Myxobolus cerebralis Hofer, 1903

Common Name: Salmonid whirling disease

Synonyms and Other Names:

Myxosoma cerebralis



Copyright Info

Identification: M. cerebralis occurs in two stages. In one stage it has a myxospore form that contains a polar filament for injection of the cell contents (containing a binucleate infective germ cell) into the epithelial cells of the intestine of a host oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex). In the other stage it has a triactinomyxon (TAM) spore form that also is equipped with a polar filament for attachment to the epithelium of a salmonid host. In general, spores are oval, frequently asymmetrical, and exhibit 5 or 6 irregular coils in the polar filament (Mills et al. 1993; Gilbert and Granath 2003; Lom and Hoffman 2003; Kallert et al. 2005).            

In infected salmonids, the disease caused by M. cerebralis can result in whirling behavior or tail-chasing; damage to the central nervous system and organs of equilibrium; lesions in the skull, gills, and vertebrae; and sometimes mortality (Mills et al. 1993; Crawford 2001; Gilbert and Granath 2003; Krueger et al. 2006).


Size: M. cerebralis spores are around 7.5–10 μm in length (Lom and Hoffman 2003; Krueger et al. 2006).


Native Range: Unknown. However, M. cerebralis is a common European parasite of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and could have evolved with this host species, which is generally asymptomatic to infection. This association could have originated in Central Europe (Crawford 2001; Gilbert and Granath 2003; Krueger et al. 2006).


Map Key
This map only depicts Great Lakes introductions.

 
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences: M. cerebralis was recorded for the first time in 1968 in an Ohio aquaculture operation within the Lake Erie drainage. It may have been present in the Great Lakes system since the 1950s. It has been recorded primarily from aquaculture facilities, or waters in the immediate vicinity of such operations, in the Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Michigan drainages, but also in the wild in tributaries of Lakes Huron and Superior (Mills et al. 1993; Whirling Disease Initiative 1997-1998; Crawford 2001; Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2001). 


Table 1. Great Lakes region nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state/province, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Myxobolus cerebralis are found here.

State/ProvinceFirst ObservedLast ObservedTotal HUCs with observations†HUCs with observations†
MI197020036Au Gres-Rifle; Au Sable; Boardman-Charlevoix; Cheboygan; Lake Huron; Manistee
MN197019701Lake Superior
NY197019881Lake Ontario
OH196819681Lake Erie
WI199819981St. Louis

Table last updated 12/14/2025

† Populations may not be currently present.


Ecology: Habitat - The obligate host for Myxobolus cerebralis is the common oligochaete Tubifex tubifex. Some strains of this species are susceptible to infection by M. cerebralis while others are not.  Finer sediments also may hold spores better than more coarse sediments. Moreover, finer sediments and slower-moving waters are ideal habitat for T. tubifex and thus may favor higher infection rates in salmonids. Salmonids are the secondary host.  Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is particularly susceptible to this pathogen.  Larger and older rainbow trout (at least 40 mm in length and at least 9 weeks old) have increased resistance to exposure to this disease (Blazer et al. 2003; Burckhardt and Hubert 2005; Ryce et al. 2005; Kerans et al. 2005; Krueger et al. 2006). The following species are susceptible but generally considered less so than Rainbow Trout: Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Golden Trout (O. aguabonita), Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki), Brook Trout (S. fontinalis), Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Brown Trout (S. trutta) is susceptible but infections are usually asymptomatic. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) is not susceptible to infection (Bartholomew et al. 2003; Gilbert and Granath 2003; Sollid et al. 2003; Blazer et al. 2004; Krueger et al. 2006). 

Food Web - This species is a parasite that feeds on the tissues of its hosts.

