Piscirickettsia salmonis: A Comprehensive Reference on the Etiology, Pathogenesis, and Control of Salmonid Rickettsial Septicemia

Piscirickettsia salmonis is a Gram-negative, facultative intracellular gammaproteobacterium that causes salmonid rickettsial septicemia (SRS), also known as piscirickettsiosis, a devastating disease in farmed salmonids, particularly in Chile [1, 2]. The bacterium was first described in the 1980s and remains the leading infectious cause of mortality in Chilean salmon aquaculture, generating significant economic losses [3, 4]. P. salmonis infects multiple salmonid species, including Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coho salmon, and has a near-global distribution [5, 2]. The pathogen is fastidious in culture and replicates within host macrophages, features that complicate both laboratory study and disease management [6, 3]. This article provides an exhaustive review of P. salmonis biology, pathogenicity, host interactions, diagnostic approaches, and control strategies, grounded entirely in the peer-reviewed literature allocated for this reference.

Taxonomy and Genomic Diversity

P. salmonis belongs to the class Gammaproteobacteria and the family Piscirickettsiaceae [1, 5]. Comprehensive genome analyses have revealed that the genus Piscirickettsia comprises at least three genetically isolated species, with evidence of continuing speciation [5]. The two genogroups most relevant to salmonid aquaculture are LF-89 and EM-90, which are distinguished by substantial genomic differences [7, 8, 32]. The pan-genome of P. salmonis is open, comprising 14,564 genes across 80 globally sourced strains, with a conserved core genome of 1,257 genes [1]. Mobile genetic elements, particularly transposases, are abundant and active, especially in subgroups undergoing rapid diversification, and are key drivers of gene acquisition and pseudogenization [5]. The genetic diversity among strains is further reflected in the presence of prophage regions and antiphage defense systems. Approximately 70% of chromosomal and 75% of plasmid-encoded sequences harbor prophage regions, with a strong positive correlation between prophage abundance and defense system density in chromosomes [9]. This genomic plasticity underpins variation in virulence and antimicrobial resistance among isolates [1, 5].

Virulence Factors and Pathogenesis

The pathogenic potential of P. salmonis is mediated by a suite of virulence factors, including type IV secretion systems (T4SS), flagellar components, biofilm formation, and exopolysaccharide production [1, 10, 11, 12]. The Icm/Dot T4SS is essential for bacterial survival and replication inside vacuoles within host macrophages, and its substrate SdhA has been characterized as critical for maintaining vacuolar membrane integrity during early infection [10]. SdhA expression occurs at both transcript and protein levels shortly after infection of salmonid macrophages, suggesting a role in subverting host defense mechanisms [10]. Phagocytosis of P. salmonis by host cells is modulated by bacterial surface components and by the host's actin cytoskeleton; the bacterium forms P. salmonis-containing vacuoles (PCVs) that resist lysosomal degradation [13].

Flagella-related genes, such as flaA, cheA, fliI, and flgK, are differentially expressed under co-culture conditions and are implicated in early infection and motility within the host [31]. Biofilm formation is another key virulence trait: P. salmonis can produce biofilm in both planktonic and sessile states, and subinhibitory concentrations of florfenicol significantly increase biofilm production, potentially enhancing environmental persistence and resistance [34]. Exopolysaccharide (EPS) production is influenced by culture conditions; for example, non-baffled flask designs yield over fivefold more EPS than baffled flasks, with implications for the immunogenicity of vaccine antigens [4]. Outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) secreted by P. salmonis are immunogenic and induce inflammatory gene expression as well as IgM production in Atlantic salmon, contributing to host immune activation [33].

