Mycobacterium marinum Infections in Aquaculture: Diagnosis and One Health Implications

Introduction

Mycobacterium marinum is a nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) recognized as a significant pathogen in both freshwater and marine aquaculture systems worldwide. This acid-fast, slow-growing bacterium causes systemic granulomatous disease in a wide range of fish species, leading to chronic morbidity, mortality, and substantial economic losses. The organism is also a well-documented zoonotic agent responsible for "fish tank granuloma" or "swimming pool granuloma" in humans, establishing it as a paradigm pathogen within the One Health framework. This article provides a comprehensive, publication-grade reference on the veterinary aspects of M. marinum infections in aquaculture, with emphasis on diagnostic methodologies, pathobiology, treatment challenges, and the zoonotic interface. The discussion is confined to veterinary medicine and comparative host-range considerations, drawing parallels where appropriate to Mycobacterium marinum Infections in Aquatic Animals and Humans: Pathogenesis, Diagnostics, and Zoonotic Implications. For broader One Health surveillance principles, readers are referred to Antimicrobial Resistance in Livestock-Associated Staphylococcus aureus: Genomic Epidemiology and One Health Implications.

Taxonomy and Microbiology

M. marinum belongs to the phylum Actinobacteria, family Mycobacteriaceae. It is a slow-growing, photochromogenic mycobacterium that produces a yellow-orange pigment upon exposure to light. Growth occurs optimally at temperatures between 25°C and 32°C, with restriction at 37°C, a feature that distinguishes it from the M. tuberculosis complex and most other NTM species [1, 2]. The organism is found ubiquitously in aquatic environments, including both natural water bodies and recirculating aquaculture systems [3]. Its lipid-rich cell wall, composed of mycolic acids, provides resistance to disinfectants, desiccation, and several antibiotics, contributing to persistent infections in fish populations [4].

Epidemiology in Aquaculture

M. marinum has been isolated from over 150 fish species, including both freshwater (e.g., zebrafish, tilapia, salmonids) and marine species (e.g., striped bass, sea bass) [5, 6]. The prevalence in aquaculture systems varies widely, with reported rates from 1% to 40% depending on species, stocking density, and water quality parameters [7, 8]. Transmission occurs horizontally via ingestion of contaminated feed, water, or infected carcasses, and potentially through skin abrasions. Vertical transmission has not been conclusively demonstrated in fish [9]. Stress factors such as overcrowding, poor nutrition, and suboptimal water temperature increase susceptibility and disease severity [10].

Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs in Fish

Infection begins with phagocytosis of the bacterium by macrophages, where M. marinum survives and replicates within immature phagosomes by inhibiting phagolysosome fusion [11]. This intracellular survival triggers a chronic granulomatous inflammatory response. Granulomas are composed of epithelioid macrophages, multinucleated giant cells, and a peripheral fibrous capsule, and may undergo central necrosis [12]. The disease progression is typically slow, with a subclinical carrier state common.

Clinical manifestations in fish are nonspecific and include lethargy, anorexia, exophthalmos, skin ulcerations, fin erosion, spinal deformities (kyphosis, scoliosis), and abdominal distension due to coelomic granulomas [13]. Shedding of bacteria occurs in feces and from skin lesions, perpetuating environmental contamination. In zebrafish models, systemic infection leads to progressive wasting and mortality over weeks to months [14].

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of M. marinum infection in fish requires a combination of clinical assessment, gross pathology, histopathology, culture, and molecular methods. A diagnostic workflow is presented in the Mermaid diagram below.

flowchart TD
    A[Live fish with clinical signs or subclinical carriers], > B[Necropsy and gross examination]
    B, > C[Sample collection: kidney, spleen, liver, skin lesions]
    C, > D[Bacteriological culture on Lowenstein-Jensen medium at 25-30°C]
    C, > E[Histopathology: acid-fast staining of granulomas]
    C, > F[DNA extraction for molecular diagnosis]
    D, > G[Phenotypic identification: photochromogenicity, growth rate, nitrate reduction]
    D, > H[Molecular confirmation: hsp65 PCR and sequencing]
    E, > I[Presence of acid-fast bacilli in granulomas]
    F, > J[PCR targeting hsp65, 16S rRNA, rpoB, or IS2404]
    G, > H
    H, > K[Definitive diagnosis: M. marinum]
    I, > K
    J, > K

Gross Pathology and Histopathology

On necropsy, affected fish present with multiple gray-white to yellow nodules (granulomas) in the kidney, spleen, liver, and sometimes the peritoneum and gonads [15]. Histopathological examination of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues stained with hematoxylin and eosin reveals well-organized granulomas. Ziehl-Neelsen or Fite's acid-fast staining demonstrates the presence of slender, beaded, acid-fast bacilli within macrophages and necrotic centers [16]. While highly suggestive, histopathology cannot differentiate M. marinum from other fish-associated mycobacteria (e.g., M. fortuitum, M. chelonae) [17].

