorganisms typically convert organic substance back into CO2 in a way more effective as
compared with the gram-negative bacteria, transforming the biological carbon to microbial
biomass (Stanier et al. 1963). The gram-positive bacteria, for instance, Bacillus sp. was
correlated with not just the improved aqua quality but also with the decline in the pathogen’s
populace in the environment of culture, the improved rate of survival and growth and the
enhanced conditions of well-being of the young Penaeus monodon (Ngan and Phu 2011;
Dalmin et al. 2001).
Now, probiotics are proven as benefiting the well-being and disease avoidance or control in
fish culture, and for that matters aquaculture industry. These consist of a microbial assistant,
halting the proliferation of pathogens in the gastrointestinal region, and in the environment to
culture the aquaculture species (Verschuere et al. 2000). The use or application of probiotic
could lower the utilization of artificial substances and antibiotics in the diet of cultured species
(Fuller 1989). The impact of probiotics on aquatic species is accomplished by means of the
improved resistant system of animal, which improves the organism’s disease resistance
potential, thereby preventing the pathogenic animals from the disease development in organ-
isms (Dawood and Koshio 2016). Using Bacillus sp. manifested disease defence by means of
the collective initiation of the humoral immune and cellular confrontations in tiger shrimp
(Akhter et al. 2015; Rengpipat et al. 2000).
Enhancement of the immune reaction and immunomodulatory influences
Naturally, the aquaculture species have primarily two fundamental parts of the immune
system, comprising the non-specific, which is also termed as innate, and the specific immune
system, which is different from complex vertebrates. The first line of resistance refers to the
non-specific immune system, comprising the cells and machineries, which shield the host
against the infection by pathogens, the interactions of probiotics and the immune cells such as
natural killer cells, polymorphonuclear leukocytes and mononuclear phagocytes for the im-
provement of the non-specific immune reactions. The amount or numbers of lymphocytes,
macrophages, erythrocytes and granulocytes could be multiplied by specific probiotics in a
number of species of fish (Kumar et al. 2008; Nayak et al. 2007; Hellio et al. 2007; Kim and
Austin 2006a, 2006b; Irianto and Austin 2003). Moreover, numerous humoral dynamics are
elaborated in the investigation of the non-specific and the specific immune systems. The
resistance machineries counter to the pathological agents by means of the activation of the
species of aquaculture immune reactions through the injury of the adverse impact of chemo-
therapeutic and antibiotic agents are supported by probiotics. The immune response of fish and
crustacean is improved by the substances that are generated by the beneficiary bacteria (Sakai
1999). That is why Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus acidophilus are administered in a
proficient manner, aimed at improving the prestige of health, consequently improving the
Nile tilapia’s capability of resisting the diseases and advancing the colonized reaction with the
help of the increase or enhancement of the innate immune reaction (Aly et al. 2008). There was
an indication or proof of the enhanced growth performance by means of the increased diet
utilization, immune reactions or response and survival rate against Vibrio harveyi as Cobia was
fed with probiotic as supplementary diet, indicating the enhancement of innate immunity after
Cobia was fed with the supplementary diet of probiotics (Geng et al. 2011). An essential
antimicrobial peptide, which is present in the fish’s blood serum, is lysozyme and immuno-
globulin, acting as the defensive mechanisms, together with having the potential of resisting
the development of pathogenic microorganisms, thereby causing the avoidance of diseases
(Alexander and Ingram 1992). According to Balcazar et al. (2007), lysozyme has improved the
resistance of pathogenic microorganisms in fish subsequent to challenging test. As discussed
by Talpur et al. (2014), it has been witnessed in a number of other research works, for instance,
in the blood serum of snakehead fish, lysozyme content was high as fed with the
complemented LAB diet. Immunoglobulin, being another pivotal humoral immune element
within the fish body, also critically contributes to the resistance of pathogenic bacteria. Even
though the administration of probiotics in aquaculture has a number of positive impacts, the
immune structure modulation has proven as the most significant benefit of probiotics to
aquaculture industry. Also, the shrimps, larvae of fish, and a number of other spineless
organisms, which pose the immune systems, are reliant largely on the resistance to the
infection of the non-specific immune responses (Michael et al. 2014). The oral application
of “Clostridium butyricum bacteria to rainbow trout” brought about enhancement to their
confrontation to vibriosis by means of the evolution of the leucocytes’ phagocytosis
(Geovanny et al. 2007; Sakai et al. 1995).
The consistent probiotic microorganism’s consumption has been put to use for the purpose
of investigating the health enhancements, employed by the gastrointestinal tract microbiota
inside healthy animals. The use of probiotics in the practice of fermented milk commenced in
the ancient days (Ahtesh et al. 2018; Vasiljevic and Shah 2008). Moreover, the physiological
modifications of the gastrointestinal tract, coupled with the changes in the gut microbiome
associated with the stage, alongside the modifications in dietary behaviours, caused vicissi-
tudes to the immune system (Biagi et al. 2010). Crosstalk among the immune system and gut
microflora provides facilitation for the well-adjusted gut homeostasis in the hale and hearty
animals; nonetheless, the changes in gut environment owing to diseases cause changes in the
gastrointestinal tract equilibrium of microflora homeostatic, thereby giving rise to a number of
protracted diseases (Biagi et al. 2010). Progresses in the synbiotics of gut microbiota probiotics
could benefit the animals (Biagi et al. 2017). The use of probiotics by animals is required to be
“non-pathogenic,” besides enduring the gastrointestinal tract passage in order to supply health
benefits to them (Hardy et al. 2013). The endurance of probiotics continues to be essential
inside the environment of gastric acid, enabling the new gene activation to express in code a
number of stress proteins for their endurance.
The impact of prebiotics unswervingly enhances the non-specific immunity, for instance,
“Phagocytic effect, which is the process that has the endocytic capability of intracellular
phagocytic leukocytes” and the energized organisms’ resistance machinery within other
lymphoid organs, head kidney (HK) and the spleen, kidney. Observation could be made
through the assessment of the level of endocytosed zymosan in phagocytes (Akhter et al.
2015) with the help of colorimetric detection or the use of microscope. Phagocytosis takes
place in a number of phases. Microbes are figured out by “PRRs, for instance, toll like
receptors (TLRs); the microbes are consumed by phagosomes; they are the wrath with
lysosomes,” consisting of the diversity of proteases; and the microorganisms are destroyed
by “proteolysis” (Abbas et al. 2012). Together with that, the antigen processing stages trailed
“by the exhibition of antigen to T cells, result into the T cell activation”, and the entire immune
structure afterward. In accordance with (Ye et al. 2011), the analysis for lysozyme activity was
carried out subsequent to feeding the Japanese flounder with 5.0 g FOS kg−1 for a period of
56 days and the ratio of “phagocytic cells,” indicating a marker and “phagocytic index” (Ye
et al. 2011). Fructooligosaccharide application brought considerable enhancement to the
lysozyme activity, meanwhile differing in “phagocytic index in comparison with the ones in
the control diet group” (Song et al. 2014). Nevertheless, feeding with the combination of
fructooligosaccharides and mannanoligosaccharides, 5.0 g kg−1, the flounder manifested a
negligible improvement in phagocytic action. The innate and adaption linking of the immune
system for the creation of an optimal immune reaction and the destruction of pathogenic
microbes was involved owing to the significant role that macrophages play (Akhter et al.
2015). Macrophages’ direct interfaces among MAMPs are triggered on PRRs and microor-
ganisms on cells of the host. The diversity of inflammatory cytokines is secreted through the
stimulation of the macrophages such as “tumour necrosis factor (TNF), IL-1, IL-12” and a
number of others (Abbas et al. 2012). The most pivotal macrophage instigation stages refer to
the cytokines, and could be detected by means of the polymerase chain reaction (Akhter et al.
2015). The removal of a phosphate group among the phosphorylated molecules is carried out
by acid phosphatase. Through the activation of macrophages, the acid phosphatase activates
the phagolysosomes macrophages pH, besides raising the aforementioned internal acidity. It
requires mandatory observation that the greater internal acidity caused the triggering of
protease leading microcidal action (Abbas et al. 2012). An “oxidative burst refers to a
suggestion of the oxidative possibility of responsive oxygen kinds such as hydrogen peroxide,
superoxide anions and hydroxyl radicals” (Akhter et al. 2015). They are generated by
activating the phagocytes, besides being accountable for the destruction of devours constitu-
ents, which comprise microbes. The responsive oxygen kinds are extensively administered in
order to safeguard the capacity of the organisms of fighting the pathogens (Abbas et al. 2012).
The measurement of an oxidative burst of “an innate immune cell, which comprises blood
neutrophils, is carried out with the use of the nitroblue tetrazolium tests”. A nutritional
complement feed of inulin 5 g kg−1 has been given to Nile tilapia, followed by observation
for the improved improvement of the haematocrit nitroblue tetrazolium action and activities of
lysozyme, which suggested the stimulation influence of inulin on innate resistance. It was
observed that the feeding of inulin for a period of 60 days has brought significant changes to
the activities of nitroblue tetrazolium as well as the actions of lysozyme. Also, the mortality
rate following the trial of A. hydrophila was also observed as reducing in the group that was
fed with inulin, accordingly augmenting the survival rate (Ibrahem et al. 2010).
The system of supplement in serum is the single utmost effective non-effector cell reactions
of immune system, which could be triggered by the antigen-specific antibodies. The measure-
ment of the status of the innate immune environment of oceanic species such as shrimp or
lobster could be carried out with the help of phenoloxidase (Akhter et al. 2015; Hellio et al.
2007). The system is the improved supplement system primarily for the oceanic invertebrates,
comprising the laccases, catecholases and tyrosinases. Phenoloxidase is deemed as essential
for the improvement of the activities of antimicrobials by means of the respirational gust and
phagocytosis. It was observed that there was a considerable improvement in the activities of
superoxide dismutase, phenoloxidase, as well as the “expression of immune genes, for
instance, crustin 1, lysozyme, SOD and prop” when Red Swamp Cray fish was served with
FOS 8 and 10 g kg−1 (Akhter et al. 2015; Dong and Wang 2013). Accordingly, the nutritional
complement of fructooligosaccharides, for a period of a month, is administered, which
enhances the survival time counter to Aeromonas hydrophila. Lysozyme is termed as the
enzyme that demeans “peptidoglycan in bacterial walls through the hydrolysis of the b-
glycosidic bonds to N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine” (Balcazar et al. 2006;
Irianto and Austin 2002b). Lysozymes are present in lots of areas, for instance, eggs and
intestines of oceanic species (Alexander and Ingram 1992). The basic producers of lysozymes
are termed as triggering the macrophages (Akhter et al. 2015; Goethe and Phi-van 1998). The
investigation of the impacts of the nutritional fructooligosaccharides, comprising 10, 20, or
30 g kg−1 on “Caspian roach fry”, was carried out as well out (Song et al. 2014; Soleimani
et al. 2012). Feeding with the lysozyme ACH50 immunoglobulin levels significantly enhanced
the action in the groups that consisted of 20 and 30 g FOS kg. It was observed that just the
lysozyme action was enhanced in the ones fed with 10 g FOS kg−1. The roast on the salt
resistance stresses was improved by dietary complements when tests to the comprehensive,
irrespective of level, nonetheless, merely the ones served with 3% FOS were recorded has
having a considerably greater survival rate. B lymphocyte generates antibodies and is known
for the specific antigens of microbial. These antibodies counteract pathogens by means of
attaching to the surface antigens, accordingly thwarting their affection to the bull’s eye cells.
The antibodies could also expedite the “phagocytosis of the antibody-bound pathogens with
the help of opsonization, followed by stimulating the supplement scheme as well as the
antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity”.
The complete haemocyte sum sheds light on the complete quantity of blood cells, including
not just platelets and both, but also red and white blood cells. The haemocyte sum could be
served as the macro-investigation of immunological state of fish owing to the amount of
immune cells in the insusceptible stimulation enhances blood (Ebrahimi et al. 2012).
Nonetheless, it requires mandatory observation that a number of probiotics and prebiotics
could leave immunomodulatory impacts on aquatic organisms. Accordingly, aimed at enhanc-
ing the administration of probiotics and prebiotics in fish farming, popularly termed as
aquaculture, there is a need for advanced research works for the purpose of elaborating on
the meticulous status of cellular immune reaction, besides determining the protection of the
probiotic bacteria lifespan. The administration of feed complements, for instance, prebiotics,
probiotics and synbiotics, on a long-term bases in aquaculture, as a strategic control pathogen,
has proven as the way forward.
Production of inhibitory substance
Beneficiary microorganisms produce an ingredient that has bacteriostatic impact on other