Host-Pathogen Interactions and Immune Evasion

P. salmonis has evolved sophisticated strategies to evade host immunity. It survives and replicates inside macrophages by interfering with the normal polarization of these cells. Transcriptomic studies show that infection promotes an M2-like (anti-inflammatory) macrophage phenotype, characterized by upregulation of KLF17 and downregulation of M1-associated transcription factors such as NOTCH3 and NFATC1 [30]. This polarization suppresses the host's ability to mount an effective type I cell-mediated response. The bacterium also modulates autophagy pathways. In rainbow trout gill epithelial cells, P. salmonis triggers upregulation of autophagic genes and the LC3-II/LC3-I ratio, suggesting that autophagy is activated as part of the innate immune response, but the pathogen may subvert this process to its advantage [14]. Similar evidence has been found in skeletal muscle cells, where concurrent immune gene expression and autophagic marker activation occur upon infection [35].

The host innate immune response involves pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) such as TLRs and NLRs, which are upregulated in gill epithelial cells challenged with P. salmonis [14]. The cytosolic sensor DDX41 has been identified in Atlantic salmon and is significantly upregulated following P. salmonis infection, correlating with increased proinflammatory cytokine levels and IRF3/interferon signaling [15]. In the intestine, both planktonic and sessile (biofilm) forms of P. salmonis disrupt epithelial barrier integrity by modulating the expression of tight junction proteins (ZO-1, claudin-3, E-cadherin) and decreasing transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), thereby facilitating bacterial translocation [11]. This disruption is accompanied by an inflammatory response characterized by upregulation of il-8, il-1β, and tgf-β [11]. The use of natural extracts, such as brewer's spent grain extract (BEP), can counteract these effects by strengthening barrier function and antioxidant defenses [16].

Humoral immunity is also affected. Inoculation of Atlantic salmon with live P. salmonis induces a significant increase in anti-P. salmonis IgM, whereas inactivated bacteria do not elicit the same response [17]. The nature of the antigen clearly influences the humoral response. Furthermore, co-infection with LF-89 and EM-90 genogroups can lead to a synergistic effect, resulting in higher mortality and more severe clinical lesions than single-genogroup infections [7, 31]. Transcriptomic analysis of spatially separated in vivo co-cultures indicates that physical contact between the two genogroups is necessary for the upregulation of certain virulence effectors, such as flagellar genes and transporters [18].

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of P. salmonis infection is essential for disease management. Classical methods include culture in specialized media and PCR-based detection. More recently, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has been developed as a rapid, field-deployable alternative. Genogroup-specific LAMP assays targeting the tonB receptor gene for species-level detection, and the nitronate monooxygenase (LF-89) and acid phosphatase (EM-90) genes for genotyping, have demonstrated sensitivity and specificity comparable to real-time PCR, without cross-reactivity with other salmonid pathogens [8]. Surveillance at the genogroup level is critical, given that co-infections with LF-89 and EM-90 are common and influence disease outcome and vaccine efficacy [32, 19].

Non-lethal sampling methods, such as analysis of skin biopsies for P. salmonis ITS transcripts, have been proposed as early surveillance tools [20]. The skin and gill microbiomes of infected salmon show a shift toward opportunistic pathogens like Aliivibrio wodanis and Tenacibaculum dicentrarchi, which may indicate a breakdown of protective microbial networks [29]. This knowledge can inform diagnostic algorithms that incorporate both pathogen detection and microbiome profiling.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical signs of piscirickettsiosis in salmonids], > B{Sampling}
    B, > C[Non-lethal skin/gill swab]
    B, > D[Lethal tissue (kidney, spleen, liver)]
    C, > E[DNA/RNA extraction]
    D, > E
    E, > F{Diagnostic method}
    F, > G[Real-time PCR (qPCR) - tonB receptor]
    F, > H[LAMP - tonB for species, NMO for LF-89, ACP for EM-90]
    F, > I[Culture in FN2 or SRS medium]
    G, > J{Result: positive?}
    H, > J
    I, > K[Confirmatory qPCR or sequencing]
    J, > L[Genogroup identification by qPCR or LAMP]
    L, > M[LF-89 positive]
    L, > N[EM-90 positive]
    L, > O[Co-infection detected]
    M, > P[Consider vaccination matching, antibiotic sensitivity]
    N, > P
    O, > P[Increased virulence expected; adjust treatment]
    K, > J

