Fundamental Approaches to the Study of Zebrafish Nutrition
Stephen A. Watts, Mickie Powell, and Louis R. D’Abramo
Abstract
The value of the zebrafish model has been well established.
However, culture variability within and among laboratories
remains a concern, particularly as it relates to nutrition.
Investigators using rodent models addressed this concern
several decades ago and have developed strict nutritional
regimes to which their models adhere. These investigators
decreased the variability associated with nutrition in most
studies by developing standardized reference and open formulation diets. Zebrafish investigators have not embraced
this approach. In this article, we address the problems associated with the lack of nutritional information and standardization in the zebrafish research community. Based on the
knowledge gained from studies of other animals, including
traditional research models, other fish species, domesticated
and companion animals, and humans, we have proposed an
approach that seeks to standardize nutrition research in
zebrafish. We have identified a number of factors for consideration in zebrafish nutrition studies and have suggested a
number of proposed outcomes. The long term-goal of nutrition research will be to identify the daily nutritional requirements of the zebrafish and to develop appropriate standardized
reference and open formulation diets.
Key Words: diet; experimental feed; ingredient; intake;
nutrient; nutrition; zebrafish
Introduction
T
he term nutrition is commonly found in the scientific
literature and is used (or misused) frequently in everyday language. Animal nutrition represents a basic concept, yet the approach to the study of nutrition varies widely
among disciplines and researchers. Human nutrition is one
of the most actively discussed but least understood areas of
nutrition research. In this regard, much of what we know
about human nutrition is implicated from epidemiological
surveys or from studies of other mammalian species. For this
Stephen A. Watts, PhD, is a professor and Mickie L. Powell, PhD, is an
assistant professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Alabama
at Birmingham. Louis R. D’Abramo, PhD, is a professor in the Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture at Mississippi State University.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Stephen A. Watts,
Department of Biology, 1300 University Boulevard, The University of
Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294 or email [email protected].
144
reason, nutrition of traditional research animals, primarily
rats and mice, has received much more attention in recent
years, particularly in response to the discovery of chemical
compounds contained in specific foodstuffs that may promote unwanted or undesired effects in studies of disease.
Nutrition of domesticated agricultural animals is perhaps the
most well studied area of nutrition, and many experimental
protocols have been developed for the study of these commercially important species. More recently, studies of aquatic
organisms, primarily finfish and shrimp, have increased in
response to increased interest in aquaculture. Studies such as
these have established a framework by which we should approach the study of nutrition of zebrafish held in culture.
To better develop a standardized approach to evaluating
zebrafish nutrition, we must define the basic terminology
associated with nutrition research. To more precisely evaluate
nutrition in zebrafish, we will define a nutrient as any ingested
or absorbed molecule, organic or inorganic, required for normal physiological function. Consequently, we can define
nutrition as a process by which living organisms acquire and
assimilate nutrients for survival, growth, reproduction, and
replacement of tissues. To this end, daily dietary nutrient
requirements should be determined in our model species.
Nutrition research should be structured to show which nutrients are important and how they are obtained and assimilated.
It is also important to understand how these nutrients possibly
interact with other nutrients or non-nutrient compounds.
Despite the widespread use of zebrafish (Danio rerio) as
a high-throughput development, toxicologic, and biomedical
model, the daily nutritional requirements for this species
have not been determined. The failure to estimate daily dietary nutrient requirements originally resides in the interests
of those researchers who use the zebrafish as a tool. For example, live diets are a mainstay in first feed strategies of most
zebrafish research labs. As zebrafish age, adequate formulated diets are available commercially. In combination, both
provide reasonable growth and fecundity for zebrafish culture. However, the contribution of specific nutrients in any of
these live or commercial diets is unknown, and the health of
the fish consuming these diets cannot largely be determined.
For some applications, use of undefined nutrient sources may
not be of significant consequence, and we would minimally
hope that the dietary management strategy is clearly outlined
in publications about such applications. However, when
zebrafish are used as a model of human disease, consideration of both quantity and quality of specific nutrients is
essential. Zebrafish researchers must avoid repeating the
ILAR Journal
mistakes made in the use of nondefined diets in mammalian models (primarily rats and mice) in previous decades.
Consequently, it is essential to have the fish consume a nutritionally complete, chemically defined diet in those studies
where disease onset may be affected or may have a contributory nutrient, dietary interaction, or antinutritional compound
(ingested compound eliciting an aberrant physiological response) affecting disease onset and/or progression.
Considering the lack of published nutritional information
for zebrafish culture, all of the information published to date
is useful and can provide insight into nutrient requirements.
Furthermore, a wealth of information on other fish species can
provide relevant information. However, additional scrutiny and
standardization are necessary to accurately quantify nutrient
requirements (and nutrient toxicities) for zebrafish. This
includes an adequate description of the environmental and
nutritional history of the experimental animal and its parents.