bacteriological populaces such as lysozymes, proteases siderophores, hydrogen peroxide,
bacteriocins, and a number of others (Panigrahi and Azad 2007; Tinh et al. 2008). Also, as
indicated by Tinh et al. (2008), some microorganisms produce volatile fatty acids and organic
acid, for instance, propionic acid, acetic and butyric lactic, helping drop the gastrointestinal
lumen’s acidic condition, thereby preventing the development of pathogenic microorganisms.

As suggested in the current research works, a 3-benzopyrole in some microorganisms has the
antibacterial and antifungal competency, impeding the pathogens development (Lategan et al.
2006; Gibson et al. 1999).
Antibacterial action
The latest research works dealing with probiotics have demonstrated that probiotics in
aquaculture has antibacterial stimulus against the recognized pathogens like microorganism
L. lactis RQ516, which is put to use in Oreochromis niloticus, manifests inoperation against
Aeromonas hydrophila (Zhou et al. 2010). In accordance with Balcazar et al. (2008), L. lastis
had inhibited the action against fish pathogens: Yersinia ruckeri and Aeromonas salmonicida.
In Nile tilapia (O. niloticus), the development of pathogenic proxies was inhibited by
Leuconostoc mesenteroides (Zapata and Lara-Flores 2013). In accordance with Newaj-Fyzul
et al. (2014)), Bacillus subtilis indispensably lowers the amount of motile Aeromonas,
Pseudomonas and total coliforms in fishes. A research work by Moosavi-Nasab et al.
(2014) addressing the Streptococcus salivarius, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus fermentum,
Lactobacillus buchneri, and Lactobacillus acidophilus are all the lactic acid microorganisms
from the digestive tract of Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson), has proven as
having the antibacterial action against the Listeria innocua. As Dhanasekaran et al. (2008) put
forward, the Lactobacilli isolated from the digestive tract of Gende fish (Puntius carnaticus);
Jillabe fish (Oreochromis sp.); Rohu fish (Labeo rohita); Hari fish (Anguilla sp.) and catfish
(Claris orientalis), demonstrated the apparent impeding action against Vibrio sp. as well as
Aeromonas.
Limitations in the administration of probiotic, prebiotic and symbiotic in aquaculture

