Cited by 16Aquaculture disease management and microbiotaCrustacean biology and ecologyParasite Biology and Host Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 40 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Collection techniques for the analyses of pathogens in crustaceans

Open access
Shields, Jeffrey D·2017·Journal of Crustacean Biology

Abstract

Review of sampling and analytical methods for crustacean pathogens, including the value of visual and histological assessment alongside molecular diagnostics.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review surveys field and laboratory techniques for collecting, preserving, and diagnosing pathogens in crustaceans, from gross visual inspection through histology, electron microscopy, and molecular assays. It emphasizes that method choice, proper fixation, and disciplined data management determine whether disease surveys yield interpretable results.

Key findings

  • Visual assessment is non-lethal and easily folded into fishery surveys, but its sensitivity varies: carapace discoloration in snow crabs detected only advanced *Hematodinium* infections and under-reported true prevalence by as much as 50%, though the sign was highly specific (Pestal et al., 2003).
  • Incorporating disease data into long-running surveys can be powerful — a mark-recapture dataset spanning over 35 years showed epizootic shell disease significantly raised mortality in American lobsters and likely drove landings declines in Long Island Sound.
  • Fixation quality is decisive: poorly fixed hepatopancreas (which autolyzes within 10–15 minutes post-mortem) can be undiagnosable, and tissue-to-fixative ratios should never fall below 1:10, with samples moved to preservative within 48–72 hours.
  • Molecular tools give pathogen-specific presence/absence but little information on other organisms, and PCR assays developed for one region can produce false negatives elsewhere unless re-validated by sequencing; pooling samples is efficient at prevalences below 5%, while unequal pool sizes improve confidence intervals as prevalence approaches 10% or more.

Methods

  • Narrative review synthesizing collection and diagnostic approaches for crustacean pathogens, drawing on published examples and the author's field and laboratory experience.
  • Covers macroscopic/visual assessment, pleopodal staging, hemolymph smears and vital staining, agar isolation of bacteria, histology (fixatives, decalcification, embedding), transmission electron microscopy, and molecular methods (PCR, ISH, quantitative PCR), plus field sampling design and data management.
  • Illustrated with case examples including the '100 Lobsters' project (a $2.3 million initiative sampling 100 lobsters for shared tissue analyses) and a sample data sheet used to track tissues, storage, and metadata.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations of its own; it is a methodological overview rather than a systematic or quantitative review.
  • Evident from the text: recommendations rest largely on the author's personal observations and selected case studies rather than a structured comparison of methods, and several practical points (e.g., container and fixative performance, flocculant formation in lipid-rich hemolymph) are attributed to unpublished data.
  • The paper repeatedly notes that many techniques require advanced training and that diagnostic accuracy depends on proper preservation, so the guidance may not transfer directly to resource-limited field settings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jcbiol/rux077

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

13 of 40 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 22 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 70
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 45
82 of 82
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most knowledge of crustacean pathogens and diseases has come from accidental discovery of discolored or misshapen hosts in museum collections, cryptic infections from unrelated studies, or natural outbreaks that killed commercially important hosts.

    “Most of our knowledge of pathogens and diseases in crustaceans has come from the accidental discovery of discolored or misshapen hosts in museum collections, cryptic infections from unrelated studies, or from natural outbreaks that have killed commercially important hosts.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    During fisheries outbreaks, managers typically collect dead hosts, which are very difficult to necropsy properly.

    “During outbreaks in fisheries, managers typically collect dead hosts, which are very difficult to necropsy properly.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Live diseased or moribund hosts are typically culled at sea, leaving pathologists with few specimens for diagnostic studies.

    “Live diseased or moribund hosts are typically culled at sea, leaving the pathologist with few specimens for diagnostic studies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Crustacean pathogens are a diverse biota, and disparate pathogens require different methods for proper assessment and identification.

    “Moreover, the pathogens of crustaceans represent a diverse biota, and disparate pathogens require different methods for proper assessment and identification.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most crustacean pathogens are specialists on Crustacea, and some, such as parasitic dinoflagellates and rhizocephalans, may be more difficult for non-specialists to identify.