Life History - TAMs (triactinomyxon, the spore-like stage of the parasite) develop in T. tubifex via asexual and sexual reproduction, requiring a total of 3 months in the region between the epithelial cells of the oligochaete’s intestine to reach maturity. They are then released into the water column and must infect their salmonid hosts within around 1–15 days. Both mechanical and chemical mucus-derived signals trigger their discharge. Upon discharge at the epidermis of the fish, the sporoplasm, containing a group of infective germ cells, is injected into the host. The germ cells then move into the nervous system, reproducing and eventually moving to the cartilage. Development in the fish host is asexual and occurs in inter- and intra-cellular spaces, requiring around 3 months for myxospore formation. Myxospores can be passed to another fish at this point if the first host is ingested by a predator. If this is the case, they will pass out in the second host’s feces to settle in the sediments. Otherwise, the spores remain in the first fish host’s tissue upon mortality and eventually end up in the sediments as the carcass decays. Myxospores can survive temperatures of -20°C.  Evidence suggests that the myxospores free in the environment remain viable for less than a year (Nehring et al 2015). They are then taken up from the sediments by feeding T. tubifex and the life cycle begins again (El-Matbouli et al. 1999; Gilbert and Granath 2003; Kallert et al. 2005; Elwell et al. 2006; Kaeser et al. 2006; Krueger et al. 2006). The severity of infection in salmonids may be correlated with water temperature and water conductivity. Temperatures from 5–17°C are best for TAM production while temperatures of >20°C are inhibitive. Depending on the strain of T. tubifex hosting TAMs, ideal temperature for development can vary.


Great Lakes Means of Introduction: M. cerebralis was very likely introduced with nonindigenous salmonids that were stocked in the Great Lakes drainage system (Mills et al. 1993). M. cerebralis is a common European parasite of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and could have been introduced to the Great Lakes along with Brown trout in the late 1800s. Alternatively, it could have arrived with transfers of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from Europe back to North America before 1956 (Crawford 2001).


Great Lakes Status: Likely overwintering and reproducing in the Great Lakes, although most occurrences have been at hatcheries and prevention and control measures have increased.


Great Lakes Impacts:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

EnvironmentalSocioeconomic


Myxobolus cerebralis has a high environmental impact in the Great Lakes.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2012) lists Whirling disease as a reportable disease. Multiple salmonids are susceptible to infection by M. cerebralis, but the degree of susceptibility as well as symptom expression varies among species. Great Lakes native salmonid species susceptible to the pathogen include Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).

Myxobolus cerebralis has a low socioeconomic impact in the Great Lakes.

Economically valuable non-native Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is particularly susceptible to this pathogen, and Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) can also be susceptible to a lesser degree. Most reports in the Great Lakes region have been from hatchery stocks.

Myxobolus cerebralis has low potential benefits to the Great Lakes.


Management:  

Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes)
The Great Lakes Fish Disease Control Policy and Model Program have prohibited stocking the Great Lakes and their tributaries with fish from whirling disease infected farms. Fish imported into the North Central Region states must be certified free of whirling disease in order to obtain import permits (Faisal and Garling 2004).

Jurisdiction Regulation Law Description Date Effective
Illinois Other 515 ILCS 5/20-90 This species is not on the Illinois Aquatic Life Approved Species List and if it is not otherwise native to Illinois it is illegal to be imported or possessed alive without a permit. 7/9/2015
Illinois Other NA require imported salmonid health inspections NA
Indiana Other NA This species is listed as of concern in Indiana, however, no specific regulations are defined 9/8/2021
Indiana Other NA requires source facilities within the Great Lakes basin to document they have been whirling disease free for three consecutive years prior to importing salmonid stock. Source facilities outside the basin must document salmonid stocks have been whirling disease free consecutively since 2002 NA
Michigan Other NA requires source facilities to document salmonid stocks have been whirling disease free for two consecutive years prior to importation NA
Minnesota Other NA requires imported salmonid health inspections. allows the importation of whirling disease infected eggs, if prior egg treatments are approved NA
New York Other NA prior to placing fish in New York waters, a fish health certification report must document that the fish are whirling disease free NA
Ohio Other NA requires out of state source facilities to document annual salmonid fish, egg, and sperm health inspections for one year prior to importation. Source facilities outside the Great Lakes basin must document health inspections for the previous five years with no whirling disease occurrences prior to importing salmonids into the Lake Erie watershed. NA
Pennsylvania Other NA This species is listed as of concern in Pennsylvania, however, no specific regulations are defined NA
Wisconsin Other NA requires source facilities to document salmonid stocks have been whirling disease free for one year prior to importation NA
Ontario Other NA requires an import permit issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) prior to the importation of certain finfish. Under the Canadian Health of Animals Act, aquaculturists are required to report any whirling disease suspicions to the CFIA NA