Vaccination and Control Strategies

Vaccination against P. salmonis has been a cornerstone of SRS control in Chile, but efficacy remains incomplete. Commercial vaccines formulated with the EM-90 genogroup (the standard since 2017) show poor cross-protection against LF-89 challenge, with relative percent survival (RPS) dropping from 100% (EM-90 challenge) to 77% (LF-89 challenge) [19]. In some cohabitation challenge studies, no significant protection was observed for either genogroup with certain commercial vaccines [28]. The inclusion of immunomodulators such as PAQ-Xtract can improve RPS against LF-89 from 77% to 92% [19]. Novel vaccination strategies, including the use of live attenuated vaccines, have shown improved survival and reduced bacterial load in field trials, with a corresponding modulation of iron metabolism genes (ferritin, hepcidin, transferrin) [13].

Reverse vaccinology approaches have identified common antigens across multiple fish pathogens, including TonB-dependent siderophore receptor, BamA, LptD, FlgD, and FlgG, which are present in P. salmonis and could be used for polyvalent vaccine development [27]. Immunoinformatics targeting virulence factors also offers a pathway for subunit vaccine design [21]. Culture conditions for vaccine production are critical; optimizing oxygen transfer and shear stress in bioreactors can improve biomass quality and exopolysaccharide content, which influences immunogenicity [4].

Antimicrobial Resistance and Alternative Therapies

The heavy reliance on antibiotics to control SRS has led to concerns about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and environmental impact. P. salmonis strains harbor AMR genes, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms in gyrA, dnaK, rpoB, and ftsZ distinguish genogroups and are associated with resistance dynamics [1]. Horizontal acquisition of resistance genes appears rare; most resistance arises through chromosomal mutations [5]. Subinhibitory concentrations of florfenicol paradoxically increase biofilm formation, potentially exacerbating treatment failure [34].

Alternative strategies are under active investigation. Phytogenic feed additives such as Andrographis paniculata extract completely inhibit planktonic and biofilm growth of P. salmonis at 500 µg/mL, with bactericidal activity [12]. Polyphenolic compounds quercetin and silybin reduce intracellular replication in SHK-1 cells, though efficacy varies by cell line [22]. Organic acid blends (e.g., a commercial 1% blend) reduce bacterial invasion in epithelial cells by activating the iNOS/nitric oxide pathway, leading to lipid peroxidation of the pathogen [23]. A novel nanosystem using PLGA nanoparticles functionalized with Atlantic salmon IgM delivers florfenicol specifically to infected macrophages, reducing bacterial load while stimulating immune response [24]. CRISPRi gene silencing has been successfully implemented in P. salmonis to study gene function, offering a tool for identifying new virulence targets [6].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary disease caused by Piscirickettsia salmonis?

Salmonid rickettsial septicemia (SRS) is the systemic, often fatal disease caused by P. salmonis, characterized by anemia, skin ulcers, and necrotic lesions in internal organs [3, 32].

How is Piscirickettsia salmonis transmitted?

Transmission occurs horizontally through water and direct contact; the bacteria enter via gills, skin, and intestine before disseminating systemically [14, 11, 20].

What are the two main genogroups of Piscirickettsia salmonis?

The two genogroups are LF-89 and EM-90, which differ in virulence, geographic distribution, and antigenic properties [1, 7, 8, 32].

Why do current vaccines often fail against Piscirickettsia salmonis?

Commercial vaccines are typically formulated against EM-90 and induce incomplete cross-protection against LF-89, partly because the bacterium evades cell-mediated immunity by macrophage manipulation [19, 3, 28].

Can natural compounds help control Piscirickettsia salmonis infections?

Yes, phytogenic extracts (e.g., Andrographis paniculata), polyphenols (quercetin, silybin), and organic acid blends have shown in vitro efficacy by inhibiting bacterial growth, reducing biofilm, or enhancing host nitric oxide production [22, 12, 23].

How is Piscirickettsia salmonis diagnosed in the field?

Molecular methods such as quantitative PCR and LAMP targeting the tonB receptor gene are standard; LAMP offers a rapid, field-adaptable alternative without requiring thermal cyclers [8].

