Exploring the Impact of a Low-Protein High-Carbohydrate Diet in Mature Broodstock of a Glucose-Intolerant Teleost, the Rainbow Trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable aquaculture production requires a greater reduction in the use of marine-derived ingredients, and one of the most promising solutions today is the augmentation in the proportion of digestible carbohydrates in aquafeed. This challenge is particularly difficult for high trophic level teleost fish as they are considered to be glucose-intolerant (growth delay and persistent postprandial hyperglycemia observed in juveniles fed a diet containing more than 20% of carbohydrates). It was previously suggested that broodstock could potentially use carbohydrates more efficiently than juveniles, probably due to important metabolic changes that occur during gametogenesis. To investigate this hypothesis, two-year old male and female rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were either fed a diet containing no carbohydrates (NC) or a 35%-carbohydrate diet (HC) for an entire reproductive cycle. Zootechnical parameters as well as the activities of enzymes involved in carbohydrate metabolism were measured in livers and gonads. Fish were then reproduced to investigate the effects of such a diet on reproductive performance. Broodstock consumed the HC diet, and in contrast to what is commonly observed in juveniles, they were able to grow normally and they did not display postprandial hyperglycaemia. The modulation of their hepatic metabolism, with an augmentation of the glycogenesis, the pentose phosphate pathway and a possible better regulation of gluconeogenesis, may explain their improved ability to use dietary carbohydrates. Although the HC diet did induce precocious maturation, the reproductive performance of fish was not affected, confirming that broodstock are able to reproduce when fed a low-protein high-carbohydrate diet. In conclusion, this exploratory work has shown that broodstock are able to use a diet containing digestible carbohydrates as high as 35% and can then grow and reproduce normally over an entire reproductive cycle for females and at least at the beginning of the cycle for males. These results are highly promising and suggest that dietary carbohydrates can at least partially replace proteins in broodstock aquafeed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".