Because of the lack of dietary nutrient data, the goal of this
paper is not to provide an in-depth review of the current state of
nutrition research in zebrafish; our goal is to identify and summarize those criteria and methods that should be considered in
conducting nutrition research with zebrafish.
Nutrition versus Dietetics
The procedures by which nutrition studies are conducted
vary widely among researchers. Historically, researchers
have engaged in studies that should be commonly referred to
as dietetics, defined as the “practical application of diet in
relation to health and disease” (American Heritage Dictionary
2007). Simply stated, these studies have evaluated common
dietary items, usually natural live diets including Paramecium, brine shrimp nauplii, rotifers, or dried feeds prepared
from these natural organisms. These studies are valuable in
that they provide important information about feeding strategies and basic requirements in zebrafish and can provide direction on future nutrition research. However, evaluation of
the effect of natural diets does not provide information adequate to define the daily quantitative nutrient requirement
for an animal because the nutrient content of these natural
diets is unknown and cannot be completely duplicated. Furthermore, these studies fall short of being repeatable due to
qualitative differences in the dietary food items that occur
seasonally or geographically. Also, these natural foods vary
in physical and chemical characteristics, including size,
shape, hardness, and basic chemistry, and may contain varying levels of attractants, stimulants, and deterrents. Despite
their limitations, use of these diets represents a good foundation that can lead to well-characterized nutritional studies.
Historical versus Contemporary Approach
The approach used to study zebrafish nutrition can be
adapted from studies with other organisms. Human nutrition
has received the most attention of any organism. However,
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
the study of human nutrition does not easily lend itself to
empirical evaluation. Recent studies are largely corollary
or epidemiological. Other animals that have received widespread attention are domesticated animals that are traditionally farmed for consumption, such as cattle, sheep, pigs,
chickens, and other finfish. In fact, there is probably more
information available about chicken nutrition than about nutrition of any other species. Additional studies with experimental laboratory animals, including mice and rats, suggest
that there is much to learn about nutrition for all organisms.
For example, soybean products are a common ingredient
(protein or lipid source) in many mammalian diets. However, soy products may contain specific chemicals (isoflavones) that influence disease and animal health (Barnes et al.
1998), including antinutritional factors that can affect fish
feeds. These studies indicate that an appropriate approach
must consider the chemical and nutrient content of all feed
ingredients consumed in the diet and that this approach must
be organized to evaluate the appropriate outcome, whether
that outcome is survival, growth, reproduction, aging, disease resistance, or another response. They have also demonstrated that standard, predictable, and valid methods must be
used, which include adequate physical experimental conditions with diets having the desired physical characteristics
and use of proper feed management strategies.
Field observations of holotypical populations of zebrafish
provide some of the most valuable information on dietary
requirements. Spence and colleagues (2007) provided an excellent review of the basic life history of zebrafish populations
in south Asia. General observations and gut content analyses
indicated that zebrafish consume a wide variety of animal and
plant matter, including zooplankton and insects, phytoplankton, filamentous algae and vascular plant material, spores and
invertebrate eggs, fish scales, arachnids, detritus, sand, and
mud. A significant constituent of the gut contents was dipteran
larvae. This diversity in foodstuffs is characteristic of an
omnivorous species that is a generalist and can absorb and
assimilate nutrients from a wide range of sources (not uncommon among cyprinids). Of particular interest is the fact that the
diversity of foodstuffs indicates that material is ingested from
different strata, including the surface, the water column, and
the benthos. As such, the ability of zebrafish to feed in various
strata will be important in providing diets in a physical form
that is readily consumed, whether from the surface (floating
feed) or from the water column or benthos (sinking feed).
Early interest in zebrafish nutrition was stimulated by the
ornamental tropical fish industry. General fish diets (derived
from commonly cultured fish) were fed to large populations
of zebrafish often held in ponds or raceways. In many cases,
natural productivity was stimulated in these culture systems,
and natural food items (zooplankton and biofilm assemblages) were consumed, supplementing the formulated diets.
Consequently, many of the dietary requirements were most
likely met, and zebrafish culture was successful.
Adaptation to the laboratory was relatively easy (Creaser
1934). Early feeding strategies of zebrafish in the laboratory
were basically adopted from the ornamental fish industry.
145
It was quickly determined that zebrafish could be reared on
tropical fish diets purchased from commercial sources. Little
interest was shown in the quality of the diet as long as it
proved successful. However, early concerns arose in the concept of “first feed.” At the time of completion of gut development (approximately 5 days postfertilization), anecdotal and
published information suggested that survival and growth on
formulated diets were relatively poor (Goolish et al. 1999).