industry
The use of feed additives, majorly synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in the aquaculture
species feeds, emerges as the issue of the investigation from the later part of the twentieth
century. From the early years of the twenty-first century, published reviews started appearing.
Nonetheless, the accomplishment of the success of diet additives in this field (aquaculture)
brought exceptional challenges. In addition, the use of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics in
culture species emanates with the extra expenditures to aquaculture industry for the reason
that, prior to the inclusion of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics into feeds or diets, a careful
assessment of the new strains should be carried out, thereby assessing for the welfare and
efficiency. Again, there must be strict enforcement of the use of the contemporary methodol-
ogies by the firms having involvement in the production of synbiotics, prebiotics, and
probiotics for the harmless and excellence products, which is also expected to lead to the high
cost of production (Ayisi et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2008).
Taking into account of array of aquaculture species, cultured across the globe nowadays,
the difficulty associated with the species specificity presents a bigger complication in the
accomplishment of the productive administering of precise prebiotics, synbiotics, and
probiotics, as diet additives. The typically diverse levels of trophic joint with the chemical
and physical multiplicity within the diverse aquaculture industry indicate a challenging task.
The “one size fits all” norm, which implies the famous administering and consistent reaction,
does not appear as vastly acceptable. Research studies, carried out in the past decades, have
shed light on the need of regulating the utilization and selection of probiotics, prebiotics and
synbiotics. Again, irrespective of the enhanced complexity of the procedure and extensive
research works, a number of gaps in understanding still prevail.
The use or administering of carbohydrases in the diets of diverse fish types has
provided different kinds of outcomes; a number of them are established in the alterations
in gastrointestinal physiology as well as the variations in procedural methodology
(Castillo and Gatlin III 2015).
The use of symbiotic probiotic and prebiotic in aquaculture industry has been welcomed
with the extreme responsiveness for being a productive methodology, nonetheless, owing to
the constrained statistics on probiotic, prebiotic and symbiotic modes of exploit, the outcomes
of their application are, at times, inhibited (Raja et al. 2015). For instance, in humans,
probiotics could be responsible for some adverse impacts in susceptible persons: gene transfer,
excessive immune stimulation, systemic infections and deleterious metabolic actions. There is
the limited information of “bacteremia” in humans, wherein the probiotic microbes’ separation
from infections seems the outcome of the unscrupulous infection that is generated by chronic
illness, cancer, and skin lesions. These scenarios prompt to the dwindled duodenal wall,
thereby stimulating the direction of microorganisms by means of the epithelium mucosal
and eventually, have the potential of advancing to septicaemia (Shishehchian et al. 2001).
Despite the fact that no confirmation had been established in fishes yet, the use of probiotics as
a source of natural control requires mandatorily preserved as a form of risk indemnity, which
could not deliver any extraordinary improvement in a culture system, carried out under the
optimum environments and/or where pathogens are absent (Verschuere et al. 2000). In the
culturing of species of aquaculture, the microbial populaces in intestinal guts are significantly
larger in comparison with those in adjoining water (Denev et al. 2009). In the meantime, there
is also the probability of transmitting the resistant microorganisms from culture environments
to persons. It requires mandatory observation that probiotics are harmed through the
chemicals, mostly inhibiting the development of beneficial microbes (Raja et al. 2015). The
introduction of probiotic into aquatic organisms aims at stimulating the organisms’, mostly
fish, immune system against the infection of pathogenic bacterial (Sahoo and Mukherjee 1999;
Anderson and Siwicki 1994). Nonetheless, it is quite hard-hitting to provide a vaccination of
probiotics for fish, in particular, small ones, and/or to the huge numbers of fish (Tuan et al.
2013). The application of “Lactobacillus lactis on the haematological parameters of Acipenser
persicus proved that the quantity of blood lymphocytes” declined, whereas both the
granulocytes showed improvement (Hoseinifar et al. 2014; Das et al. 2017). Nowadays, there
are limited statistics dealing with the impact of synbiotics prebiotic, and probiotics on
immunomodulation of fish (Das et al. 2017). The applications of probiotics, synbiotics and
prebiotics in commercial aquafeeds are usually served as ingredients. The feed production
industry of aquaculture is currently subjected to threats of an overabundance of the commer-
cially accessible probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotics.
Protection and supervisory concerns
Using the probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics has been proven as benefiting the aquaculture
sector, nonetheless, the fortune of post applications of probiotics is still questioned, which still
constitutes a considerable concern. Being specific, anxieties are about the potential procure-
ment of virulence genes and antibiotic confrontation by means of the parallel gene transfer
through the gram-negative probiont (Newaj-Fyzul et al. 2014). In accordance with di Cesare
et al. (2012) and Tamminen et al. (2011), despite not having any written evidence to those
impacts, the antibiotic-resistant microorganisms have over and over again been indicated at the
aquaculture farms or sites that could likely cause the security or safety hitches in the course of
the use of live probiotics in the exposed aquaculture farms or sites since that matter the aquatic
ecosystem. The other means of overcoming the issues of parallel gene transfer could be the
incapacitated preparations of probiotics. Also, probiotics are likely to impact a number of
tissues such as the intestinal tract, surface mucus, skin, and gills; in addition, there were reports
of serious cell injuries when the distal intestine of Huso was introduced to the isolated
L. plantarum from the cheese prepared using the sheep milk (Salma et al. 2011; Harris
1993). This suggests that probiotics species require acknowledgement as harmless for the
cellular reliability of host. Again, as put forward by Nimrat and Vuthiphandchai (2011), the
majority of probiotic products sold in the third-world countries does not have information or
labelled on the concentrations of different species, strains, besides the exact numbers of cell,
thereby placing emphasis on the serious questions of quality of products in those countries.
The greatest means of enhancing the worth and efficiency of the marketable aquaculture
probiotics is through the enforceable laws, aimed at regulating the commercial usage.
Conclusion and future directions
The additives like probiotic, synbiotics and prebiotic, designed for the practical use method-
ologies, require being subjected to the immaculately definite methodology, which requires
characterization by means of the decidedly meticulous investigational conditions, coupled with
the homogeneous conventions of selection standards, a productive methodology of rough
guide, and the constant production and reassessment. Again, the aspects like dose and strain
require mandatory acknowledgement as impacting the existence and enormousness of reac-
tion. Limitations are dependent on the specific procedures of preparation, the organisms or
species involved or under the consideration and challenging environments must be not just
appreciated but prevailed as well. The field challenging or testing is of immense significance
for the fact that the positive outcomes attained in the research laboratory are likely to be
perhaps not suitable or administered to field environments. Besides that, in the majority
research works, the valuation of the effectiveness or efficiency of additives appears not carried
out in the extensive scale commercial farms or production setting, which is typical of the
aquatic organisms or aquaculture species subjected to examination.
The usefulness of applying the diet additives in aquaculture industry cannot be disputed.
The impressive volume of understanding has been attained within the last 15 to 20 years,
which is evidenced in the current analyses that are dedicated to the exogenous carbohydrase
enzymes (Castillo and Gatlin III 2015), prebiotics (Hoseinifar 2017; Gatlin III 2015), and
probiotics (Lakshmi et al. 2013; Ringø et al. 2010). Apparently, there exists a distinguished
gap between the “science-based” understandings and the prosperous applied application,
which require necessary closure. The lack of this kind of an amalgamation is somewhat
inherent in the partial appreciative of what the additives like prebiotics, probiotics and
synbiotics are in reality performance and under which environments the favourite valuable
responses of performance are expected to ensue in both the certain and reliable manner. The
establishment of laborious and efficient assessment skills, besides the responsiveness to face, is
of critical significance for the assured advancement within the empire of the price-effective
marketable-scale use. Even now, there is much more to be done for the purpose of highlighting
a number of issues associated with the use of the additives like, prebiotics, probiotics and
synbiotics. Merrifield et al. (2010) acknowledged this kind of a condition for the use of
“probiotics and prebiotics” in the salmonid’s feed.
Unquestionably, the apparent usefulness provided by probiotics makes them a viable
substitute to the antibiotics’ use as well as prescriptions. Nonetheless, accepting the
probiotics in the widespread fish farming, which is termed as aquaculture as well, poses
logistical issues. Probiotics efficiency is in accordance with a number of dynamics, for
instance, the suitable administration of strains, together with the necessary delivery of the
dosage and the safeguard of bacterial stability in the course of storage and production; this
is expected to most likely lower the number of viable animals. There also exist the fears of
the “safety of strains and the transmission of antibiotic resistance and virulent plasmids
issues” which required quite serious consideration as well. For the purpose of mollifying
this fear, there should be the decline in adding probiotics in fish feeds through the adoption
of an amalgamation of prebiotics and probiotics methodology, termed as synbiotics. A
model, manifesting the enhancement of growth performance, digestibility of feeds com-
prising fish health and high soybean protein, was in line with yeast, was only used on
Pangasianodon hypophthalmus. The accomplishments of synbiotics put to use in aqua-
culture still do not have full clarity. Even though prebiotics are extensive, they could
constitute a counterbalance by lowering the use of probiotics for a more maintainable
industry of fish farming or aquaculture industry.
The accomplishments of the administration of probiotics and prebiotics in aquaculture have
acted as a substitute to antibiotics and prescriptions in culture species, bringing about huge
remunerations for the enhanced well-being, development, rates of survival and organic
products generation, which do not harm users. One of the present probiotic cohorts could
bump into the desires of viable expansion of aquaculture as well as the enhancement of the two
pivotal aspects of the disease resistance and growth performance of cultured species. Further-
more, the expansions of aquaculture are going to be impossible or unsuccessful deprived of the
administration of the efficient diet additives. Present research works, dealing with the species
of aquaculture, are still limited, besides demanding the advance exploration for the purpose of
further elucidating the essential ins and outs for the promotion of the growth impacts of both
the prebiotics and probiotics. It is also of immense significance to make use of the “immuno-
histochemistry, gene expression and proteomics of the localized immunity at the level of
mucosal” which are deemed as quite essential for the discovery of mechanisms. Furthermore,
it is extremely essential advancing the investigation addressing the probiotics, prebiotics and
synbiotics ought to attach significance to the additional “molecular biotechnology” outfits, for
instance, numerous scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, high via
genomes and staining methodologies expertise, aimed at obtaining the superior understanding
of their module of operations (Dawood and Koshio 2016). Despite the fact that a number of
investigations suggested that the prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics benefit the well-being,
growth performance and pathogenic resistance in aquaculture, it is still quite unclear the way
the prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics exert an impact on the different life stages of cultured
species. It is also quite essential to perform a comprehensive investigation for the purpose of
elaborating on the impact of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics, together with their optimal
dose in the feed of aquaculture species, even though there were few researches that had
reported adverse impacts of the high levels of their diet. Also, the nutritional impacts of
prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics on the intestinal microbiota of species of aquaculture by
independent culture molecular approaches are deemed as essential.
An appreciative use of the understanding of the effectiveness of exogenous enzymes

