United States Department of Agriculture

Red Sea Bream

Iridoviral Disease (RSIVD)
United States
Department of
Agriculture

Rapid Risk Assessment

Animal and Plant
Health Inspection
Service
Veterinary Services
Strategy and Policy
Center for
Epidemiology and
Animal Health
February 2022
 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

Key Results
The estimated risk of red sea bream iridoviral disease (RSIVD) introduction into the United States via
live animal (fish) imports is high due to:
• Non-specific clinical signs of RSIVD that may delay detection and diagnostic testing
• The reported presence of RSIVD in many countries that export to the United States
• Lack of RSIVD surveillance and reporting in many countries
• The relatively broad host range of RSIV in multiple marine species of fish
• Movements of susceptible live fish species in international and domestic trade
• The potential viability of virus in imported seafood and fish products
• The lack of federal and state regulations limiting importation of potentially infected fish
• Previous introduction of RSVID into the U.S. has occurred

The most likely entry pathways are:

• Apparently healthy, infected fish
• Contaminated ballast water

The most likely exposure pathways include:

• Movement of infected live fish among aquaculture facilities, aquariums, or other facilities
• Exposure via aquatic pathways (infected fish in net pens, infected wild fish) associated with
release of contaminated ballast water or infected fish or fish products into waterways

This risk assessment is preliminary and is subject to various limitations, such as lack of:
• Quantitative data regarding the epidemiology of RSVID, including data on specific entry and
exposure pathways
• Methods to reliably estimate disease consequences in aquaculture systems
• A nationally representative domestic surveillance program

Background
History
Red sea bream iridoviral disease (RSIVD) is caused by red sea bream iridovirus (RSIV) and results in
significant mortality in farmed red sea bream (Pagrus spp.) and other cultured marine fish [1, 2]. Currently,
the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) lists approximately 40 fish species as susceptible to RSIVD.
The literature describes additional susceptible species [1]. Knifejaw (Oplegnathus spp.) and red sea bream
are reportedly more susceptible than other species [1].
Pathogenic iridoviruses of fish (Iridoviridae, Megalocytivirus) are genetically classified into three major
groups: Red sea bream iridovirus (RSIV) group; infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus (ISKNV) group;
and turbot reddish body iridovirus (TRBIV) group [1-4]. Disease caused by RSIV-group viruses primarily
occur in marine fish. Disease caused by ISKNV-group isolates occur in marine and freshwater fish. Disease
associated with TRBIV-group viruses appear limited to Asian flounder species [2].

2| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

In this document, we use the acronym RSIVD to refer to disease caused by infection with RSIV to concur
with the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals [1]. The acronym RSIV will be used when
information specific to the pathogenic agent (the virus, not the disease) is presented.

Distribution
The literature reports that RSIV-group viruses are widely distributed in East and Southeast Asia, including
in China, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, North and South Korea, Malaysia, Micronesia,
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Timor-Leste [1, 2, 5-11]. Between
2010 and 2016, six mortality events attributed to RSIVD occurred in maricultured Florida pompano
(Trachinotus carolinus) in the Dominican Republic. The identified RSIV (e.g., referred to as pompano
iridovirus or PIV) shared greater than 99 percent nucleotide sequence identity to an RSIV genomic
sequence in Japan [12].
In 2018, the United States reported to the OIE an RSIVD detection in imported wild common clownfish
(Amphipriion perideraion, A. ocellaris) and wild lionfish (Pterosis vilitans) housed in the same system in a
public aquarium. Control measures included quarantine of the facility and depopulation of affected tanks.

Current Regulations
In the United States, there is no requirement for health certification regarding RSIVD for movement of any
species, including ornamental fish destined to public and private aquariums.
For U.S. exports, countries requiring pre-export testing and/or statements of health claiming shipment or
country freedom from RSIVD include Australia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, the Russian
Federation, Taiwan, Thailand, Turks and Caicos, and Vietnam[13].
RSIVD is reportable to the OIE and the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) [1, 3].