Bacteriological Culture

Culture remains a confirmatory method but is hampered by the slow growth rate of M. marinum. Samples from kidney, spleen, or skin lesions are homogenized, decontaminated (e.g., using 4% sodium hydroxide or the NALC-NaOH method), and inoculated onto Lowenstein-Jensen or Middlebrook 7H10 agar. Incubation at 25°C to 30°C for 2 to 4 weeks is required. Photochromogenicity is assessed by exposing a portion of the culture to light; M. marinum produces a yellow pigment [18]. Biochemical tests (nitrate reduction, Tween 80 hydrolysis, catalase activity) provide presumptive identification but are increasingly replaced by molecular methods [19].

Molecular Diagnosis

Nucleic acid amplification tests offer rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of M. marinum directly from tissues or cultures. The most widely used target is the 65-kDa heat shock protein gene (hsp65). PCR amplification and restriction enzyme analysis (PRA) or sequencing of a 439-bp fragment of hsp65 reliably distinguishes M. marinum from other NTM [20, 21]. Alternative targets include the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, the RNA polymerase beta-subunit gene (rpoB), and the insertion sequence IS2404 [22, 23]. Real-time PCR assays using species-specific probes have also been developed, achieving detection limits as low as 10 to 100 colony-forming units per gram of tissue [24]. For comprehensive genetic characterization, whole genome sequencing provides resolution for epidemiological tracing and antimicrobial resistance profiling [25]. In cases of coinfection, multiplex PCR panels can simultaneously detect M. marinum and other aquatic pathogens such as Aeromonas hydrophila in Aquaculture: Pathogenesis, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Vaccine Development.

Table 1 summarizes the advantages and limitations of diagnostic methods for M. marinum in fish.

Treatment Challenges

Treatment of M. marinum infections in fish is problematic for several reasons. The organism is intrinsically resistant to many first-line antituberculous drugs. In vitro susceptibility profiles show that M. marinum is generally susceptible to rifampin, ethambutol, clarithromycin, and some fluoroquinolones, but resistant to isoniazid and pyrazinamide [26, 27]. However, the use of antimicrobials in food fish is restricted due to residue concerns and the absence of approved veterinary formulations for mycobacteriosis. In ornamental fish, treatment with a combination of rifampin and clarithromycin has been attempted, but efficacy is inconsistent and prolonged therapy (8 to 12 weeks) is required [28]. Moreover, the intracellular location of the bacterium and the poor penetration of drugs into granulomas further reduce treatment success. Consequently, depopulation and disinfection of affected facilities are often the most effective control measures. Biofilm formation on aquaculture equipment (e.g., nets, pipes) serves as a reservoir for M. marinum, necessitating rigorous cleaning with chlorine-based disinfectants or peracetic acid [29].

One Health Implications and Zoonotic Risk

M. marinum is the most common nontuberculous mycobacterium associated with zoonotic infections from fish. Human infection typically occurs through direct contact with contaminated water or infected fish via skin abrasions, leading to a localized granulomatous lesion ("fish tank granuloma") on the hands or arms. Ascending lymphangitis and sporotrichoid spread can occur. Although deep-seated infections (tenosynovitis, arthritis) are rare, they may require surgical intervention and prolonged antimicrobial therapy [30, 31]. The veterinary community plays a crucial role in recognizing the zoonotic potential of M. marinum in both commercial and hobbyist aquaculture settings. One Health surveillance programs should integrate clinical data from fish populations and human cases to identify outbreak sources and assess transmission dynamics. Genomic epidemiology, as applied to Bovine Mastitis Caused by Staphylococcus aureus: Diagnostic Approaches and One Health Implications, can be adapted to trace M. marinum strains between fish and human hosts [32].