Batch-to-batch variability in survivorship was high. As was
the case in many fish species, larval zebrafish performed best
when fed a diet that modeled their natural diet of zooplankton
(Spence et al. 2007). Larval zebrafish were often fed diets
of Paramecium, rotifers, and brine shrimp nauplii because
these feeds increased survival and early growth. Today, these
diets are still used successfully in many laboratories around
the world and are discussed in several handbooks (Westerfield 2007). After a period of early development (from several days to several weeks), formulated diets were introduced
to developing zebrafish. The primary desire for the use of
formulated diets was ease of feed delivery, storage, and
preparation. Additionally, many of the smaller live diets
(rotifers) could not be routinely cultured to produce the
required biomass for large zebrafish populations in most
laboratories. Success of a feed and/or feeding strategy was
measured primarily as survivorship and reproduction of
adults. If a diet produced sufficient survival of larvae and
juveniles and good fecundity in adults, then that dietary
combination was adopted by the lab or facility as “standard.”
Unfortunately, many of these practices termed as “standard”
have not been validated in scientific studies and are not
comparable. This lack of standardization will have a significant impact on the success of zebrafish as a biological model
organism.
Herein lies the problem facing today’s zebrafish laboratory: there is no standardized diet for common application.
There is no reference diet to which new diets can be compared. We do not know the basic ingredients in many of the
commercial diets, nor the level of contribution of specific
nutrients. No open-formulation diets are available for comparison. We do not know the best diet for first feed (known
in other species to be a critical period affecting gut development). We do not know which nutrients are required for
normal growth and development, and we do not know which
diets promote optimal fecundity, fertilization success, and
healthy embryos. We use commercial diets that can contain dyes, lakes, antinutritional factors, and preservatives
with little thought as to their impact on genetics, genomics,
transcriptomics, proteomics, or metabolomics, or even epigenetics. The zebrafish has current and potential value as a
biomedical model and for toxicological assessments, yet we
often unknowingly feed zebrafish commercial diets containing compounds that could easily compromise the results of
many scientific studies. One could argue that dietary conditions in many laboratories are held constant and that reported
results of many previously published studies have the appropriate controls. However, if the presumed nutritional control does not actually exist, scientific conclusions could be
146
compromised as well. This concern would be particularly
important for the use of zebrafish as models of disease
wherein nutrition is hypothesized to have an important role
in disease onset and progression. Quite simply, the daily dietary nutrient requirements for any of the various life stages
(larval vs. juvenile vs. adult) of Danio rerio are unknown.
Nutritionally complete diets, highly desired for zebrafish
culture, are being developed in several laboratories. However,
not all biologists working with zebrafish are adequately
trained in nutrition research, potentially resulting in inappropriate experimental design and experimental methods that
commonly vary among laboratories. Consequently, what is
an appropriate approach to the study of nutrition and diet
development in zebrafish? Can we borrow approaches used
in other species (fish and other vertebrates), or are we destined to make similar mistakes by ignoring factors with obvious (or not so obvious) impacts? What are the appropriate
outcomes that we should measure? Survival, length, weight
gain, condition factors, stress test responses, food conversion ratios, general health, disease susceptibility, and fecundity are some of the historical outcomes, but others may be
more appropriate. Additional outcomes that demand consideration are gamete production, health and/or disease resistance, and organ development and function. Will there be
differences in the nutritional requirements of larvae, juveniles, and adults? All these questions represent important
considerations as we develop appropriate outcomes for
zebrafish nutrition research.
Numerous commercial feeds for zebrafish have appeared on the market in the last decade, and several formulations have been published (Kaushik et al. 2011; Siccardi et
al. 2009). Many of these feeds are made by pelleting or extrusion cooking procedures, with moisture contents of less
than 15% for dry feeds. Many contain ingredients that are
highly refined. They can be produced in large quantities and
have a stable shelf life. Similar processes were used in the
development of rodent diets. However, rodent diets experienced a renaissance when it was determined that nutrient (or
antinutrient) content must be available to scientists. Many
rodent diets are now open formulation (public access to all
ingredients and nutrient contents) and are recommended by
the American Institute of Nutrition, the National Academy
of Sciences, and other agencies (Barnard et al. 2009). Standards for nutritional studies have been established and have
increased the fidelity of many studies investigating these
models as they relate to human health and disease. Development of similar approaches to dietary standards for zebrafish
will be challenging. First and foremost, the nutritional requirements for any zebrafish genus or strain have not been
adequately determined. Open-formulation diets have not
been developed for zebrafish. Most diets are largely practical (having relatively unrefined sources of proximate constituents), and purified (chemically defined) diets are not
available. Furthermore, zebrafish feed is obviously placed
in aquatic environments; thus, proffered food must be
consumed immediately or risk significant leaching of required nutrients. Consequently, feed management will have
ILAR Journal
an increasingly important role in determining nutritional
requirements.