Hazard Identification
The complete epidemiology of RSIVD is not fully known.
Transmission appears to be horizontal via cohabitation and water [1, 2]. In affected countries, annual net
pen outbreaks are reported when naïve juvenile fish are introduced into pens containing older fish that
have survived prior infection [1, 2]. Vector transmission (e.g., mechanical, aquatic lifeforms) has not been
confirmed; however, mollusks have been implicated as vectors [1, 14]. Vertical transmission is suspected
but has not been confirmed [2, 3, 15]. Viral genomic DNA has been detected in asymptomatic cultured fish
and wild fish species adjacent to aquaculture areas. It is unknown if the detections in the cultured fish
resulted from exposure to infected wild fish or vice versa. [2, 3].
The incubation period is unknown. Juvenile fish less than 1 year of age are most susceptible [1, 2]. Clinical
signs are non-specific and may include anemia, partial to full anorexia, abnormal swimming patterns,
coelomic distention, dark coloring, fin erosion, lethargy, pale gills, petechial hemorrhage on the skin and
gills, skin ulcerations, and increased respiratory effort [1-3]. Enlarged spleen, kidney, and liver; coelomic
transudates; and pale viscera may be noted on necropsy [1, 2]. Concurrent infections (bacteria, parasites,
fungi) may be present. Morbidity rates are unknown. Mortality rates are variable by fish species, age, and
physiological condition; aquaculture management factors; and water temperature (outbreaks tend to occur
at 20 – 32oC / 68 – 89oF [1, 3]. Total mortality occurring within 1 week has been reported.

3| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

Testing of moribund fish is preferred for detection of RSIV; deceased fish in advanced stages of
decomposition are unsuitable [1]. Tissues such as spleen, kidney, heart, and liver are suitable samples for
analysis. OIE guidance suggests that tissue and juvenile fish (<3 cm; limit five animals) may be pooled.
Samples should be stored at 4oC / 39oF and submitted for testing within 24 hours [1]. Microscopic
identification of abnormally enlarged splenic cells in Giemsa-stained impression smears may be used for
presumptive diagnosis [2]. Other diagnostic tests include histopathology, immunofluorescent antibody
tests using M10 monoclonal antibody, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays [1, 2]. Virus isolation
and culture assays are available; however, sensitivity of culture cell lines is variable and viral titers may
decrease through serial passage [2]. There are no serological assays [1]. Corroborative diagnostic criteria
and case definitions are found in OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals: Chapter 2.3.7: Red Sea
Bream Iridoviral Disease [1].
Control methods currently rely on implementation of farm biosecurity and good management practices.
Mitigation practices include stocking with pathogen-free fish, improving farm biosecurity and management
practices, disease surveillance testing, improving water quality, and avoiding practices that induce stress
(e.g., overstocking, overfeeding) [1, 3]. Experimentally, RSIV-infected fish recovered from infection when
housed at low water temperatures (< 18oC / < 64oF) for a minimum of 100 days. Surviving fish were
reportedly resistant to RSIV challenge [2]. A killed vaccine is commercially available in Japan for use in red
sea bream, striped jack (Pseudocaranx dentex), Malabar grouper (Epinephelus malabaricus), orange spotted
grouper (E. coiodes) and Seriola spp. Efficacy in knifejaw is reported to be variable [1]. No vaccine for
RSIVD is approved for use in the United States.
There has been limited testing of seafood, trim, or offal for presence of RSIV. In one study, RSIV could not
be detected in randomly sampled whole frozen mackerel [5]. The virus is stable in tissues at -80oC / -
112oF; however, viability following freeze/thaw cycles is unknown. The virus can be inactivated at 56oC /
132.8oF x 30 minutes [1]. RSIV genomic DNA has been detected in tissues (spleen, kidney, heart, gills,
intestine, caudal fin) of fish surviving experimental infection [2].
RSIV is not a zoonotic pathogen; there is no public health risk.

Entry Assessment
In a rapid risk assessment for animal health, an entry assessment describes the pathway(s) that allow
introduction of a pathogen into a particular environment and estimates the probability of that occurring.
The entry assessment generally consists of the pathway(s) from the point of origin to the port of entry.
The overall likelihood that RSIVD will enter the United States is high, with a low degree of uncertainty. The
likelihood assessment is based on:
• Reported distribution of RSIVD, including countries that export to the United States.
• Earlier RSIVD detections in the United States in 2018 linked to imports of fish[16]; and
• Lack of regulation regarding imports of ornamental and commercial fish.
Sources of uncertainty in this estimate include:

• Lack of data regarding the stability of RSIV in fish products

• Unknown survival characteristics of RSIV in the environment
• Lack of information regarding infectious dose, susceptible species, and epidemiology of RSIV

4| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

• Difficulties ensuring compliance with ballast water requirements; and

• Knowledge gaps regarding efficacy of ballast water treatment on viruses
Potential entry pathways may include:

• Imported live fish (ornamental or commercial)

• Imported seafood for human consumption
• Imported raw fish product
• Contaminated ballast water

Entry via Imports of Live Fish

The likelihood that RSIVD could enter the United States via imports of live fish is high with a low degree of
uncertainty. There are currently no Federal import regulations pertaining to RSIVD. Detections of RSIVD in
imported wild-caught ornamental fish, including a previously unknown ornamental species (clownfish) in
2018 demonstrate that this is a viable entry pathway.