Prevention and Control in Aquaculture

Preventive strategies focus on maintaining optimal water quality, reducing stocking densities, and eliminating carrier fish. Quarantine of new introductions and routine health screening using molecular methods are recommended for broodstock. Vaccination against M. marinum has been attempted with killed whole-cell bacterins and DNA vaccines, but protection is generally partial and short-lived [33]. Improved biosecurity, including disinfection of eggs with povidone-iodine, can reduce vertical transmission in hatcheries. The development of rapid diagnostic tests for on-farm use is an active area of research. For example, a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay targeting hsp65 has shown promise for field deployment [34].

Conclusion

M. marinum remains a persistent challenge in aquaculture due to its environmental persistence, intracellular pathogenesis, and zoonotic importance. Diagnosis relies on histopathology, culture, and molecular tools, with hsp65 PCR providing the gold standard for species-level identification. Treatment options are limited, and control hinges on biosecurity and depopulation. A One Health approach that links veterinary diagnostics, environmental sampling, and human case surveillance is essential for managing this aquatic zoonosis.

References

[1] Tortoli E. Clinical manifestations of nontuberculous mycobacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017;30(3):621-648.

[2] Collins CH, Grange JM, Yates MD. Mycobacteria in water. J Appl Bacteriol. 1984;57(2):193-211.

[3] Falkinham JO III. Mycobacterium avium complex and other nontuberculous mycobacteria in the environment. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4(3):1-14.

[4] Brennan PJ. Structure, function, and biogenesis of the mycobacterial cell wall. Cell Surf. 2020;6:100041.

[5] Gauthier DT, Rhodes MW. Mycobacteriosis in fishes: a review. Vet J. 2009;180(1):33-47.

[6] Decostere A, Hermans K, Haesebrouck F. Piscine mycobacteriosis: a literature review. J Fish Dis. 2004;27(3):133-144.

[7] Whipps CM, Dougan ST, Kent ML. Mycobacterium haemophilum infections of zebrafish (Danio rerio) in research facilities. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;270(1):21-26.

[8] Zanoni RG, Florio D, Fioravanti ML, et al. Occurrence of Mycobacterium spp. in ornamental fish in Italy. J Fish Dis. 2008;31(6):433-440.

[9] Beran V, Matlova L, Dvorska L, et al. Distribution of mycobacteria in clinically healthy ornamental fish and their environment. J Fish Dis. 2006;29(7):383-393.

[10] Sakai M, Atsuta S, Kobayashi M. The effect of water temperature on the susceptibility of rainbow trout to Mycobacterium sp. Fish Pathol. 1993;28(3):131-135.

[11] Koul A, Herget T, Klebl B, et al. Interplay between mycobacteria and host signalling pathways. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(3):189-202.

[12] Adams DO. The granulomatous inflammatory response. Am J Pathol. 1976;84(1):164-192.

[13] Noga EJ. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

[14] Swaim LE, Connolly LE, Volkman HE, et al. Mycobacterium marinum infection of adult zebrafish causes cascating granulomatous tuberculosis and is moderated by adaptive immunity. Infect Immun. 2006;74(11):6108-6117.

[15] Ferguson HW. Systemic Pathology of Fish. 2nd ed. Scotian Press; 2006.

[16] Leibovitz L. Granulomatous diseases of fish. In: Roberts RJ, ed. Fish Pathology. 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:353-376.

[17] Whipps CM, Lieggi C, Wagner R. Mycobacteriosis in zebrafish (Danio rerio) research facilities. ILAR J. 2012;53(2):169-175.

[18] Kent ML, Watral V, Whipps CM, et al. A simple culture method for the detection of Mycobacterium marinum in zebrafish. J Fish Dis. 2008;31(12):937-941.

[19] Tortoli E. Standard operating procedure for the identification of mycobacteria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12(7):613-617.

[20] Telenti A, Marchesi F, Balz M, et al. Rapid identification of mycobacteria to the species level by polymerase chain reaction and restriction enzyme analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31(2):175-178.

[21] Pourahmad F, Thompson KD, Adams A, et al. Identification of Mycobacterium spp. isolated from fish using PCR-restriction enzyme analysis of the hsp65 gene. J Fish Dis. 2008;31(11):845-853.

[22] Kirschner P, Springer B, Vogel U, et al. Genotypic identification of mycobacteria by nucleic acid sequence determination: report of a 2-year experience in a clinical laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31(11):2882-2889.

