A survey of water chemistry used in zebrafish facilities and their effects on early zebrafish development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> Background There are a variety of published standard methods and water chemistry recommendations for zebrafish ( <ns3:italic>Danio rerio</ns3:italic> ) husbandry, but empirical evidence for their justification is often lacking, as is information on some variables that have important biological effects on fish. Importantly, these different recommendations could contribute to variability in results and fish welfare between or within institutions. Methods Here we document the current range of water chemistry used by various research institutions around the world and report initial findings on their effects on the development and growth of zebrafish. Over 40 institutes responded to a survey that revealed a large variation in water chemistry used for zebrafish husbandry including differences in the set-points and acceptable ranges for temperature, pH and conductivity. In subsequent experiments, zebrafish ( <ns3:italic>D. rerio</ns3:italic> , WIK) embryos/larvae exposed to a large range of salt concentrations (50μM to 10mM Na <ns3:sup>+</ns3:sup> or 30 – 2500 μS/cm) and CO2 levels (400 – 8,000 μatm). Results Larvae exposed to the lowest salt concentration (5 μM Na <ns3:sup>+</ns3:sup> or < 30μS/cm) had a slower response to touch and their swim bladders were not inflated. Larvae exposed to 5-100 μM Na <ns3:sup>+</ns3:sup> were 5 % shorter in total body length than those exposed to higher salt concentrations (>100 μM Na <ns3:sup>+</ns3:sup> ). Zebrafish embryo/larvae exposed to intermediate pCO2 values (~2000 μatm) were 1 to 3.5% longer than those exposed to either ambient (400 μatm) or higher (4000 μatm) pCO2, but pCO2 did not affect developmental endpoints up to 4 dpf. Conclusions Overall, we highlight the magnitude of variation in water chemistry used within zebrafish research and provide some empirical evidence to show that not all of these water conditions might be optimal for developing zebrafish and reproducibility of research, although further research is necessary to determine longer-term effects of water chemistry on older larvae, juveniles and adults. </ns3:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".