In the remaining portion of this paper, we attempt to outline basic considerations for nutrition research in zebrafish.
These considerations should provide investigators with a
strong foundation to determine the nutritional needs and
requirements for any strain of Danio rerio.
Basic Considerations in Zebrafish Nutrition
Research
Knowledge of Zebrafish Biology is Essential
In nutrition as well as in other research areas, one cannot
develop strategies to manage an organism without understanding the biology of that organism. A fundamental understanding of factors that affect feed acquisition and
assimilation is critical for nutrition research. Fortunately,
population analyses and behavioral observations from
natural populations have been well reported for zebrafish
(Engeszer et al. 2007; Spence 2011). These observations
help promote diet development and feed management strategies that adapt to the natural biology of the organism.
In the wild, juvenile and adult zebrafish are generally
found in shallow water habitats, including flood plains or
with rice agriculture (Spence 2011). They also can be found
in open water or in association with vegetation. Generally
speaking, zebrafish are usually found in habitats with sandy
or silty soils and are not considered riverine species. They
avoid areas of hydrodynamic activity and prefer relatively
still waters (currents, 0-0.1 m/sec) (Engeszer et al. 2007). As
such, they are well suited for culture in aquaria of different
sizes and shapes with limited water exchange or flow. These
aquaria can be composed of glass, fiberglass, or high-quality
plastics. Metal surfaces are not desirable because they release metal ions into water with high conductivity, the toxicity of which has not been well described for zebrafish held in
culture. In culture, zebrafish can often be found grazing on
the surface of their containers; therefore, excess food and the
presence of biofilms will compromise nutrition research.
Zebrafish are eurythermal, tolerating temperatures of
6-38oC (Spence 2011), and many investigators rely on static
renewal, recirculating, or flow-through systems. A range of
temperatures can be used for successful culture (Lawrence
2007). Although zebrafish are tolerant of a wide range of
temperatures, changes in temperature during nutritional trials will have consequences by influencing feeding activity,
ingestion, digestion, and reproduction. Gamete production
(quantitative) will most likely be impacted by temperature,
and, as a consequence, energy allocation will also be affected. Several reference texts have indicated that 28oC is a
preferred temperature for zebrafish culture. If investigation
studies were performed at a similar standard temperature,
then nutrition studies would be comparable. If this is not
possible, an adequate description of the temperature regime
during the experiment should be provided. Metabolic demands
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
(based on oxygen consumption) vary according to temperature and age, with Q10 values ranging from two to five
(Barrionuevo and Burggren 1999), indicating that energy
use (nutritional demand) is highly sensitive to changes in
water temperature. This information supports the plea for
standardization of culture temperature when nutritional requirements are evaluated. We also hypothesize that temperature extremes alter proximate composition and metabolism,
and that high temperatures could induce differences in
gene expression and protein metabolism (stress response)
(Vergauwen et al. 2010).
Inorganic ions are required for normal physiological
activity in most teleosts. Unlike terrestrial organisms that
consume ions (or other minerals) in the diet, fish absorb a
significant percentage of their essential minerals from the
water. However, the requirements for chloride and other
individual ions have not been determined and zebrafish nutrient requirements can be affected by the mineral content of
the water. Zebrafish are freshwater, basically stenohaline,
fish and do not tolerate water with high ionic content (usually reported as salinity or conductivity) in culture (Boisen
et al. 2003). They can tolerate water of low ion content, primarily supported by a series of efficient ion transporters
(Craig et al. 2007). In fact, the average conductivity of water
supporting zebrafish in wild populations ranges from 10 to
271 µS/cm (Engeszer et al. 2007). General culture manuals
indicate that a salinity of less than 1 ppt is reasonable for
normal survival and growth; this level is usually maintained
by the addition of synthetic sea salts. Other macrominerals,
such as calcium, can be obtained from the water, but few
reports are available. Padgett-Vasquez and colleagues (2008)
reported that dietary calcium requirements in the water are
minimal, suggesting that zebrafish are very efficient at removing these important cations from the water. To standardize nutrition experiments, we highly recommend that purified
water sources (using reverse osmosis or ion exchange resins)
be used and that a standard synthetic sea salt be added to attain a defined conductivity or salinity (unless the requirements for specific ions are being investigated). When using
synthetic sea salts, we recommend 0.8 ppt salinity (approximately 1600 µS/cm) as a reasonable salinity for conducting
nutrition experiments. Addition of synthetic commercial salt
preparations at this level will not only provide physiologically relevant ions, including sodium, potassium, and chloride, but will also provide quantities of the minerals calcium,
magnesium, zinc, and phosphate. Because most of these ions
are nutrients as well, it is important to provide the methodology of water preparation in any publication. Hyper- or
hyposaline exposure will increase the energetic requirements of zebrafish, thereby affecting the nutritional requirements of the species.