probiotics and prebiotics lingers on the understanding that they unquestionably make a
progressive transformation in the well-being and digestive effectiveness of the aquaculture
species, thereby causing the anticipated economic remunerations. It is of significance to
observe that outlining the starring role of diet additives, for instance, probiotic, prebiotic,
and synbiotics in the industry of aquaculture is still at quite a critical position. The results of the
comprehensive investigations or challenges must be crystal clear and communicated honestly
to the aqua culturist. Administrating the diet additives like probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotics
so far has been proven as the way forward for the sustainable aquaculture sector. Nonetheless,
there are required to be put forward research methodologies on the primary understanding of
not just the complication of array of species but also the culture methodologies, and the types
of probiotics, synbiotics and prebiotics, in addition to the limitations of the aqua feed
manufacturing sector.
Acknowledgements Our acknowledgement goes to the China Agriculture research system (CARS-47) and
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhanjiang) (ZJW-2019-06).
Authors’ contributions All authors contributed equally to this study.
Funding information This study is supported by the China Agriculture research system (CARS-47) and
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhanjiang) (ZJW-2019-06).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors affirm that there are no conflicts of interest.
References
Abbas AK, Lichtman AH, Pillai S (2012) Cellular and molecular immunology, Philadelphia, PA, USA, seventh
edn. Saunders Elsevier
Abdulrahman NM, Ahmed VM (2015) Comparative effect of probiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), prebiotic
(fructooligosaccharides FOS) and their combination on some differential white blood cells in young
common carp (Cyprinus caprio L.). Asian. J Sci Technol 6:1136–1140
Ahmdifar E, Akrami R, Ghelichi A, Zarejbad AM, (2011) Effects of different prebiotic inulin level on blood
serum enzymes, hematologic and biochemical parameters of great sturgeon (Huso huso) juveniles Comp
Clin Pathol 20:447–451
Ahtesh FB, Stojanovska L, Apostolopoulos V (2018) Anti-hypertensive peptides released from milk proteins by
probiotics. Maturitas. 115:103–109
Ai Q, Xu H, Mai K, Xu W, Wang J (2011) Effects of dietary supplementation of Bacillus subtilis and
fructooligosaccharide on growth performance, survival, non-specific immune response and disease resis-
tance of juvenile large yellow croaker, Larimichthyscrocea. Aquacult 317:155–161
Akhter N, Wu B, Memon AM, Mohsin M (2015) Probiotics and prebiotics associated with aquaculture: a review.
Fish & Shellfish Immunology 45(2):733–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2015.05.038
Akrami R, Iri Y, Rostamy HK, Razeghi Mansour M (2013) Effect of dietary supplementation of fructooligo-
saccharide (FOS) on growth performance, survival, lactobacillous bacteria population and
hematoimmunological parameters of stellate sturgeoan (Acipenser stellatus) juvenile. Fish Shellfish
Immunol 35:1235–1239
Akrami R, Nasri-Tajan M, Jahedi A, Jahedi M, Razeghi Mansour M, Jafarpour SA (2015) Effects of dietary
synbiotic on growth, survival, lactobacillus bacterial count, blood indices and immunity of beluga (Huso
huso Linnaeus, 1754) juvenile. Aquac Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12219
Alexander JB, Ingram GA (1992) Non-cellular nonspecific defense mechanisms of fish. Annu Rev Fish Dis 2:
249–279
Aly SM, Abd-El-Rahman AM, John G, Mohamed FM (2008) Characterization of some bacteria isolated from
Oreochromis niloticus and their potential use as probiotics. Aquaculture 277:1–6
Allameh SK, Yusoff FM, Ringø E, Daud HM, Saad CR, Ideris A (2015) Effects of dietary mono-and
multiprobiotic strains on growth performance, gut bacteria and body composition of Javanese carp
(Puntius gonionotus, Bleeker 1850). Aquac Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12265
Alloui MN, Szczurek W, Świątkiewicz S (2013) The usefulness of prebiotics and probiotics in modern poultry
nutrition: a review. Ann Anim Sci 13(1):17–32. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10220-012-0055-x
Anderson DP, Siwicki AK (1994) Duration of protection against Aeromonas salmonicida in brook trout
immunostimulated with glucan or chitosan by injection or immersion. Prog Fish Cult 56(4):258–261
Austin B, Stuckey LF, Robertson PAW, Effendi I, Griffith DRW (1995) A probiotic strain of Vibrio alginolyticus
effective in reducing diseases caused by Aeromonas salmonicida, Vibrio anguillarum and Vibrio ordalii. J
Fish Dis 18(1):93–96
Ayisi CL, Apraku A, Afriyie G (2017) A review of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in crab: present research,
problems, and future perspective. J Shellfish Res 36(3):799–806. https://doi.org/10.2983/035.036.0329
Azimirad M, Meshkini S, Ahmadifard N, Hoseinifar SH (2016) The effects of feeding with synbiotic
(Pediococcus acidilactici and fructooligosaccharide) enriched adult Artemia on skin mucus immune re-
sponses, stress resistance, intestinal microbiota and performance of angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Fish
Shellfish Immun 54:516–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2016.05.001
Bajagai YS, Klieve AV, Dart PJ, Bryden WL, FAO (2016) In: HPS M, FAO (eds) Probiotics in animal nutrition –
Production, impact and regulation. FAO Animal Production and Health. Paper No. 179, Rome
Balcazar JL, de Blas I, Ruiz-Zazuela I, Cunningham D, Vandrell D, Muzquiz JL (2006) The role of probiotics in
aquaculture. Vet Microbiol 114(3–4):173–186
Balcazar JL, de Blas I, Ruiz-Zarzuela I, Vendrell D, Gironés O, Muzquiz JL (2007) Enhancement of the immune
response and protection induced by probiotic lactic acid bacteria against furunculosis in rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 51(1):185–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695
x.2007.00294.x
Baurhoo B, Letellier A, Zhao X, Ruiz-Feria CC (2007) Cecal populations of lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria and
Escherichia coli populations after in vivo Escherichia coli challenge in birds fed diets with purified lignin or
mannaoligosaccharides. Poult Sci 86:2509–2516
Beck BR, Lee SH, Kim D, Park JH, Lee HK, Kwon SS, Lee KH, Lee JI, Song SK (2017) A Lactococcus lactis
BFE920 feed vaccine expressing a fusion protein composed of the OmpA and FlgD antigens from
Edwardsiella tarda was significantly better at protecting olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) from
edwardsiellosis than single antigen vaccines. Fish Shellfish Immunol 68:19–28
Biagi E, Nylund L, Candela M, Ostan R, Bucci L, Pini E, et al., (2010) Through ageing, and beyond: gut
microbiota and inflammatory status in seniors and centenarians, PloS One 5
Biagi E, Rampelli S, Turroni S, Quercia S, Candela M, Brigidi P (2017) The gut microbiota of centenarians:
signatures of longevity in the gut microbiota profile. Mech Ageing Dev 165:180–184
Boonthai T, Vuthiphandchai V, Nimrat S (2011) Probiotic bacteria effects on growth and bacterial composition of
black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon). Aquac Nutr 17:634–644
Bozkurt M, Aysul N, Kucukyilmaz K, Aypak S, Ege G, Catli AU, Aksit H, Coven F, Seyrek K, Cinar M (2014)
Efficacy of in-feed preparations of an anticoccidial, multienzyme, prebiotic, probiotic, and herbal essential
oil mixture in healthy and Eimeria spp.-infected broilers. Poult Sci 93:389–399
Castillo S, Gatlin DM III (2015) Dietary supplementation of exogenous carbohydrase enzymes in fish nutrition: a
review. Aquaculture 435:286–292
Cerezuela R, Meseguer J, Esteban MA, (2011) Current knowledge in synbiotic use for fish aquaculture. A
review. J Aquacult Res Dev. (S1):008. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.S1-008
Chabrillon M, Rico RM, Arijo S, Diaz-Rosales P, Balebona MC, Morinigo MA (2005) Interactions of
microorganisms isolated from gilthead sea bream, Sparusaurata L., on Vibrio harveyi, a pathogen of farmed
Senegalese sole, Solea senegalensis (Kaup). J Fish Dis 28:531–537
Chang CI, Liu WY (2002) An evaluation of two probiotic bacterial strains, Enterococcus faecium SF68 and
Bacillus toyoi, for reducing edwardsiellosis in cultured European eel, Anguilla anguilla L. J Fish Dis 25(5):
311–315
Chi C, Jiang B, Yu XB, Liu TQ, Xia L, Wang GX (2014) Effects of three strains of intestinal autochthonous
bacteria and their extracellular products on the immune response and disease resistance of common carp,
Cyprinus carpio. Fish Shellfish Immunol 36:9–18
Chiu CH, Guu YK, Liu CH, Pan TM, Cheng W (2007) Immune responses and gene expression in white shrimp,
Litopenaeus vannamei, induced by Lactobacillus plantarum. Fish Shellfish Immun 23:364–377. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fsi.2006.11.010
Collins MD, Gibson GR (1999) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the microbial
ecology of the gut. Am J Clin Nutr 69:1052–1057
Cruz PM, Ibanez AL, Hermosillo OAM, Saad HCR, (2012) Use of probiotic in aquaculture. ISRN Microbiol 1-
13. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/916845
Dalmin G, Kathiresan K, Purushothaman A (2001) Effect of probiotics on bacterial population and health status
of shrimp in culture pond ecosystem. Indian J Exp Biol 39:939–942
Das S, Mondal K, Haque S (2017) A review on application of probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic for sustainable
development of aquaculture. J Entomol Zool Stud 5(2):422–429