Does Piscirickettsia salmonis form biofilms?

Yes, P. salmonis forms biofilms in both planktonic and sessile states, and biofilm formation is enhanced by subinhibitory concentrations of florfenicol, contributing to persistence [11, 34].

What role does autophagy play in the host response to Piscirickettsia salmonis?

Autophagy is activated as part of the innate immune response in gill epithelial cells and muscle cells, but the bacterium may manipulate this process to avoid clearance [14, 35].

Can co-infection with LF-89 and EM-90 worsen disease?

Yes, co-infection leads to synergistic effects, higher mortality, and more severe clinical signs compared to single-genogroup infections [7, 31].

What is the significance of transferrin in Piscirickettsia salmonis infection?

Transferrin knockout phagocytes show reduced cytopathic effects and improved viability upon infection, suggesting that transferrin deficiency confers an infection-tolerant phenotype through transcriptional reprogramming unrelated to iron metabolism [13].

References

[1] Islam SI, Shahed K, Ahamed MI, et al. Pathogenomic Insights into Piscirickettsia salmonis with a Focus on Virulence Factors, Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Identification, and Resistance Dynamics. Animals. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fdac776453b21fd8724baafaaadf79cad2119fa2

[2] Cabello FC, Millanao AR, Godfrey HP. Piscirickettsia salmonis pathogenicity: using the damage-response framework to look beyond smoke and mirrors. mBio. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33272b903b9f6d7a5195526cbf6ffbeb12254ee0

[3] Rozas-Serri M. Why Does Piscirickettsia salmonis Break the Immunological Paradigm in Farmed Salmon? Biological Context to Understand the Relative Control of Piscirickettsiosis. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eaf4971d9ebc47cda804d7baaba806b6d2fd6a3a

[4] Zelada-Cordero PA, Altamirano C, Arancibia-Díaz A, et al. Culture conditions shape metabolism and exopolysaccharide production in Piscirickettsia salmonis: implications for vaccine development. Aquaculture International. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2c2be31d211ece1616a098529e00ddea1d2e536a

[5] Schober I, Bunk B, Carril GP, et al. Ongoing diversification of the global fish pathogen Piscirickettsia salmonis through genetic isolation and transposition bursts. The ISME Journal. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6b6dc5c84d15cbc80b455916ea348148900b3f4

[6] Ortíz-Severín J, Geoffroy P, Aravena P, et al. Mobile-CRISPRi as a tool for genetic manipulation in the intracellular pathogen Piscirickettsia salmonis. bioRxiv. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a38dad2f8fbab76e8537e4cf61077a0e5789b18b

[7] Carril G, Morales-Lange B, Løvoll M, et al. Salmonid Rickettsial Septicemia (SRS) disease dynamics and Atlantic salmon immune response to Piscirickettsia salmonis LF-89 and EM-90 co-infection. Veterinary Research. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2cfdb85f4aa853ee40ff2cb490866cddefae576e

[8] Isla A, Aguilar M, Flores-Martin SN, et al. Advancements in rapid diagnostics and genotyping of Piscirickettsia salmonis using Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5732364ac9196d34ec76133cc89ceff0d2cdca4

[9] Ramirez C, Romero J. Know Your Enemy: Piscirickettsia salmonis and Phage Interactions Using an In Silico Perspective. Antibiotics. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/50c30e1f16c2af79febfc3ae97347cf21ccb380b

[10] Cortés M, Oliver C, Sánchez P, et al. Structure and expression kinetics of Piscirickettsia salmonis sdhA during infection of Atlantic salmon macrophage-like cells. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6668608a27b1e494a250a0944e29d6cbc8505cc9

[11] Cárcamo D, Suárez R, Santibáñez N, et al. Planktonic and Sessile Piscirickettsia salmonis Disrupts Morpho-Functional Parameters in Rainbow Trout Intestinal Epithelial RTGutGC Cells. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad38e8d343b4f724b68060acf62c3c6445bde4ac