 All eight Great Lakes states (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) have instated similar baitfish regulations to control the spread of whirling disease and other fish pathogens. Those of New York include that bait harvested from inland waters for personal use is only permitted to be used within the same body of water from which it was taken and cannot be transported overland (with the exception of smelt, suckers, alewives, and blueback herring). Once transported, baitfish cannot be replaced to its original body of water (NYSDEC 2012). Live or frozen bait harvested from inland New York waters for commercial purposes is only permitted to be sold or possessed on the same body of water from which it was taken and cannot be transported over land unless under a permit and or accompanied by a fish health certification report. Bait that is preserved and packaged by any method other than freezing, such as salting, can be sold and used wherever the use of bait fish is legal as long as the package is labeled with the name of the packager-processor, the name of the fish species, the quantity of fish packaged, and the means of preservation (NYSDEC 2012). Certified bait may be sold for retail and transported overland as long as the consumer maintains a copy of a sales receipt that contains the name of the selling vendor, date sold, species of fish sold, and quantity of fish sold. Bait that has not been certified may still be sold but the consumer must maintain a sales receipt containing the body of water where the bait fish was collected and a warning that the bait cannot be transported by motor vehicle. Bait sold for resale require a fish health certification along with a receipt that contains the name of the selling vendor, date sold, species of fish sold, and quantity of fish sold, which must be kept for 30 days or until all bait is sold (NYSDEC 2012).

Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.

Control
The following  biological, physical and chemical controls only pertain to fish in captive or hatchery operations. There are no known control methods of whirling disease in wild populations (except for management of spread - see Other below).

A qPCR marker has been developed for the detection of M. cerebralis (Weber et al. 2012, Barry 2020).  Multiple markers are available for the host Tubifex tubifex which show promise in distinguishing genetic strains which may relate to compatibility with the parasite (Weber et al. 2012, Barry 2020).

Biological
Managing T. tubifex populations can be implemented as a biocontrol of M. cerebralis. Maintaining water quality, reducing favorable habitat by preventing sediment accumulation in aquaculture (Crosier et al. 2012), and desiccating holding tanks, equipment, and intake pipes may help control T. tubifex (Kaster and Bushnell 1981). Lampricide TFM (3-triflouromethyl-4-nitrophenol), administered at (4.2-14.0 mg/L) doses, is effective at destroying T. tubifex (Liefers 1990). Tubifex tubifex can also be treated in 30°C water for four days, causing triactinomyxon (TAM) spore production to stop, thus preventing the next stage of the parasite's life cycle (El-Matbouli et al. 1999).  Tubifex tubifex ability to support M. cerebralis’ triactinomyxon (TAM) spore production may be due to genetic differences among T. tubifex populations. This variability may be an important factor in determining infection rates among fish (Baxa et al. 2006) and therefore might support certain management practices (Stromberg 2006).

It has been proposed that selective processes are yielding a surviving population of fish that is more resistant to M. cerebralis infection on the Madison River, Montana (Vincent 2006). The implications of this for management are still unclear. However, research is continuing to evaluate the possibility of a developing resistance within salmonid populations(Stromberg 2006).

Physical
Managers have observed that using concrete in aquaculture facilities can reduce the abundance of T. tubifex and thus limit the ability of M. cerebralis to reproduce (Mills et al. 1993, Ricciardi 2001). Most hatcheries now use concrete bottoms to break the life cycle of M. cerebralis (R. Kinnunnen, Pers. Comm. 2025).