Dawood MAO, Koshio S (2016) Recent advances in the role of probiotics and prebiotics in carp aquaculture: a
review. Aquaculture 454:243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.12.033
Dehaghani PG, Baboli MJ, Moghadam AT, Ziaei-Nejad S, Pourfarhadi M (2015) Effect of synbiotic dietary
supplementation on survival, growth performance and digestive enzyme activities on common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) fingerlings. Czech J Anim Sci 60:224–232
Denev SA, (2008) Ecological alternatives of antibiotic growth promoters in the animal husbandry and aquacul-
ture, DSc. Thesis, Department of Biochemistry Microbiology, Trakia University, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria,
Denev S, Staykov Y, Moutafchieva R, Beev G (2009) Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract of fish and
the potential application of probiotics and prebiotics in finfish aquaculture. Int Aquat Res 1:1–29
Dhanaraj M, Haniffa MA, Singh SA, Arockiaraj AJ, Ramakrishanan CM, Seetharaman S, Arthimanju R (2010)
Effect of probiotics on growth performance of koi carp (Cyprinus carpio). J Appl Aquac 22:202–209
Dhanasekaran D, Saha S, Thajuddin N, Panneerselvam A (2008) Probioticeffect of Lactobacillus isolates against
bacterial pathogens in Clarias orientalis. Med Biol 15(3):97102
Dhanasiri AKS, Brunvold L, Brinchmann MF, Korenes K, Berigh Ø, Kiron V (2011) Changes in the intestinal
microbiota of wild Atlantic cod Gadus morhua L. upon captive rearing. Microb Ecol 61:20–30
Di Cesare A, Vignaroli C, Luna GM, Pasquaroli S, Biavasco F (2012) Antibiotic-resistant enterococci in seawater
and sediments from a coastal fish farm. Microb Drug Resist 18:502–509
Dimitroglou A, Merrifield DL, Carnevali O, Picchietti S, Avella MA, Daniels CL, Güroy D, Davies S (2011)
Microbial manipulations to improve fish health and production d a Mediterranean perspective. Fish Shellfish
Immunol 30:1–16
Dohail A, Abdullah M, Roshada H, Aliyu M (2009) Effects of the probiotic, Lactobacillus acidophilus, on the
growth performance, haematology parameters and immunoglobulin concentration in African catfish (Clarias
gariepinus, Burchell 1822) fingerling. Aquac Res 40(14):1642–1652
Dong C, Wang J (2013) Immunostimulatory effects of dietary fructooligosaccharides on red swamp crayfish,
Procambarus clarkii (Girard). Aquac Res 44:1416–1424
Ebrahimi GH, Ouraji H, Khalesi MK, Sudagar M, Barari A, Zarei Dangesaraki M, Jani Khalili KH (2012)
Effects of a prebiotic, Immunogen®, on feed utilization, body composition, immunity and resistance to
Aeromonas hydrophila infection in the common carp Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus) fingerlings. J Anim
Physiol Anim Nutr 96:591–599
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, (2001) Health and
nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, (2002) Joint FAO/
WHO working group report on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food
Fuller R (1987) A review, probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol 66:365–378
Galli C, Calder PC (2009) Effects of fat and fatty acid intake on inflammatory and immune responses. A critical
review. Ann Nutr Metab 55:123–139
Ganguly S, Paul I, Mukhopadhayay SK (2010) Application and effectiveness of immunostimulants, probiotics,
and prebiotics in aquaculture: a review. Isr J Aquacult Bamidgeh 62:130–138
Ganguly S, Dora KC, Sarkar S, Chowdhury S (2013) Supplementation of prebiotics in fish feed: a review. Rev
Fish Biol Fish 23:195–199
Gatesoupe FJ (1999) The use of probiotics in aquaculture. Aquaculture 180:147–165
Gatlin DM III (2015) Prebiotics. Dietary nutrients, additives, and fish health. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, pp 271–281
Geng X, Dong XH, Tan BP, Yang QH, Chi SY (2011) Effects of dietary chitosan and Bacillus subtilison the
growth performance, non-specific immunity and disease resistance of cobia, Rachycentron canadum. Fish
Shellfish Immunol 31:400–406
Geovanny DGR, Balcázar JL, Ma S (2007) Probiotics as control agents in aquaculture. J Ocean Univ China 6(1):
76–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-007-0076-8
Geralylou Z, Souffreau C, Rurangwa E, D’Hondt S, Calleweart L, Caurtin CM et al (2012) Effect of
arabinoxylanoligosaccharide (AXOS) on juvenile Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) performance, im-
mune responses and gastrointestinal microbial community. Fish Shellfish Immunol 33:718–724
Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB (1995) Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the
concept of prebiotics. J Nutr 125:1401–1412
Gibson LF (1999) Bacteriocin activity and probiotic activity of Aeromonas media. J Appl Microbiol 85:243248
Goethe R, Phi-van L (1998) Posttranscriptional lipopolysaccharide regulation of the lysozyme gene at processing
of the primary transcript in myelomonocytic HD11 cells. J Immunol 160:4970–4978
Gram L, Melchiorsen J, Spanggaard B, Huber I, Nielsen TF (1999) Inhibition of Vibrio anguillarum by
Pseudomonas fluorescens AH2, a possible probiotic treatment of fish. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(3):969–
973
Grisdale-Helland B, Helland SJ, Gatlin DM III (2008) The effects of dietary supplementation with
mannanoligosacccharide, fructooligosaccharide or galactooligosaccharide on the growth and feed utilization
of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquacult. 283:163–167
Guo X, Chen DD, Peng KS, Cui ZW, Zhang XJ, Li S, Zhang YA (2016) Identification and characterization of
Bacillus subtilis from grass carp (Ctenopharynodon idellus) for use as probiotic additives in aquatic feed.
Fish Shellfish Immunol 52:74–84
Hai NV (2015) The use of probiotics in aquaculture. J Appl Microbiol 119(4):917–935. https://doi.org/10.1111
/jam.12886
Hai NV, Buller N, Fotedar R (2010) Effect of customized probiotics on the physiological and immunological
responses of juvenile western king prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye, 1896) challenged with Vibrio
harveyi. J Appl Aquac 22:321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2010.527580
Hardy H, Harris J, Lyon E, Beal J, Foey AD (2013) Probiotics, prebiotics and immunomodulation of gut mucosal
defences: homeostasis and immunopathology. Nutrients. 5:1869–1912
Harikrishnan R, Balasundaram C, Heo MS (2010) Potential use of probiotic- and triherbal extract-enriched diets
to control Aeromonas hydrophila infection in carp. Dis Aquat Org 92:41–49
Harris JM (1993) The presence, nature, and role of gut microflora in aquatic invertebrates: a synthesis. Microb
Ecol 25:195–231
Harzeveli ARS, VanDuffel H, Dhert P, Swing J, Sorgeloos P (1998) Use of a potential probiotic Lactococcus
lactis AR21 strain for the enhancement of growth in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis (Muller). Aquac Res
29(6):411–417
Hellio C, Bado-Nilles A, Gagnaire B, Renault T, Thomas-Guyon H (2007) Demonstration of a true
phenoloxidase activity and activation of a ProPO cascade in pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg)
in vitro. Fish Shellfish Immunol 22:433–440
Heo WS, Kim YR, Kim EY, Bai SC, Kong IS (2013) Effects of dietary probiotic, Lactococcus lactissubsp. lactis
I2, supplementation on the growth and immune response of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus).
Aquaculture 376:20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.11.009
Hernandez LHH, Barrera TC, Mejia JC (2010) Effects of the commercial probiotic Lactobacillus casei on the
growth, protein content of skin mucus and stress resistance of juveniles of the Porthole livebearer
Poecilopsis gracilis (Poecilidae). Aquac Nutr 16(4):407–411
Hien VD, Sompong D, Amnuaysilpa S (2015) Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum and Jerusalem artichoke
(Helianthus tuberosus) on growth performance, immunity and disease resistance of Pangasius catfish
(Pangasius bocourti, Sauvage 1880). Aquac Nutr 22(2):444–456
Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S,
Calder PC, Sanders ME (2014) The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics
consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Rev Gastro Hepatol.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
Hoseinifar SH, YZ, Sun Caipang CM, (2017) Short chain fatty acids as feed supplements for sustainable
aquaculture: an updated view Aquac Res 48(4), 1380–1391
Hoseinifar SH, Ringø E, Masouleh AS, Esteban MA (2014) Probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic supplements in
sturgeon aquaculture: a review. Rev Aquac 6:1–14
Hoseinifar SH, Sun YZ, Wang A, Zhou Z (2018) Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, a review
of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front Microbiol 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02429
Huang L, Ran C, He S, Ren P, Hu J, Zhao X, Zhou Z (2015) Effects of dietary Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture
or live cells with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens spores on growth performance, gut mucosal morphology, hsp70
gene expression, and disease resistance of juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquaculture 438:33–38
Ibrahem MD, Fathi M, Meslhy M, El-Aty AMA (2010) Effect of dietary supplementation of inulin and vitamin C
on the growth hematology, innate immunity and resistance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish
Irianto A, Austin B (2002a) Probiotics in aquaculture. J Fish Dis 25:633–642
Irianto A, Austin B (2002b) Use of probiotics to control furunculosis in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss
(Walbaum). J Fish Dis 25:333–342