Field observations indicate that zebrafish are generally
rheophobic, residing in areas of low water flow (Engeszer
et al. 2007; Jayaram 1999; McClure et al 2006; Sterba 1962;
Talwar and Jhingran 1991), but they will orient to a current.
Under this condition, energy expenditure due to maintenance of position in water currents would be minimal. There
147
are no reports that water flow (hydrodynamic action) enhances or impedes feeding activity. For zebrafish held in culture, water flow (turnover) in culture systems for nutritional
studies must be monitored and reported (e.g., volume exchange per hour or per day). Minimum rates will depend on
aquaria shape and size, but rates of exchange should be adequate to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 6 mg/L
(Matthews et al. 2002) and to maintain adequate water quality. Obviously, high rates of turnover during periods of
feeding, particularly live diets, will result in a waste of feed.
In nutritional studies, another consequence of water flow is
the leaching of nutrients from formulated feeds not consumed immediately. Although a number of variables affect
leaching (including particle size and binders), it becomes an
issue when feed is not consumed immediately by the fish.
We recommend that water flow be monitored and reported
in nutrition research (Goolish et al. 1999), and the effect
of water flow or hydrodynamic action should be considered
in future studies.
Photoperiod influences reproduction, locomotion, and
feeding in zebrafish, but its influence on feeding is not clear.
Zebrafish exhibited higher locomotory activity during the
day; however, under a 12:12 light-dark cycle, zebrafish show
a nocturnal feeding pattern (del Pozo et al. 2011). Locomotion was also influenced by feeding time (Blanco-Vives and
Sánchez-Vásquez 2009). Although photoperiod represents
an important factor, a more important factor influencing
feeding under controlled laboratory conditions may be consistency in feeding times relative to the photoperiod or another entrainment event. Scheduled feedings can result in
feed anticipation activity, and it has been hypothesized that
this type of behavior may improve feed acquisition and nutrient utilization by improving consumption at the time of
feeding (Comperatore and Stephan 1987). Therefore, adherence to a regular feeding schedule could improve nutrient
acquisition from feeds (reduced leaching time) as well as
increase total consumption. In any case, photoperiod and
feeding time and rate should be reported.
A number of abiotic and biotic factors must be considered or controlled during nutrition research. Although not
comprehensive, Table 1 lists some of these factors important
in nutrition research. In general, abiotic factors should be
maintained as constant as possible during the experiment,
and the prior history of the experimental animal should be
reported in the methodology. As a general criterion, a survival that is at least 90% would be optimal in a control group
(often fed live feeds) and used as a minimum criterion for
any dietary nutritional experiment. Values significantly below this level suggest confounding interactions or a poor
control population.
Many of the factors in Table 1 have been considered in
ecological evaluations but not in the context of nutrition.
Undoubtedly, all would affect nutrient acquisition and production. It is possible to control most abiotic factors in nutrition studies, and studies evaluating the importance of each
factor would be valuable contributions to our understanding
of zebrafish biology and nutrition. Water quality will be one
of the most important factors to evaluate. Water quality can
be considered in terms of both waste production (ammonia,
nitrite, nitrate, dissolved organic compounds from leachate)
and those ions and the chemical environment considered
necessary for optimal survival, growth, and osmoregulation
(calcium, magnesium, trace minerals, alkalinity, pH, and so
on). Biotic factors are sometimes difficult to control, but
even anecdotal information should be reported. Of particular interest will be interactions related to sex. Nutritional
investigations that use mixed-sex populations or sex-specific
populations could affect results. In fact, the nutrients themselves could affect animal interactions (S.A. Watts, personal
observation). Many biotic factors, such as animal interactions, dominance, and aggression, can be controlled by
rearing cultured zebrafish individually in aquaria or other
containers, but such an approach may not be practical. Of
great interest will be the evaluation of nutrition in specific
pathogen–free or transgenic lines of zebrafish. The role
of specific symbioses (e.g., microsporidian infestations)
or gene manipulations on energy demands and nutritional
requirements needs to be investigated.