Entry via Raw, Frozen, or Chilled Seafood for Human Consumption

The likelihood that RSIVD could enter the United States via imports of seafood products for human
consumption is high with a high degree of uncertainty. The United States imports seafood product from
countries that have reported RSIVD presence. Imported seafood is required to be prepared in facilities
regulated and inspected by the government of the country of origin and must meet USDA and Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) processing requirements (e.g., Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
Plan). Only apparently healthy fish are to be processed; however, RSIV-infected fish may appear healthy
[2], and surveillance testing of processing facilities or product for aquatic animal disease pathogens is not
required. There is limited data available regarding the stability of RSIV in seafood. The virus is stable in
frozen tissues; however, viability following freeze and thaw cycles is unknown. In one study, RSIV could
not be detected in randomly sampled whole frozen mackerel [5].

Entry via Imported Raw, Frozen, or Chilled Fish Product or By-Product

The likelihood that RSIVD could enter the United States via imports of fish product or by-product is high
with a high degree of uncertainty. Waste fish, trim, and offal are imported for use as bait and feed products
or ingredients. Importation of these products is generally unregulated and does not include testing for
foreign aquatic animal disease pathogens. The volume of such imports is generally unknown.

Entry via Contaminated Ballast Water

The likelihood that RSIVD could enter the United States via ballast water is high with a high degree of
uncertainty. Ballast water has historically been considered a principal source of invasive species
introduction in coastal and freshwater systems. Presence of RSIV in ballast waters collected in geographic
locations close to North America and in harbor waters of the Port of Los Angeles confirms the viability of
this pathway [17-20]. Management of ballast water discharge via ballast water exchange and treatment is
regulated federally (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Coast Guard) and at the State level. Ballast
water discharges are required to meet International Maritime Organization Ballast Water Management
Convention D-2 standards for allowable concentrations of living organisms present in ballast water
discharge (organisms (org) >10µm to <50µm in size, concentration 10 org/mL water; organisms >50 um,
concentration <10 org/mL water), and microorganisms considered “indicators problematic for ballast
water” (Vibrio cholerae < 1 colony forming unit (cfu)/ 100mL; E. coli < 250cfu/ 100mL; intestinal

5| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

enterococci <100cfu/ 100mL) [21-23]. The regulations do not contain stipulations regarding viruses.
Vessels that do not discharge ballast water at all, discharge only to shore side facilities, or discharge to
water treatment systems that will present little threat are not required to install a ballast water treatment
system [24]. Vessels operating in only one Captain of the Port (COPT) Zone are exempted from reporting
and recordkeeping requirements [24]. COPT Zones are administrative, are not established using ecological
or biological bases, and may not be appropriate boundaries for addressing invasive species [23]. Data are
lacking on the efficacy of ballast water treatment on viruses, likely because treatment decreases the
concentration of viruses present to levels below the limits of detection achievable by currently available
assays [23, 25]. In one study, a metagenomics analysis identified 22 viral families, including herpesviruses,
in ballast water samples collected from ports on four different continents [25]. Other studies have reported
viral concentrations ranging from 1.0 x 109 to 3.3 x 1011 viral particles/liter in ballast water using
epifluorescence microscopy and metagenomics [23].

Exposure Assessment
In a rapid risk assessment for animal health, an exposure assessment describes the pathway(s) that allow
exposure of a vulnerable animal or human to a pathogen and estimates the probability of that happening.
For purposes of this document, exposure assessment generally consists of the pathway(s) from the port of
entry to the vulnerable animal or human.
Potential exposure pathways may include:
1. Live fish and transport water
2. Infected fish in marine net pens, infected wild fish, or other aquatic pathways
3. Improperly discarded imported seafood
4. Use of imported waste fish or fish by-product for bait
5. Exposure via contaminated ballast water
6. Accidental, intentional, or malicious release

Exposure via Imported Live Fish and Transport Water

The likelihood that RSIVD will reach susceptible fish in domestic aquaculture via movement of imported
infected live fish and the water used to transport them is high with a low degree of uncertainty. Infected
fish may appear healthy [1, 2]. Transmission appears to be horizontal via cohabitation and water [1, 2];
therefore, transport water could serve as a pathway of introduction if it is transferred with the fish into the
recipient facility, not treated prior to disposal, or not disposed of via a water treatment pathway. There are
data gaps regarding the length of time that RSIV remains viable in water and the infectious dose required
to elicit disease.