Irianto A, Austin B (2003) Use of dead probiotic cells to control furunculosis in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss (Walbaum). J Fish Dis 26(1):59–62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2761.2003.00414.x
Kim DH, Austin B (2006a) Cytokine expression in leucocytes and gut cells of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss Walbaum, induced by probiotics. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 114:297–304
Kim DH, Austin B (2006b) Innate immune responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)
induced by probiotics. Fish Shellfish Immunol 21:513–524
Kim GB, Seo YM, Kim CH, Paik IK (2011) Effect of dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance,
intestinal microflora, and immune response of broilers. Poult Sci 90:75–82
Korkea-aho TL, Papadopoulou A, Heikkinen J, von Wright A, Adams A, Austin B, Thompson KD (2012)
Pseudomonas M162 confers protection against rainbow trout fry syndrome by stimulating immunity. J Appl
Microbiol 113:24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05325.x
Kumar R, Mukherjee SC, Ranjan R, Nayak SK (2008) Enhanced innate immune parameters in Labeo rohita
(Ham.) following oral administration of Bacillus subtilis. Fish Shellfish Immunol 24:168–172
Lakshmi B, Viswanath B, Sai Gopal DVR (2013) Probiotics as antiviral agents in aquaculture. Journal of
Pathogens:1–13
Laranja JL, Amar QE, Ludevese-Pascual C, Niu GL, Geaga Y, De Schryver MJ, Bossier P (2017) A probiotic
Bacillus strain containing amorphous poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) stimulates the innate immune
response of Penaeus monodon postlarvae. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 68:202–210. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fsi.2017.07.023
Lategan MJ, Booth W, Shimmon R, Gibson LF (2006) An inhibitory substance produced by Aeromonas media
A199, an aquatic probiotic. Aquaculture. 254:115124
Lavergne T, (2017) Prebiotics and probiotics: what’s the difference?. Sioux Nation Ag Center Poultry Publication
Lazado CC, Caipang CM A, Brinchmann MF, Kiron V, (2011) In vitro adherence of two candidate probiotics
from Atlantic cod and their interference with the adhesion of two pathogenic bacteria Vet Microbiol 148,
252–259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.08.024
Lin S, Guan Y, Luo L, Pan Y (2012) Effects of dietary chitosan oligosaccharides and Bacillus coagulans on
growth, innate immunity and resistance of koi (Cyprinus carpio koi). Aquacult. 342-343:36–41
Liu H, Wang S, Cai Y, Guo X, Cao Z, Zhang Y, Liu S, Yuan W, Zhu W, Zheng Y, Xie Z, Guo W, Zhou Y (2017)
Dietary administration of Bacillus subtilis HAINUP40 enhances growth, digestive enzyme activities, innate
immune responses and disease resistance of tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Shellfish Immunol 60:326–
333
Luis-Villaseñor IE, Macías-Rodríguez ME, Gómez-Gil B, Ascencio-Valle F, Campa-Córdova ÁI (2011)
Beneficial effects of four Bacillus strains on the larval cultivation of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture
321:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.08.036
Ma GW, Cho YS, Oh KH (2009) Removal of pathogenic bacteria and nitrogen by Lactobacillus spp. JK-8-JK-
11. Aquacult. 287:266–270
Mahdhi A, Kamoun F, Messina C, Santulli A, Bakhrouf A (2012) Probiotic properties of Brevibacillus brevis and
its influence on sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larval rearing. Afr J Microbiol Res 6:6487–6495. https://doi.
org/10.5897/AJMR12.1201
Martínez Cruz P, Ibáñez AL, Monroy Hermosillo OA, Ramírez Saad HC, (2012) Use of probiotics in aquaculture
ISRN Microbiology, 2012, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/916845
Mehrabi Z, Firouzbakhsh F, Jafarpour A (2012) Effects of dietary supplementation of synbiotic on growth
performance, serum biochemical parameters and carcass composition in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) fingerlings. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 96:474–481
Merrifield DL, Dimitroglou A, Foey A, Davies SJ, Baker RTM, Bøgwald J, Castex M, Ringø E (2010) The
current status and future focus of probiotic and prebiotic applications for salmonids. Aquaculture 302:1–18
Michael ET, Amos SO, Hussaini LT (2014) A review on probiotics application in aquaculture. Fish Aquac J 5:4
Modanloo M, Soltanian S, Akhlaghi M, Hoseinifar SH, (2017) The effects of single or combined administration
of galactooligosaccharide and Pediococcus acidilactici on cutaneous mucus immune parameters, humoral
immune responses and immune related genes expression in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fingerlings Fish
Shellfish Immun 70, 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2017.09.032
Moosavi-Nasab M, Abedi E, Moosavi-Nasab S, Eskandari MH (2014) Inhibitory effect of isolated lactic acid
bacteria from Scomberomorus commerson intestines and their bacteriocin on Listeria innocua. Iran Agricult
Res 33(1):4352
Moriarty DJW, (1998) Control of luminous vibrio species in penaeid aquaculture ponds Aquacult. 164(1–4),
351–358
Mpurino JLP, Do Nascimento Vieira F, Jatoba AB, Da Silva BC, Jesus GFA, Seiffert WQ et al. (2012) Effect of
dietary supplementation of inulin and W. cibaria on hematoimmunological parameters of hybrid surubim
(Pseudoplatystoma sp) Aquac Nutr 18:73–80
Nayak SK, (2010) Probiotics and immunity: fish perspectives Fish Shellfish Immunol 29: 2–14
Nayak SK, Swain P, Mukherjee SC, (2007) Effect of dietary supplementation of probiotic and vitamin C on the
immune response of Indian major carp, Labeo rohita (Ham) Fish Shellfish Immunol. 23 892-896
Nekoubin H, Gharedaashi E, Imanpour MR, Nowferesti H, Asgharimoghadam A (2012) The influence of
synbiotic (Biomin imbo) on growth factors and survival rate of zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae via supple-
mentation with biomar. Glob Vet 8:503–506
Newaj-Fyzul A, Al-Harbi AH, Austin B (2014) Review: developments in the use of probiotics for disease control
in aquaculture. Aquaculture 431:1–11
Ngan PTT, Phu TQ, (2011) Effects of Bacillus bacteria (B8, B37, B38) on water quality of black tiger shrimp
(Penaeus monodon) cultured tanks. Proceedings of the 4th aquaculture and fisheries conference, 28-41
Nguyen TL, Park CI, Kim DH (2017) Improved growth rate and disease resistance in olive flounder, Paralichthys
olivaceus, by probiotic Lactococcus lactis WFLU12 isolated from wild marine fish. Aquaculture 471:113–
120
Nicolas JL, Gatesoupe F-J, Froueli S, Bachere E, Gueguen Y (2007) Quelles strategies alternatives aux
antibiotiques en aquaculture? INRA Prod. Anim. 20:253–258
Nimrat S, Vuthiphandchai V (2011) In vitro evaluation of commercial probiotic products used for marine shrimp
cultivation in Thailand. Afr J Biotechnol 10:4643–4650
Panigrahi A, Azad IS (2007) Microbial intervention for better fish health in aquaculture: the Indian scenario. Fish
Physiol Biochem 33:429440
Parker RB (1974) Probiotics: the other half of the antibiotic story. Anim Nutr Health 29:4–8
Patterson JA, Burkholder KM (2003) Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult Sci 82:
627–631
Queiroz JF, Boyd CE (1998) Effects of a bacterial inoculum in channel catfish ponds. J World Aquacult Soc
29(1):67–73
Rahiman M, Yousuf J, Ambat T, Hatha M (2010) Probiotic effect of Bacillus NL110 and Vibrio NE17 on the
survival, growth performance and immune response of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man). Aquac Res
41(9):120–134
Raja S, Nandhini E, Sahana K, Dhanakkodi B (2015) Beneficial and destructive effects of probiotics in
aquaculture systems—a review. Int J Fish Aquat Stud 2(3):153–159
Refstie S, Baeverfjord G, Seim RR, Elvebo O (2010) Effects of dietary yeast cell wall β-glucans and MOS on
performance, gut health, and salmon lice resistance in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fed sunflower and
soybean meal. Aquacult. 305:109–116
Rengpipat S, Phianphak W, Piyatiratitivorakul S, Menasveta P (1998) Effects of a probiotic bacterium on black
tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon survival and growth. Aquaculture 167:301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0044-8486(98)00305-6
Rengpipat S, Rukpratanporn S, Priyatiratitivorakul S, Menasaveta P (2000) Immunity enhancement in black tiger
shrimp (Penaeus monodon) by probiotic bacterium (Bacillus S11). Aquacult. 191:271–288
Ridha MT, Azad IS (2012) Preliminary evaluation of growth performance and immune response of Nile tilapia
Oreochromis niloticus supplemented with two putative probiotic bacteria. Aquac Res 43:843–852
Ringø E, Olsen RE, Gifstad TØ, Dalmo RA, Amlund H, Hemre GI, Bakken AM (2010) Probiotics in
aquaculture: a review. Aquac Nutr 16(2):117–136
Roberfroid M (2007) Prebiotics: the concept revisited. Effects of probiotics and prebiotics. J Nutr 137(3):830S–
837S
Rodriguez-Estrada U, Satoh S, Haga Y, Fushimi H, Sweetman J (2009) Effects of single and combined
supplementation of Enterococcus faecalis, mannanoligosaccharide and polyhydrobutyric acid on growth
performance and immune response of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquacult Sci 57:609–617
Sahoo PK, Mukherjee SC (1999) Influence of the immunostimulant, chitosan on immune responses of healthy
and cortisol treated rohu (Labeo rohita). J Aquac Tropics 14:209–215
Sakai M (1999) Current research status of fish immunostimulants. Aquaculture 172(1–2):63–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0044-8486(98)00436-0
Sakai M, Yoshida T, Atsuta S, Kobayashi M (1995) Enhancement of resistance to vibriosis in rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), by oral administration of Clostridium butyricumbacterin. J Fish Dis 18:
187–190