Another challenging aspect of zebrafish nutrition research is the pattern, or lack thereof, of ingestion (feed
intake). Feed intake in most juvenile or adult zebrafish
occurs rapidly and without apparent pattern, making direct
Table 1 Abiotic and biotic factors presumed potentially important in nutrition research
Abiotic
Biotic
Temperature
Salinity or conductivity
Photoperiod
Light intensity
Oxygen
Water flow
Water quality (e.g., ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, pH)
Ions
Life stage
Size
Sex
Disturbance
Dominance and aggression
Strain or phenotype
Disease
Symbioses or specific pathogen free
148
ILAR Journal
observations of feed intake difficult. Formulated feeds for
zebrafish are small in size and irregular in shape, unlike the
large formulated pellets for large aquatic species, which can
be observed to be rapidly gulped. Increased surface area
relative to volume of these small pellets or flakes would promote the leaching of specific nutrients. Proffered food can
remain in the water for some time prior to feed intake, again
allowing significant leaching. It is possible that feeding attractants that enhance the feeding response in zebrafish
could be identified (Lindsay and Vogt 2004), thereby allowing more defined measurement of feed intake. Further observations, perhaps with high-speed photography, are needed
to evaluate the biologic (behavior) and physical characteristics of food detection, acquisition, and satiation. This will
include evaluation of particle size selection or preference as
well as particle color. Also, factors that affect buoyancy
(whether the diet is floating or sinking and, if sinking, the
speed and action of the descending pellet or flake) may affect feed intake (Goolish et al. 1999).
An additional consideration in zebrafish nutrition concerns the role of dissolved organic material. The contribution
of dissolved organic material to total production is not
known; however, even a small percent contribution would be
important, particularly in terms of chemical attractants or
signaling molecules. Uptake of dissolved non-nutrient organic toxicants should also be considered. Because of the
lack of dissolved organic material in most culture systems,
the importance of dissolved organic material may be minimal compared with the potential role of dissolved inorganic
material (macro- and microminerals) discussed previously.
Culture System Designs
Nutrition research is usually accomplished in what is termed
“blue water” conditions—that is, clean freshwater in highly
controlled environments. However, conditions can vary depending on the desired outcomes of the study. Specific nutrient requirements should be determined under well-defined
conditions of water quality and other abiotic and biotic factors. Accurate descriptions of all culture conditions in published reports will allow comparisons among studies.
Many different culture systems for zebrafish have been
used, and they are often specific to a particular lab or institution. They can be as simple as a few glass aquaria or as
elaborate as rack systems currently produced by several
commercial vendors. Most culture systems are generally
adapted from those used in the culture of other aquatic species. For our purposes, most culture systems will be defined
in terms of water source and filter characteristics. These systems are generally referred to as flow-through, recirculating,
a combination of the two (semirecirculating), or static renewal. Specific aquaria/tank/rack concepts or designs will
not be addressed, but the size (volume) of the individual culture vessel will affect the number of individuals held (density), with potential density-dependent effects on zebrafish
growth demographics.
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
Flow-through culture systems are the least common systems used by researchers, but they do have many attractive
attributes that make them appropriate for conducting nutritional research. Municipal or well water (filtered or unfiltered) is pumped into a culture facility and returned to the
environment, usually after remediation. Once established,
flow-through water systems are reasonably cost effective to
operate. Large quantities of water can be moved quickly
though the culture system, allowing virtually unlimited supplies of fresh clean water. Waste material does not accumulate
appreciably and is inexpensive to remove. Consistent water
quality depends on the source of the water and whether that
source changes over time (one or more wells or impoundments could be used seasonally in some municipalities).
In addition, proximity of the water source intake to potential sources of pollutants or toxicants should be considered because stormwater runoff into freshwater aquifers
or impoundments can be a source of toxicants that could
be harmful over time. Temperature and conductivity may
be difficult to maintain without costly inputs. Another important concern is the transient occurrence of potential
pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses) that could have deleterious effects on growth and survival of zebrafish. Flowthrough water can be filtered and treated before exposure
to the zebrafish but with an obvious cost input. Source,
availability, and cost to maintain will be the deciding factors in using these systems.
Recirculating systems are used primarily by investigators who conduct research where flow-through water is not
available or where the supply and/or quality of water may be
marginal. In recirculating systems, the investigator has the
ability to control water quality and even eliminate undesired
factors. Water can be treated by a variety of filter systems,
and specific ions can be added to the water. In our laboratory,
potable water is filtered with sediment and charcoal filters,
reverse osmosis, and ion-exchange columns to produce a
highly purified fresh water source. Then synthetic sea salt is
added to achieve an appropriate conductivity to maintain fish
health.
Despite offering some apparent advantages, recirculating systems also have significant shortcomings that must be
considered, particularly the control and monitoring of water
quality in these systems. Water quality can be controlled
by the use of mechanical filters and clarifiers in combination with biological filters, ultraviolet sterilization, protein
skimming, and ozonation (or combinations thereof). These
systems, particularly biological filtration, often require an
adjustment period, whereby appropriate levels of autotrophic nitrifying bacterial populations need to be established.
Filter efficiencies will fluctuate over time if water parameters such as alkalinity, hardness, and pH are not monitored
and corrected as needed. These systems will commonly
require inputs of specific macro- and microminerals, the
required levels of which have yet to be established in
zebrafish studies. Costly initial infrastructure investments
as well as recurring maintenance costs, particularly for
larger, more complex systems, will be necessary. Use of
149
these systems requires a reasonable knowledge of culture
engineering technologies and water management. However,
if properly monitored, these systems can be effectively used
in nutrition studies.