[12] Santibáñez N, Vega M, Pérez T, et al. In vitro effects of phytogenic feed additive on Piscirickettsia salmonis growth and biofilm formation. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0715095e9c4c6eef7158918368a4e785ab8767ab

[13] Mejías M, Sáez A, Escorza A, et al. Transferrin knockout reveals a tolerance phenotype against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon phagocytes. Veterinary Research. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3848596af55141e85dbc0ebb092808d78a36d635

[14] Valdebenito EA, Azua M, Silva-Sarmiento D, et al. Immune-like response and autophagy modulation in gill epithelial cells of rainbow trout challenged with Piscirickettsia salmonis. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3565f9963ae055e42fed2965ab340f7830362db7

[15] Yañez AJ, Barrientos CA, Isla A, et al. Discovery and Characterization of the ddx41 Gene in Atlantic Salmon: Evolutionary Implications, Structural Functions, and Innate Immune Responses to Piscirickettsia salmonis and Renibacterium salmoninarum Infections. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a09f9fc693ec0acfb0e702da5c8d49e32cdd4b19

[16] Cárcamo D, Pérez T, Sánchez F, et al. Brewer's spent grain extract modulates the immune, intercellular junctions and antioxidant gene expression disrupting the Piscirickettsia salmonis infection in rainbow trout intestinal epithelial RTgutGC cells. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc120c4d670694d3f46d7055c64ea9d12d8cc4ba

[17] Martínez D, Garrido M, Ponce C, et al. Comparative analysis of the stress and immune and responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) inoculated with live and inactivated Piscirickettsia salmonis. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d5c799f5d7505e3ad9e4973fcda4fe8754432de4

[18] Carril G, Winther-Larsen HC, Løvoll M, et al. Differential Transcriptomic Profile of Piscirickettsia salmonis LF-89 and EM-90 During an In Vivo Spatial Separation Co-Culture in Atlantic Salmon. Microorganisms. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1809638b33613fac207db6480cbbb2114ed87944

[19] Rozas-Serri M, Kani T, Jaramillo V, et al. Current vaccination strategy against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Chile based only on the EM-90 genogroup shows incomplete cross-protection for the LF-89 genogroup. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/147fc09eac7a82c5ec0feb2643c0e5804da3444e

[20] Levipan HA, Wicki H, Barrios-Henríquez F, et al. Gene expression patterns of immune markers in rainbow trout during the early stages of seawater infections with Piscirickettsia salmonis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfeee66ead0d5cd647df9da414757aa653b75483

[21] Yılmaz Çolak Ç, Kara A. Targeting potential virulence factors of Piscirickettsia salmonis for vaccine development through an immunoinformatics approach. Aquaculture International. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11751bbaa50b73281b53ce953116585e7cd0d09d

[22] Parra M, Izquierdo K, Rubio M, et al. Quercetin and Silybin Decrease Intracellular Replication of Piscirickettsia salmonis in SHK-1 Cell. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81a74d4d7a788b006fe0c0e3ef49e258001b86ab

[23] Corcionivoschi N, Balta I, McCleery D, et al. Blends of Organic Acids Are Weaponizing the Host iNOS and Nitric Oxide to Reduce Infection of Piscirickettsia salmonis in vitro. Antioxidants. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/415d858df030f0df221772395affb16caa290461

[24] Velásquez F, Frazão M, Díez A, et al. Salmon-IgM Functionalized-PLGA Nanosystem for Florfenicol Delivery as an Antimicrobial Strategy against Piscirickettsia salmonis. Nanomaterials. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6576cf5dec1b65da0a0098cd233674be073eb4c0

[25] Ortíz-Severín J, Tandberg J, Winther-Larsen HC, et al. In vivo host-pathogen dynamics and immune responses to Piscirickettsia salmonis using the zebrafish model. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5fd46c67df1bbabdc3e5cc6ecfe3ff7ed6cb3434

[26] Barraza-Rojas F, Wong-Benito V, Valdés-Henriquez D, et al. Piscirickettsia salmonis elicited an antigen-specific cytotoxic response dependent on CD8+ T cells in Atlantic salmon. Frontiers in Immunology. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4d8b1a2