Salma W, Zhou Z, Wang W et al (2011) Histological and bacteriological changes in intestine of beluga (Huso
huso) following ex vivo exposure to bacterial strains. Aquaculture 314:24–33
Samrongpan C, Areechon N, Yoonpundh R, Sirsapoome P, (2008) Effect of mannan oligosaccharide on growth,
survival and disease resistance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus) fry. In: 8th international
symposium on tilapia in aquaculture; Cairo, Egypt. 345–353
Sang HM, Fotedar R (2010) Effects of mannan oligosaccharide dietary supplementation on performances of the
tropical spiny lobsters juvenile (Panulirus ornatus, Fabricius 1798). Fish Shellfish Immunol 28(3):483–489
Shishehchian F, Yusoff FM, Shariff M (2001) The effects of commercial bacterial products on macrobenthos
community in shrimp culture ponds. Aquac Int 9(5):429–436
Silva EF, Soares MA, Calazans NF, Vogeley JL, Do Valle BC, Soares R, Peixoto S (2013) Effect of probiotic
(Bacillus spp.) addition during larvae and postlarvae culture of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei.
Aquac Res 44:13–21
Sohail MU, Hume ME, Byrd JA, Nisbet DJ, Ijaz A, Sohail A, Shabbir MZ, Rehman H (2012) Effect of
supplementation of prebiotic mannan-oligosaccharides and probiotic mixture on growth performance of
broilers subjected to chronic heat stress. Poult Sci 91:2235–2240
Soleimani N, Hoseinifar SH, Merrifield DL, Barati M, Abadi ZH (2012) Dietary supplementation of fructool-
igosaccharide (FOS) improves the innate immune response, stress resistance, digestive enzyme activities and
growth performance of Caspian roach (Rutilus rutilus) fry. Fish Shellfish Immunol 32:316–321
Song SK, Beck BR, Kim D, Park J, Kim J, Kim HD, Ringø E (2014) Prebiotics as immunostimulants in
aquaculture: a review. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 40(1):40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2014.06.016
Sorroza L, Padilla D, Acosta F, Roman L, Grasso V, Vega J, Real F (2012a) Characterization of the probiotic
strain Vagococcusfluvialis in the protection of European sea bass (Dicentrarchuslabrax) against vibriosis by
Vibrio anguillarum. Vet Microbiol 155:369–373
Sorroza L, Padilla D, Acosta F, Román L, Grasso V, Vega J, Real F (2012b) Characterization of the probiotic
strain Vagococcus fluvialis in the protection of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) against vibriosis by
Vibrio anguillarum. Vet Microbiol 155:369–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.09.013
Spanggaard B, Huber I, Nielsen J (2001) The probiotic potential against vibriosis of the indigenous microflora of
rainbow trout. Environ Microbiol 3(12):755–765
Stanier RY, Doudoroff M, Adelberg EA (1963) The microbial world. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs. N.J.,
pp 153–156
Sugimura Y, Hagi T, Hoshino T (2011) Correlation between in vitro mucus adhesion and the in vivo colonization
ability of lactic acid bacteria: screening of new candidate carp probiotics. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 75:
511–515. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.100732
Sugita H, Miyajima C, Deguchi H (1991) The vitamin B12-producing ability of the intestinal microflora of
freshwater fish. Aquaculture 92:267–276
Sugita H, Takahashi J, Deguchi H (1992) Production and consumption of biotin by the intestinal microflora of
cultured freshwater fishes. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 56:1678–1679
Sullivan A, Nord CE (2005) Probiotics and gastrointestinal diseases. J Intern Med 257:78–92. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01410.x
Talpur AD, Munir MB, Mary A, Hashim R (2014) Dietary probiotics and prebiotics improved food acceptability,
growth performance, haematology and immunological parameters and disease resistance against Aeromonas
hydrophila in snakehead (Channa striata) fingerlings. Aquaculture 426–427:14–20
Tamminen M, Karkman A, Lõhmus A, Muziasari WI, Takasu H, Wada S, Suzuki S, Virta M (2011) Tetracycline
resistance genes persist at aquaculture farms in the absence of selection pressure. Environ Sci Technol 45:
386–391
ten Doeschate KI, Coyne VE (2008) Improved growth rate in farmed Haliotismidae through probiotic treatment.
Aquaculture 284:174–179
Tinh NTN, Dierckens K, Sorgeloos P, Bossier P (2008) A review of the functionality of probiotics in the
larviculture food chain. Mar Biotechnol 10:1–12
Torrecillas S, Makol A, Benitez-Santana T, Caballero MJ, Montero J, Sweetman J et al (2011) Reduced gut
bacterial translocation in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fed mannan oligosaccharides (MOS).
Fish Shellfish Immunol 30(2):674–681
Truong Thy HT, Tri NN, Quy OM, Fotedar R, Kannika K, Unajak S, Areechon N (2017) Effects of the dietary
supplementation of mixed probiotic spores of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 54A, and Bacillus pumilus 47B on
growth, innate immunity and stress responses of striped catfish ( Pangasianodon hypophthalmus ). Fish &
Shellfish Immunology 60:391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2016.11.016
Tuan TN, Duc PM, Hatai K (2013) Overview of the use of probiotics in aquaculture. Int J Res Fish Aquacult
3(3):89–97
Van Hai N, Fotedar R (2009) Comparison of the effects of the prebiotics (Bio-Mos and β-1, 3-D-glucan) and the
customized probiotics (Pseudomonas synxantha and P. aeruginosa) on the culture of juvenile western king
prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye, 1896). Aquacult. 289:310–316
Vasiljevic T, Shah NP (2008) Probiotics—from Metchnikoff to bioactives. Int Dairy J 18:714–728
Verschuere L, Rombaut G, Sorgeloos P, Verstraete W (2000) Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in
aquaculture. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64:651–671
Vine NG, Leukes WD, Kaiser H (2006) Probiotics in marine larviculture. FEMS Microbiol Rev 30:404–427.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2006.00017.x
Wang Y-B, Li J-R, Lin J (2008) Probiotics in aquaculture: challenges and outlook. Aquaculture 281:1–4
Wang X, Sun Y, Wang L, Li X, Qu K, Xu Y (2017) Synbiotic dietary supplement affects growth, immune
responses and intestinal microbiota of Apostichopus japonicus. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 68:232–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2017.07.027
Wu ZX, Feng X, Xie LL, Peng XY, Yuan J, Chen XX (2012) Effect of probiotic Bacillus subtilis Ch9 for grass
carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844), on growth performance, digestive enzyme activities
and intestinal microflora. J Appl Ichthyol 28:721–727
Xie Z, Guo W, Zhou Y (2017) Dietary administration of Bacillus subtilis HAINUP40 enhances growth, digestive
enzyme activities, innate immune responses and disease resistance of tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Fish
Yan L, Boyd KG, Burgess JG (2002) Surface attachment induced production of antimicrobial compounds by
marine epiphytic bacteria using modified roller bottle cultivation. Mar Biotechnol 4:356–366. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10126-002-0041-x
Yassir AL, Adel ME, Azze A (2002) Use of probiotic bacteria as growth promoters, antibacterial and the effect
on physiological parameters of Oreochromis niloticus. J Fish Dis 25(633):642
Ye JD, Wang K, Li FD, Sun YZ (2011) Single or combined effects of fructo- and mannan oligosaccharide
supplements and Bacillus clausii on the growth, feed utilization, body composition, digestive enzyme
activity, innate immune response and lipid metabolism of the Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus.
Aquac Nutr 17:902–911
Yirga H (2015) The use of probiotics in animal nutrition. J Probiotics and Health 3:132
Zapata AA, Lara-Flores M (2013) Antimicrobial activities of lactic acid bacteria strains isolated from Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) intestine. J Biol Life Sci 4(1):123129
Zhang Q, Ma HM, Mai KS, Zhang WB, Liufu ZQ, Xu W (2010) Interaction of dietary Bacillus subtilis and
fructooligosaccharide on the growth performance, non-specific immunity of sea cucumber (Apostichopus
japonicas). Fish Shellfish Immunol 29:204–211
Zhang CN, Li XF, Xu WN, Jiang GZ, Lu KI, Wang LN et al (2012a) Combined effects of fructooligosaccharide
and Bacillus licheniformis on innate immunity, antioxidant capability and disease resistance triangular bream
(Megalobrama terminalis). Fish Shellfish Immunol 32(2):316–321
Zhang S, Sing Y, Long M, Wei Z (2012b) Does dietary administration of Lactococcus lactis modulate the gut
microbiota of grouper, Epinephelus coioides. J World Aquacult Soc 43(2):198–207
Zhou QC, Buentello JA, Galtin DM III (2010) Effects of dietary prebiotics on growth performance, immune
response and intestinal morphology of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Aquacult. 309:253–257
Zokaeifar H, Balcázar JL, Saad CR, Kamarudin MS, Sijam K, Arshad A et al (2012) Effects of Bacillus subtilis
on the growth performance, digestive enzymes, immune gene expression and disease resistance of white
shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Fish Shellfish Immun 33:683–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2012.05.027
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Affiliations
Eric Amenyogbe 1,2 & Gang Chen 1,2 & Zhongliang Wang 1,2 & JianSheng Huang 1,2 &
Baosong Huang 1,2 & Hongjuan Li 1,2
1
College of Fisheries, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang 524025, China
2
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Aquaculture in the South China Sea for Aquatic Economic
Animal of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Laboratory of Fish Aquaculture, Zhanjiang 524025,
China