Static renewal systems can be inexpensive and effective
under small-scale conditions. For these systems, water is replaced incrementally in small tanks or raceways, at levels
ranging from 5% to 50% of water volume exchange per day.
Water exchange is not without consequence because water
change can disturb zebrafish in culture. Water quality is
somewhat inconsistent in these systems, pulsing in association with the proportioned quantity and frequency of exchange to decrease soluble and solid waste material. These
systems are not recommended for use with large populations of zebrafish and are least desirable for use because
of an erratic rather than consistent control of water in the
culture units.
For any type of culture system (particularly new systems),
it is prudent to clean and rinse the aquaria before introduction of fish. New tanks often have been exposed to various
cleaning agents during the manufacturing process, and these
can contaminate a culture system for some time. Adequate
rinsing prior to the introduction of fish is required. It may be
wise to let water stand in the culture unit to collect any leachate. In general, we rinse a new system with several flushes of
clean water during the week prior to the introduction of fish,
and a weak acid treatment might facilitate the process of removing alkali. Furthermore, in systems where a biological
filter is used, we introduce a population of bacteria to the
filter and then “feed” the filter with 2 mg/L each of ammonium chloride and ammonium nitrite (for at least a week or
more) so that the bacteria in the biological filter are established prior to the introduction of fish. Monitoring the rate of
conversion of these compounds to nitrate will determine the
stage of development of the filter and its efficacy.
Recently, two major concerns have been discussed concerning zebrafish culture systems. For those recirculating
systems that use biological filtration, the source of the biota
must be considered. Mixed cultures of autotrophic nitrifying bacteria are required to establish the functional biofilms
(nitrification: converting ammonia to nitrate) in biological
filters. Usually these cultures are obtained from other
“feeder” tanks with established biota, or, given enough time,
biota will establish themselves in the systems. Some systems
can have undesirable bacteria (e.g., mycobacteria) that could
compromise the health of the fish in the system and interfere
with response variables of the fish. Ultraviolet or ozone purification downstream of the biological filter can help to
minimize the problems associated with these undesirable
bacteria, but testing may be required to monitor their populations. A second issue concerns the ultimate disposal of the
water and/or solid waste material from these systems. Concern about the release of potential microbes, viruses, or even
fish from culture systems into municipal wastewater systems
has increased. Several laboratories are considering disinfection of the wastewater prior to disposal; additional measures of disinfection may be required in the future.
Diet Development
Purified, Semipurified, and Practical
Ingredients
A full understanding of the nutritional requirements of
zebrafish and of those factors that affect nutritional requirements requires empirical studies of diets that contain chemically defined nutrients and ingredients. We recommend using
a step-wise evaluation of the daily dietary nutritional requirements and the nutritional value of specific ingredients
for diet development. Because of numerous nutrient interactions (known and unknown), this process requires a continuous
reevaluation of specific nutrients as requirements for other
nutrients are determined. Diet development will allow a biological evaluation of those nutrients that affect growth, reproduction, and other physiological and molecular functions
(particularly relating to disease onset and progression).
Diets are classified based on ingredient and nutrient
composition (Table 2). Some diets (research diets) are
used to determine specific nutrient requirements under defined experimental conditions. Others (practical diets) have
commercial applications and are designed for large-scale
Table 2 Classification of feeds
Type
Application
Content
Relative cost
Purified
Experimental feeds, used to evaluate
macro- and micronutrient requirements
Experimental feeds, used to evaluate
macro- and some micronutrient
requirements
Commercial production feeds, produced
in mass quantities for aquaculture
operations, cannot be used to evaluate
nutrient requirements
Purified, chemically defined ingredients, usually
with defined lot numbers and specifications
Both purified and practical ingredients,
not completely defined
High
Semipurified
Practical
150
Practical ingredients, not
chemically defined
Moderate
Low
ILAR Journal
production and use, based on least-cost formulations to determine ingredient composition. This means that commercial producers can change ingredients without notice. Because most zebrafish diets are used in research laboratories,
lowest cost should not be a determinant for use.
Purified, semipurified, and practical diets are composed
of ingredients obtained from commercial sources. Purified
ingredients are usually identified by specific ingredient and
lot numbers, are chemically defined, and can be compared
chemically with similar ingredients from various vendors.