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW 2011) administers routine fish health sampling at hatchery sites to help slow the spread of M. cerebralis infections by early detection. At the Roaring Judy Hatchery, a project is underway to install an ultraviolet system that kills M. cerebralis spores (CDW 2011).Treating water with 2537Å UV at doses of 35mWs/cm2 can be 86-100% effective at preventing whirling disease in rainbow trout fry (Hoffman 1974) and administering 1,300 mWs/cm2 of UV under a static collimated beam, can inactivate 100% of the TAM spores present (Hedrick et al. 2000).

There is evidence that electricity (1,000 s exposure to low-level DC voltage for 48 hrs) can destroy T. tubifex in aquaculture (R. Ingraham and T. Claxton, pers. comm. in Wagner 2002). Electrical charges of 1-3 kV pulsed 1-25 times at 99 µsec/pulse are effective at killing large numbers of TAM spores (Wagner 2002). Exposing myxospores to 90°C water for 10 minutes is also effective at destroying the spores (Hoffman and Markiw 1977).
Experiments by Hoffman (1974) have demonstrated that filtration is not an effective method for removing TAM spores from water – due to the small spores size, the filter needed to remove them slows flow to rates unacceptable for most applications.

Chemical
Hatchery intake water treated with chlorine (0.5 ppm) administered at two hour intervals once a week can reduce infection rates in rainbow trout by 63-73% without causing harm to the fish (Markiw 1992). Supply water treated with calcium cyanide (488 g/m2) mixed with chlorine gas (300 ppm) can be very effective at destroying M. cerebralis spores (Hoffman and Dunbar 1961). Water treated with chlorine (130-260 ppm) for 10 minutes may kill 100% of TAM spores present (Wagner 2002), and treating with chlorine (5,000 ppm) for 10 minutes is sufficient enough to destroy both triactinomyxon and myxospore (E. MacConnell, pers. comm. in Wagner 2002). Treating fry with chlorine (10 ppm) for 30 minutes may prevent whirling disease infection (Hoffman and O’Grodnick 1977).

It has been demonstrated that feeding Rainbow Trout with pellets containing (0.1%) Fumagillin is effective at reducing whirling disease infection. Two groups of Rainbow Trout were administered pellets from days 14-64 and 30-160 post infection. Approximately 10-20% of the medicated fish harbored spores, whereas 73-100% of non-medicated fish harbored spores (El-Matbouli and Hoffman 1991).
Earthen pond substrate treated with quicklime (CaO) at concentrations >380 g/m2 for two weeks prior to introducing fish can prevent whirling disease infection by destroying M. cerebralis spores (Hoffman and Hoffman 1972).

Other
Adherence to local laws regarding transportation of live fish between bodies of water, contacting local agencies immediately upon noticing signs of whirling disease, properly disposing of fish and fish parts, and not transporting mud on boots and shoes between bodies of water are useful in controlling the transmission of M. cerebralis spores in the wild.

Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.


Remarks: The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS 2025) lists genus Myxobolus within Family Myxobolidae, Suborder Platysporina, Order Bivalvulida, Subclass Myxosporea, Class Myxozoa, Subphylum Endocnidozoa, Phylum Cnidaria.


References (click for full reference list)


Other Resources:
Author: Kipp, R.M., M. Cannister, A.K. Bogdanoff and R. Sturtevant


Contributing Agencies:
NOAA GLRI Logo


Revision Date: 9/2/2025


Citation for this information:
Kipp, R.M., M. Cannister, A.K. Bogdanoff and R. Sturtevant, 2025, Myxobolus cerebralis Hofer, 1903: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System, Ann Arbor, MI, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?HUCNumber=4060200&NoCache=2%2F28%2F2012+12%3A45%3A10+AM&Species_ID=2364, Revision Date: 9/2/2025, Access Date: 12/15/2025

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.