The Exploitation of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Exploitation of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquaculture International (2020) 28:1017–1041

The exploitation of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics

Keywords Probiotics . Prebiotics . Synbiotics . Limitations . Aquaculture . Immunomodulatory

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Prebiotics and probiotic supplementation in aquaculture

Differences between prebiotics and probiotics and their sources

Importance of the synbiotics in aquaculture industry

The synbiotics could be administered by means of the supplementation or peripheral bathing to

Manner of operations on disease resistance

The indications on growth performance of probiotics

Bacillus sp. amorphous poly-

Synbiotic (probiotic/prebiotic) Aquatic organisms Reference

Enterococcus faecalis/MOS, PHB Oncorhynchus mykiss Rodriguez-Estrada et al. (2009)

MOS, mannanoligosaccharide; FOS, fructooligosaccharide; PHB, polyhydroxybutyrate acid

Diseases control and water quality improvement

Enhancement of the immune reaction and immunomodulatory influences

Production of inhibitory substance

Beneficiary microorganisms produce an ingredient that has bacteriostatic impact on other

lumen’s acidic condition, thereby preventing the development of pathogenic microorganisms.

Limitations in the administration of probiotic, prebiotic and symbiotic in aquaculture

Protection and supervisory concerns

Conclusion and future directions

An appreciative use of the understanding of the effectiveness of exogenous enzymes

Authors’ contributions All authors contributed equally to this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

You might also like