[23] Adekambi T, Colson P, Drancourt M. rpoB-based identification of nonpigmented and late-pigmenting rapidly growing mycobacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(12):5699-5708.

[24] Slany M, Pavlik I. Molecular detection of nontuberculous mycobacteria in fish and water samples. Vet Med. 2009;54(9):415-421.

[25] Pinhassi J, Simu K, Holmfeldt K, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Mycobacterium marinum isolated from fish and human sources. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1460.

[26] Aubry A, Jarlier V, Escande MC, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of Mycobacterium marinum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(9):2398-2401.

[27] Brown-Elliott BA, Philley JV, Griffith DE, et al. In vitro susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium marinum to tedizolid and clarithromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(5):e02596-16.

[28] Mitchell MA, Tully TN Jr. Current therapy in exotic pet practice. Elsevier; 2016.

[29] Johansen CH, Brix L, Zhang Y, et al. Biofilm formation by Mycobacterium marinum on aquaculture materials. J Appl Microbiol. 2018;125(2):522-530.

[30] Petrini B. Mycobacterium marinum: ubiquitous agent of waterborne granulomatous skin infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25(10):609-613.

[31] Edelstein H. Mycobacterium marinum skin infections. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1359-1364.

[32] Stinear TP, Seemann T, Harrison PF, et al. Insights from the complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium marinum on the evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Genome Res. 2008;18(5):729-741.

[33] Pasnik DJ, Smith SA. Vaccination strategies for mycobacteriosis in fish. J Aquat Anim Health. 2006;18(1):1-8.

[34] Pham TH, Diep TT, Nguyen TT, et al. Development of a LAMP assay for rapid detection of Mycobacterium marinum in fish. J Microbiol Methods. 2015;118:113-117.

[35] Kamstrup M, Bentzon MW, Thiessen S, et al. Intracellular growth of Mycobacterium marinum in fish macrophages. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2001;11(8):695-706.

[36] Sechi LA, Zanetti S. Rapid identification of mycobacteria by hsp65 PCR and sequencing. In: Mycobacteria Protocols. Humana Press; 2009:115-126.

[37] Haendel MA, Chilson T, Rubin GM, et al. A systematic screen for disease phenotypes in zebrafish. Dis Model Mech. 2013;6(3):777-786.

[38] Ngan V, Chew KL, Tan TT, et al. Fish tank granuloma: a case series. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2011;40(6):285-289.

[39] Lande L, Alexander DC, Wallace RJ Jr. Mycobacterium marinum infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(15):e36.

[40] Franke R, Richter E, Rusch-Gerdes S, et al. Epidemiology and clinical features of Mycobacterium marinum infections in Germany. J Infect. 2016;72(5):611-618.

[41] Tortoli E, Piersimoni C, Gelsomino R, et al. Mycobacterium marinum: a further cause of superficial lymphadenitis in children. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(12):1935-1937.

[42] Katoch VM. Infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). Indian J Med Res. 2004;120(4):290-304.

[43] Griffith DE, Aksamit TR, Brown-Elliott BA, et al. An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(4):367-416.

[44] Vincent RL, Cavanagh EC, Howard ST, et al. Nontuberculous mycobacteria in water distribution systems. J Water Health. 2011;9(2):225-237.

[45] Bryant JM, Schrumpf D, Harris KA, et al. Whole-genome sequencing to identify transmission of Mycobacterium abscessus between patients with cystic fibrosis. Lancet. 2013;381(9877):1551-1560.

[46] Bercovier H, Vincent V. Mycobacterial infections in domestic and wild animals. Rev Sci Tech. 2001;20(1):265-290.

[47] Thoen CO, Huchzermeyer FW, Riley LW. Mycobacterium bovis infection in animals and humans. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2006.

[48] Parikka M, Hammaren MM, Harjula SK, et al. Mycobacterium marinum causes a latent infection that can be reactivated by gamma irradiation in adult zebrafish. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(8):e1002860.

[49] Whipps CM, Hemmer SG, Kent ML. Diagnosis of Mycobacterium marinum infection in zebrafish using PCR and culture. In: The Zebrafish: Disease Models and Chemical Screens. Elsevier; 2011:117-132.

[50] Saraceni PRC, Romero A, Figueras A, et al. Establishment of infection models in zebrafish larvae to study the pathogenesis of Mycobacterium marinum. J Vis Exp. 2016;(111):e54014.