    “Although some of the pathogens of crustaceans have counterparts in well-studied vertebrates, such as Platyhelminthes, most are specialists on Crustacea, and thus may be more difficult for the non-specialist to identify, such as parasitic dinoflagellates and rhizocephalans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Bacterial infections are ubiquitous in crustaceans.

    “Bacterial infections are ubiquitous in crustaceans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Histology remains a standard assessment tool for disease diagnosis in histopathology and disease assessment.

    “Histology remains a standard assessment tool for disease diagnosis in histopathology and disease assessment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Histology provides information on the state of host tissues, the etiology of disease, the level of infection, and pathological alterations of affected tissues.

    “It provides information on the state of the host tissues, the etiology of disease, the level of infection, and pathological alterations of affected tissues.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Molecular methods are now routine for disease diagnosis.

    “Molecular methods are now routine for disease diagnosis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Molecular tools are valuable for establishing the presence of a pathogen.

    “Molecular tools are valuable for establishing the presence of a pathogen, but they do require interpretation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Field collections often carry substantial environmental or collection data that is valuable for assessing the ecology of hosts and their diseases.

    “Field collections often have a veritable 'boat load' of environmental or collection data that adds to the complexity and wealth of information needed to assess the ecology of the hosts and their diseases.”
11 of 11

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Durliat and Vranckx citation has a different year from its reference

    Minor

    The preservation discussion cites Durliat and Vranckx as 1989, while the corresponding reference is dated 1981.

  • Maniscalco and Shields citation has a different year from its reference

    Minor

    The discussion cites this work as 2007, but the corresponding reference lists it as 2006.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 65 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 2000, Prevalence and progression of shell disease in American lobster, Homarus americanus, from Rhode Island waters and the offshore canyons, Journal of Shellfish Research, 19, 691
  2. 1931, Sur l’existance, dans le sang des crabes, de péridiniens parasites Hematodinium perezi n.g., n.sp. (Syndinidae), Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Societé biologique de Paris, 105, 553
  3. 1788, Beskrivelse over den store Gronlandske krabbe, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Skrivter, Nye Samling, 3, 181
  4. 1985, The prevalence of the rhizocephalan Briarosaccus callosus Boschma, a parasite in blue king crabs, Paralithodes platypus (Brandt), of southeastern Alaska
  5. 2005, Status of shell disease in Long Island Sound, 106
  6. 1891, Crustacea from the northern coast of Yucatan, the harbor of Vera Cruz, the west coast of Florida and the Bermuda Islands, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 43, 176
  7. 2005, Prevalence and severity of shell disease in American lobster Homarus americanus from eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut, 94
  8. 1804, Des Langoustes du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Annales du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 3, 388
  9. 1820, Galatéadées, 49
  10. 2002, A survey for prevalence of Paramoeba spp. in blue crabs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 56, 105
  11. 1853, Mémoire sur la famille des Ocypodides. Suite (1). Deuxiéme Tribu Principale, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, séries 3, 20, 163
  12. 2007, 77, 61
  13. 1990, Some implications of egg mortality caused by symbiotic nemerteans for data acquisition and management strategies of the red king crab. Proceedings of the International Symposium on King and Tanner Crabs, November 28–30, 1989. Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 397–402. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 90-04
  14. 2015, Parasites and pathogens of Brachyura, 639
  15. 2005, Epizootic shell disease in the American lobster, Homarus americanus, 2
  16. 1815, De Cancris Camtschaticis, Oniscis, Entomostracis et Cancellis marinis microscopicis noctilucentibus, Cum tabulis IV: Aneaeis et appendice adnexo de Acaris et Ricinis Camtschaticis. Auctore Tilesio. Conventui exhibuit die 3 Februarii 1813, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, 5, 331
  17. 2001, A critique of methods of sampling and reporting pathogens in populations of fish, Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 12, 300

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Shields, J. D.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Shields, Jeffrey D
Venue
Journal of Crustacean Biology
Published
2017-09-18
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
753-763
ISSN
  • 0278-0372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-240X
OpenAlex
W2754989366
Cited by
16
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Crustacean Biology (publishedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0929086, 0723662)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Crustacean biology and ecology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Parasite Biology and Host Interactions
Keywords
crustacean pathogens, outbreak, disease surveillance, histological evaluation, visual assessment, etiology, crustacean diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review