Nutrient deposition partitioning and priorities between body compartments in two size classes of rainbow trout in response to feed restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptations in growth dynamics in fish, i.e. how fish prioritise tissue accretion between organs, remains poorly understood. In the present study, we investigated the effects of graded feed restriction levels on nutrient deposition in 1.3 g fingerlings and 70 g juveniles. At the whole-body level, highly restricted juveniles strove to maintain body protein while mobilising lipid reserves and compensating for mass loss by increasing water content. In contrast, fingerlings maintained body water and energy contents. Additionally, we investigated deposition patterns in four body compartments (red and white axial muscles, viscera and rest of the carcass) in juveniles and changes in the cellularity of the white and red muscles in fingerlings. We provide evidence of priorities in growth and nutrient deposition in body compartments in response to low feeding levels. In juveniles, feed intake (FI) primarily affected the white muscle, while the red muscle and the viscera appeared to be preserved. Specific proteins (45 and 173 kDa) were preferentially deposited in the white muscle, while others (22 and 32 kDa) were preferentially mobilised. In fingerlings' muscle anterior to the anus, the cross-sectional surface areas increased with increasing FI in a logarithmic fashion in the white muscle, and in linear fashion in the red muscle. The maximum diameter of white fibres decreased linearly with fish length, while that of red fibres remained stable. This suggests an adaptation mechanism by decreasing white muscle hyperplasia in favour of hypertrophy when feed is restricted. Overall, these results indicate some mechanisms by which fish cope with low food availability. Our findings also suggest different adaptation strategies employed by fish of different body weights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".