Exposure to Infected Fish in Net Pens, Wild Fish, or Other Aquatic Pathways
The likelihood that fish reared in net pens will be exposed to RSIVD is unknown due to the extremely high
level of uncertainty and lack of qualitative or quantitative data associated with this potential pathway. It is
unclear whether RSIVD detections in cultured fish reared in net pens are the result of exposure to infected
fish in the net pens, infected wild fish, or other aquatic pathways. The literature presents conflicting
evidence including, but not limited to, published reports of detections of viral genomic RSIV DNA in
asymptomatic cultured fish and wild fish adjacent to aquaculture areas [2, 3]; reports of annual net pen
outbreaks following introduction of naïve juvenile fish into marine net pens containing older fish that have
survived RSIV infection [1, 2]; the hypotheses that transmission via aquatic vectors (e.g., water,
mechanical, aquatic lifeforms) may occur [1, 14]; and current lack of knowledge regarding whether

6| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

genomic RSIV detections in cultured fish are the result of exposure to infected wild fish or other aquatic
pathways, or vice versa.

Exposure via Imported Seafood

The likelihood that RSIVD will reach susceptible farmed fish via imported seafood intended for human
consumption is moderate with a moderate degree of uncertainty. Approximately 40 percent of waste
seafood from commercial and consumer sources becomes landfill waste. Landfills are required to monitor
ground water for contamination; however, it is unknown how monitoring methods might correlate with
the presence of aquatic animal pathogens. Scavenging wildlife (e.g., birds, mammals) may serve as fomites
or transmission vectors [28, 29]. Disposition of the remaining 60 percent of waste seafood is generally
unknown, but may include composting, disposal in natural water systems, or use as bait or food for aquatic
animals. Cooked seafood is unlikely to result in RSIVD exposure unless cooking time and temperatures are
less that those described for heat inactivation of the virus (56oC /132.8oF for 30 minutes)[1]. The volume of
chilled and frozen fish imported into the United States for commercial processing is generally unknown.
The virus is stable in tissues at temperatures lower than those used in seafood processing (-80oC /-112oF)
but in one study, could not be detected in randomly sampled imported whole frozen mackerel [5]. Seafood
products are not routinely sampled for presence of foreign aquatic animal disease pathogens. Solid waste
and effluent streams from fish processing plants are subject to Federal and State guidelines and regulation;
however, violations have been reported and contamination of ground water and natural water systems
may occur [30-32].

Exposure via Imported Raw Fish Product or By-Product

The likelihood that RSIVD will reach susceptible fish via imported fish product or by-product is high with a
high degree of uncertainty. The quantity of imported whole fish, waste fish, trim, offal, or by-product is
generally unknown. Raw seafood, waste fish, trim, and offal are reportedly used for bait in commercial and
sport fishing, and as food for captive aquatic animals; however, the frequency of use of such products for
these purposes are not known. Imported fish meals are unlikely to contain viable RSIV, as the cooking step
in production exceeds the heat inactivation parameters (56oC/132.8oF for 30 minutes) described in the
literature [1]; however, this pathway has occurred with other pathogens in other animal species [33].
There is limited research regarding tissue viability of RSIV in frozen tissues; however, in one study, RSIV
could not be detected in frozen mackerel [5].

Exposure via Discharged Ballast Water

The likelihood that RSIVD will reach susceptible fish after the virus has entered U.S. waters via discharged
ballast water is high with a high degree of uncertainty. Detection of RSIV in ballast waters collected in
waters close to North America and in Port of Los Angeles harbor waters of the confirms the viability of this
pathway. Discharged ballast water may contain free virus or virus attached to organic matter and plankton,
which may be distributed to susceptible fish populations (wild or cultivated in net pens) via water currents
[26, 27]. The likelihood will vary with specific conditions (e.g., location of ballast water discharge relative
to the location of susceptible fish populations, dispersal of ballast water discharges in water currents that
may result in exposure of susceptible fish, environmental conditions, concentration of plankton, and
aquatic vectors) [27]. Transmission is reported to occur via water [1, 2]; however, there are data gaps
regarding the length of time that RSIV remains viable in water and the infectious dose required to elicit
disease.

7| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

Exposure via Intentional or Malicious Release

The likelihood that RSIVD will reach susceptible fish via accidental, intentional, or malicious release of
infected fish or tainted seafood or fish by-product is high with a high degree of uncertainty. Subclinically
infected fish may be imported and intentionally placed in commercial aquaculture facilities or aquariums;
previous introduction of RSIVD into the U.S. via clown fish imported by a public aquarium has
demonstrated the viability of this pathway. Susceptible ornamental fish species may be kept as pets by
aquarium hobbyists, and intentional and accidental releases of such fish into natural water systems has
been documented [35-38]. Release of such fish into aquaculture systems is plausible if gaps in biosecurity
permit access of the public to net pens, ponds, raceways, or other rearing structures. Experimental
transmission of a megalocytivirus related to RSIV from dwarf gourami (Colisa lalia) to Murray cod
(Maccullochella peelii peelii) has been documented [39]. Examples of accidental release include use of raw
seafood, waste fish, trim, and offal for bait in commercial and sport fishing. Malicious release of tainted
materials into aquaculture has not been reported but is plausible.

Consequence Assessment
In a rapid risk assessment, a consequence assessment describes the relationship between the exposures to
a pathogen and the various consequences of such exposures. These consequences may be evaluated at the
local, regional or natinal level and include:
• Direct consequences, such as production losses or public health impacts
• Indirect consequences, such as prevention and control costs or trade losses (U.S. exports)

The economic consequences associated with the introduction of RSIVD in the United States cannot be
accurately estimated given the knowledge gaps regarding the epidemiology of the disease; the number of
affected fish species; data limitations regarding the importation of all susceptible live fish and fish products
derived from susceptible species; and lack of surveillance and monitoring for RSVID in imported and
domestically reared food fish.

Direct and indirect consequences associated with RSVID present in edible seafood appears to be unknown.
Iridoviral disease epizootics have not been definitively correlated with commercial food fish trade routes
[40]. In 2008, the United States imported over 8,000 metric tons of edible sea bream products. In the first
half of 2020, top countries from which the United States imported fish included Greece ($13 million USD);
Japan ($3.1 million USD); New Zealand ($3 million USD); and Cyprus ($600,000 USD), with most of the
imports arriving in California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. In the first half of 2020, the
United States exported most of its red sea bream product to the Netherlands ($877,000 USD), Canada
($741,000 USD), Belgium ($169,000 USD), and Germany ($34,000 USD). Top exporting States included
Ohio, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

If introduced into the farmed fish industry, it is possible that RSIVD will be spread between domestic
susceptible fish populations, and under some circumstances, wild fish populations. The magnitude of the
consequences would likely be related to the type of aquaculture system in which the disease introduction
occurs. For example, in a closed system, detection of a RSVID may be more easily observed, containment of
the outbreak easier to accomplish, and trace out and trace back easier to document. In this scenario, direct
and indirect consequences may be minor. If RSVID is introduced into open rearing sytems (i.e., net pens), it
may be expected that the direct and indirect consequences could be signficant for aquaculture, wild
fisheries, and sport fishing. Ecological consequences could potentially result as well.

8| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

The direct and indirect consequences that RSVID introduction may have on the U.S. ornamental fish
industry cannot be quantified due to lack of surveillance and monitoring for this disease in imported and
domestically reared ornamental fish. An outbreak in imported clownfish imported for display in a public
aquarium was successfully controlled by depopulation of the affected fish; therefore, it should be expected
that there may be minor immediate direct or indirect consequences to an U.S. ornmental fish producer,
hobbyist or aquarium. Given the lack of regulatory requirements regarding RSVID surveillence in
imported ornamental fish, it would appear that minor to indiscernable direct and indirect consequences
would be associated with importation of ornamental fish. The global ornamental fish industry trade
involves approximately 5,000 freshwater and 1,450 marine fish species and an estimated 1 billion animals
shipped between more than 100 countries annually [40, 41]. Biosecurity measures and regulations to
prevent disease spread are limited in this industry. In 2014, the United States was the leading importer of
ornamental fish, while Asian countries were the leading exporter (over 57 percent). Importation of
ornamental fish requires a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services permit, which has no health prerequisites
relative to RSIVD. In 2018, the estimated value of marine ornamental fish exported to the United States was
approximately $6 million USD. In the first half of 2020, top exporting countries to the United States
included Hong Kong, Canada, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Top importing States included California,
Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina. In 2018, the United States exported approximately $4.5 million USD of
marine ornamental fish. In the first half of 2020, top exporting States included Hawaii ($2 million USD);
California ($800,000 USD), and New York ($7,000 USD). Top countries receiving U.S. exported fish included
Hong Kong ($900,000 USD), Canada ($900,000 USD), and the United Kingdom ($300,000 USD) [41, 43].

Risk Estimation
In an import risk analysis process for animal health, risk estimation is defined as the combination of the
exposure pathways and the consequences of exposure.
The overall risks posed by RSIVD to the domestic aquaculture industry are:

• High for live imported fish and transport water. This is due to the high likelihood of entry and
subsequent exposure to susceptible fish. If introduced, RSIVD would likely spread among domestic
fish populations because of the possibility of subclinical infections in fish and the lack of national
surveillance. Consequently, the impacts of introduction and spread may be significant, particularly
for top exporting states.
• Moderate for imported seafood for human consumption. Although the likelihood of entry is
estimated to be high, the likelihood of susceptible fish exposure is estimated to be moderate. If
farmed fish are exposed, the impacts of introduction and spread may be significant.
• High for imported raw fish, fish products and by-products. Raw fish, fish products and by-products
are reportedly used as bait in commercial and sport fishing. If use of these products as bait results
in spread among wild fish or exposure to farmed fish in net pens, the impacts may be significant.
• High for contaminated ballast water. If contaminated ballast water exposes wild fish or farmed fish
in net pens the impact may be significant.
These risk estimates are associated with a high level of uncertainty because of data gaps related to the
following:

9| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

• Epidemiology of RSIVD, including infectious dose, susceptible species, subclinical infection, and
incubation period
• Surveillance and detection of RSIVD in countries exporting fish to the U.S.
• Stability of RSIV in fish products
• Survival characteristics of RSIV in the environment
• Efficacy of ballast water treatment on viruses
• Use of fish products and by-products in commercial and sport fishing
• Domestic pathways of potential spread via infected fish in net pens, wild fish, or other aquatic
pathways

Limitations
In this rapid risk assessment, we identified primary pathways of entry and exposure and estimated the
chances of these events occurring, given our knowledge of RSIVD epidemiology, current production
practices, and existing biosecurity measures. To more accurately characterize the risk, a variety of
additional information is needed. Some of these needs are discussed below:
1. Virus characteristics: As noted by OIE, many of the characteristics of RSIVD that are relevant to risk
analysis, such as survival outside the host, survival in water, and movement patterns in water, are
unknown.
2. Susceptible fish: The total number of species susceptible to RSIVD is not definitively known.
3. Characteristics of the ornamental fish industry: The volumes, types, movement patterns,
interactions with commercial fish and other characteristics of the ornamental fish industry are
unknown. These are needed to estimate any consequences of RSIVD in this industry and to
determine the potential impacts an RSIVD outbreak in this sector would have on the commercial fish
industry.
4. Regulatory authority with respect to RSIVD: USDA is the Competent Authority for aquatic animal
health, including the regulation of aquatic animal diseases of concern. USDA has no regulations
regarding imports of ornamental or commercial fish with respect to RSIVD, and this authority would
not lie with any other Federal agency. Some States may regulate the importation or movement of
fish; however, requirements of RSIVD surveillance are generally not known.
5. Lack of knowledge regarding presence in wild populations.
6. Lack of information regarding disease presence in domestic commercial, ornamental, and wild fish
populations due to lack of a national disease surveillance program. Lack of such program also
contributes to potential introduction and movement of sub-clinically infected fish into commercial
and aquarium aquaculture systems.
7. Lack of information regarding quarantine of imported fish, and on farm or aquarium biosecurity.

10| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

Rapid Risk Assessment Defined

A rapid risk assessment is designed to provide a quick approximate estimate of the risk for a pathogen of
interest (i.e., the combined likelihoods of entry and exposure and potential consequences, given that the risk
event occurs). The objectives include: 1) estimating the likelihood and potential impacts of emerging or
evolving animal health threats, and 2) identifying data gaps.
These assessments often have the following characteristics:
• Are performed with limited resources compared to risk assessments or analyses
• Guide additional data collection or more in-depth risk assessments and analyses
• May have limited information on the pathogen
• Discuss the most likely pathways of entry; may not list or evaluate all potential pathways
• Are qualitative in nature and consider the impact of total uncertainty on likelihood and risk ratings
• Do not evaluate potential consequences in detail
• Do not discuss potential impact of future mitigations

Likelihood, Consequence, Uncertainty, and Risk Categories

For this rapid risk assessment, we have assigned qualitative likelihoods for expressing how likely
something would occur. We also use qualitative terms for discussing the uncertainty and information
quality associated with these likelihoods. Table 1 defines the terminology for expressing likelihoods, Table
2 defines the terminology for expressing uncertainty, Table 3 defines the terminology for expressing
consequences, and Table 4 defines the terminology for expressing risk.

Table 1. Definition of likelihood categories

Term Definition
Negligible This event would almost certainly never occur
Low This event would be unlikely to occur
Moderate This event would be nearly as likely to occur as to not occur
High This event would be likely to occur
Very High This event is almost certain to occur

Table 2. Definition of uncertainty levels [42]

Term Definition
Low Available data is well supported, reliable, complete, and accessible from multiple
sources or published references, and are in general agreement.
Moderate Data is available, but has high interpretability issues, potential biases, reliability
issues, and/or underreporting.
High Some data is available but may be incomplete, unreliable, from a small number
of published sources, and/or demonstrates conflicting evidence. Includes the
combination of anecdotal evidence, personal communications, and expert
opinion with available published data, if all sources are in general agreement.

11| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

Table 3. Definition of consequence levels

Term Definition
Indiscernible The consequences of exposure are so low as to be undetectable
Minor Minor increases in morbidity/mortality and some decreases in production. Effects
of exposure are controllable or reversible.
Significant Morbidity/mortality are great enough to impose moderate production losses.
Effects of exposure may not be reversible.

Major Morbidity and mortality are great enough to threaten the economic viability of the
sector for a lengthy period. Effects of exposure may not be reversible.

Table 4. Definition of risk levels

Term Definition
Negligible The determination of “negligible risk” suggests that the risk is low enough that it
need not be considered, and no further mitigations are necessary.

Low The determination of “low risk” suggests that although not a strict requirement,
resources to further evaluate or mitigate this risk should be considered. A low
risk is greater than a negligible risk due to a potential likelihood of occurrence,
associated consequences, or a combination of both.

Moderate The determination of “moderate risk” suggests that the risk is of a sufficient
magnitude that measures to prevent or mitigate the risk should be considered. A
moderate risk is greater than a low risk due to a greater likelihood of occurrence,
greater consequences, or a combination of both.

High The determination of “high risk” suggests that the risk is of sufficient magnitude
that measures to prevent or mitigate the risk are necessary and the
consequences will have significant impact at the regional or national level. A
high risk is greater than a moderate risk due to a greater likelihood of
occurrence, greater consequences, or a combination of both.

References
1. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. 7th
Edition ed. 2018.
2. Woo, P.T. and R.C. Cipriano, Fish viruses and bacteria: pathobiology and protection. 2017: CABI.
3. Yanong, R.P. and T.B. Waltzek, Megalocytivirus infections in fish, with emphasis on ornamental
species. Program in fisheries and aquatic sciences (FA182), University of Florida, 2010.
4. Song, J.-Y., et al., Genetic variation and geographic distribution of megalocytiviruses. The Journal of
Microbiology, 2008. 46(1): p. 29-33.
5. Novitasari, A. and T. Agustini. Detection of The Red Sea Bream Iridovirus (RSIVD) and Quality of
Frozen Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Imported Through the Port of Tanjung Mas Semarang. in IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019. IOP Publishing.

12| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

6. Seo, H., et al., Rapid diagnosis of two marine viruses, red sea bream iridovirus and viral hemorrhagic
septicemia virus by PCR combined with lateral flow assay. VirusDisease, 2020. 31(3): p. 251-256.
7. Puneeth, T., et al., Complete genome analysis of a red seabream iridovirus (RSIV) isolated from Asian
seabass (Lates calcarifer) in India. Virus Research, 2020. 291: p. 198199.
8. Wenfeng, Z., et al., Isolation and Immunological prevention of an emerging red sea bream iridovirus
[RSIV] in cage-cultured spotted mandarin Siniperca Scherzeri in Dandong, Northeast China. MedRead
J Vet Sci, 2020. 1(1): p. 1001.
9. Chen, P.-L., et al., Aeromonas stool isolates from individuals with or without diarrhea in southern
Taiwan: Predominance of Aeromonas veronii. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection,
2015. 48(6): p. 618-624.
10. Sulistiyono, D., et al. Rapid Diagnostic Test of Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease (RSIVD) in Grouper
Epinephelus Sp. Based on Serological Co-Agglutination and Molecular Study. in Materials Science
Forum. 2019. Trans Tech Publ.
11. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS)
Interface. Available from: https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Wahidhome/Home.
12. Koda, S.A., et al., Phylogenomic characterization of red seabream iridovirus from Florida pompano
Trachinotus carolinus maricultured in the Caribbean Sea. Archives of virology, 2019. 164(4): p.
1209-1212.
13. Personal Communication: Marston, A., Live Animal Imports and Exports - Aquaculture Specialist
United States Department of Agriculture. 2020.
14. Jin, J.W., et al., Dynamics of megalocytivirus transmission between bivalve molluscs and rock bream
Oplegnathus fasciatus. Aquaculture, 2014. 428: p. 29-34.
15. Lopez-Porras, A., et al., Red seabream iridovirus associated with cultured Florida pompano
Trachinotus carolinus mortality in Central America. Diseases of aquatic organisms, 2018. 130(2): p.
109-115.
16. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Red Sea Bream Iridiovirus -- Immediate Notification.
2019 [cited 2019 14 May 2019]; Available from:
http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Reviewreport/Review?page_refer=MapFullEventR
eport&reportid=30444.
17. Gray, D.K., et al., Efficacy of open‐ocean ballast water exchange as a means of preventing invertebrate
invasions between freshwater ports. Limnology and Oceanography, 2007. 52(6): p. 2386-2397.
18. Schofield, P.J. and M.E. Brown, Invasive species: Ocean ecosystem case studies for earth systems and
environmental sciences. Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2016.
19. King, D.M. and M.N. Tamburri, Verifying compliance with ballast water discharge regulations. Ocean
Development & International Law, 2010. 41(2): p. 152-165.
20. Pughiuc, D., Invasive species: Ballast water battles. Seaways, March, 2010: p. 5-7.
21. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 46 Chapter I Subchapter Q Part 162 Subpart 162.060 Ballast
Water Management Systems, U.S.C. Guard, Editor. 2020. Available from:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-I/subchapter-Q/part-162/subpart-162.060
22. Braynard, K. 12/2/2016: Marine Safety Center issues Ballast Water Managment System (BWMS)
type-approval certificate to Aptimarin AS. 2016; Available from:

13| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

https://mariners.coastguard.dodlive.mil/2016/12/02/marine-safety-center-issues-ballast-water-
management-system-bwms-type-approval-certificate-optimarin-as/.
23. Kim, Y., et al., Metagenomic investigation of viral communities in ballast water. Environmental
science & technology, 2015. 49(14): p. 8396-8407.
24. United States Coast Guard, Standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in US
waters. Federal Register, 2012. 77: p. 17254-17320. Available from:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/06/13/2012-14382/standards-for-living-
organisms-in-ships-ballast-water-discharged-in-us-waters
25. Hwang, J., et al., High diversity and potential translocation of DNA viruses in ballast water. Marine
pollution bulletin, 2018. 137: p. 449-455.
26. Paul-Pont, I., et al., Descriptive epidemiology of mass mortality due to Ostreid herpesvirus-1 (OsHV-1)
in commercially farmed Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in the Hawkesbury River estuary,
Australia. Aquaculture, 2014. 422: p. 146-159.
27. Whittington, R.J., et al., Counting the dead to determine the source and transmission of the marine
herpesvirus OsHV-1 in Crassostrea gigas. Veterinary research, 2018. 49(1): p. 34.
28. Cunningham, F.L., et al., Environmental factor (s) and animal vector (s) associated with atypical
Aeromonas hydrophila abundance and dissemination among channel catfish ponds. Journal of the
World Aquaculture Society, 2019.
29. Jubirt, M.M., et al., Potential for Great Egrets (Ardea alba) to transmit a virulent strain of Aeromonas
hydrophila among channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) culture ponds. Journal of wildlife diseases,
2015. 51(3): p. 634-639.
30. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NPDES Aquaculture Permitting. Available from:
www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-aquaculture-permitting.
31. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Seafood Processing Effluent Guidelines. Available from:
https://www.epa.gov/eg/seafood-processing-effluent-guidelines.
32. United States Government Publishing Office (GPO), Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point
Source Category. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter N, Part 408,
2020. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-N/part-408
33. Gordon, R.K., et al., The Role of Non-animal Origin Feed Ingredients in Transmission of Viral
Pathogens of Swine: A Review of Scientific Literature. Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. 6: p. 273.
34. Cunningham, F.L., et al., Potential of Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), American
White Pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), and Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) to Transmit a
Hypervirulent Strain of Aeromonas hydrophila between Channel Catfish Culture Ponds. Journal of
wildlife diseases, 2018. 54(3): p. 548-552.
35. Hill, J.E., et al., Risk screen of freshwater tropical ornamental fishes for the conterminous United
States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 2017. 146(5): p. 927-938.
36. Patoka, J., et al., Invasive aquatic pets: failed policies increase risks of harmful invasions. Biodiversity
and conservation, 2018. 27(11): p. 3037-3046.
37. Rahel, F.J. and M.A. Smith, Pathways of unauthorized fish introductions and types of management
responses. Hydrobiologia, 2018. 817(1): p. 41-56.
38. Banha, F., A. Diniz, and P. Anastácio, Patterns and drivers of aquarium pet discharge in the wild.
Ecological Indicators, 2019. 106: p. 105513.

14| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 Red Sea Bream Iridoviral Disease Rapid Risk Assessment

39. Go, J., et al., The molecular epidemiology of iridovirus in Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) and
dwarf gourami (Colisa lalia) from distant biogeographical regions suggests a link between trade in
ornamental fish and emerging iridoviral diseases. Molecular and cellular probes, 2006. 20(3-4): p.
212-222.
40. Whittington, R., J. Becker, and M. Dennis, Iridovirus infections in finfish–critical review with emphasis
on ranaviruses. Journal of fish diseases, 2010. 33(2): p. 95-122.
41. Dey, V., The global trade in ornamental fish. Infofish International, 2016. 4(16): p. 23-29.
42. Mastrandrea, M.D., et al., Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on
consistent treatment of uncertainties. 2010.
43. The Observatory of Economic Complexity, Ornamental fish. Available
from: https://www.oec.world/en/profile/hs92/ornamental-fish-live

15| Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service