Practical ingredients are usually crude foodstuffs that may
be relatively unprocessed, dried, and ground to an appropriate particle size. These ingredients may vary significantly in
composition (based on source), vendor, and season of collection. Practical ingredients are used to provide essential quantities of proximate constituents such as proteins, lipids, and
carbohydrates but can also contribute significant levels of
micronutrients. These ingredients are combined with ingredients that have binding properties (e.g., wheat gluten, carboxymethyl cellulose, alginate with or without sodium
hexametaphosphate). The binder aids in the formation of
pellets that have low moisture content (<15%) using heat
and pressure. The nature of the binder also affects stability
and texture of feeds. Semimoist diets (usually 20-40% moisture) can be formulated and used in nutrition studies, but
they generally have reduced shelf life and have not received
widespread use in zebrafish culture.
In many cases, combinations of specific ingredients are
formulated to produce purified, semipurified, or practical diets. Combinations of ingredients (e.g., fish meal, soy protein,
gluten, casein as protein sources) are often preferred to singleingredient nutrient sources, particularly in semipurified and
practical diets, because they can effectively provide a suite
of compounds suggested to be important nutrients. Singleingredient nutrient sources (e.g., casein as a sole protein source)
are often used in purified diets to better determine the nutritional requirement for a specific nutrient or nutrient source.
Survival and growth rates using practical diets are higher
than those achieved when using semipurified diets, which
in turn are higher than those achieved using purified diets
(Carvalho et al. 2006). Although practical diets are not appropriate for nutrition studies in zebrafish, it is possible to gain
insight into the quantities or qualities of specific nutrient combinations that promote animal health. For example, corn meal
can be used in practical diets; however, such diets contribute carbohydrates (starch), protein (gluten), lipids (n6 fatty
acids), and other nutrients that may or may not be identified
but can confer an advantage for animal growth. Corn meal is
a good ingredient in many practical feeds, but the nutrients
derived from corn that are actually important cannot be
determined without fractionation and purification. It is very
difficult to determine dietary nutrient requirements using
practical diets because controlling to achieve a very low limiting nutrient level is difficult and it is impossible to vary
only one dietary nutrient. Regardless of the type of feed, an
adequate diet for the determination of dietary nutrient requirements requires a survival of greater than 80% of animals and minimal growth rates that are 75% of the growth
rate for animals living in natural environments under comparable conditions. Ideally only the nutrient being studied
should vary in the diets, and only purified or semipurified
diets can be used in such an investigation. Some dietary nutrient requirements such as microminerals (Table 3) cannot
be easily evaluated with semipurified diets and usually require the use of a purified diet.
Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Feed
and Storage
The nutrient content of a diet is the most important determinant for optimal outcome assessment in nutrition studies.
However, ingestion of a diet must occur before nutrient content can be assessed and related to biological outcomes. To
Table 3 Classes of nutrients and sources suggested to be important in zebrafish nutrition
Nutrient Class
Description
Proximate nutrients
Protein (nitrogen); essential and nonessential amino acids, dipeptides, tripeptides,
hydrolysates, intact protein
Carbohydrate (digestible); monosaccharides, oligosaccharides, polysaccharides
Lipids; essential fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids,
n3 and n6, phospholipids, cholesterol
Ash (non-nutrient, e.g., diatomaceous earth)
Fiber (insoluble and soluble, nondigestible)
Calcium, magnesium, phosphate
Iron, zinc, manganese, copper, selenium, cobalt, sodium, chloride, potassium, boron
Ascorbic acid, tocopherols, calciferols, naphthoquinones, retinols, thiamine, riboflavin,
pyridoxine, niacin, pantothenic acid, biotin, folic acid, choline, inositol, etc.
Carotene and xanthophylls
Macrominerals
Microminerals
Vitamins
Carotenoids
For each nutrient listed, both the source of the nutrient and the concentration of the nutrient may affect outcomes.
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
151
this end, several physical and chemical characteristics of a
diet must be considered in the development of a diet that will
be suitably consumed. Physical characteristics include size,
shape, texture, hardness, stability, and handling of a feed pellet or flake. Rounded or cylinder-like pellets are the most
common shape produced by commercial extrusion or pelleting processes. However, commercially produced pellets are
generally too large for all but adult zebrafish to ingest (400 µm
diameter is generally at the lower end of the size range for
most extruders). For this reason, flake diets or pelleted
“crumbles” are the most common commercial sources of
zebrafish diets. For the typical nutrition experimental laboratory, extruders are not available, and diets are prepared
without heat (cold processing) and ground to small particle
sizes using small mills or grinders. After grinding, coarsepowdered diets of various size classes can be uniformly
separated into the desired size class by passing them through
a series of metal sieves of particular mesh sizes. Powdered
diets as small as 30 µm diameter can be produced and are
adequate for newly feeding larval zebrafish (Kaushik et al.
2011). Empirical studies that compare responses to the physical properties of diets are lacking (Goolish et al. 1999).
Based largely on anecdotal observations with natural foodstuffs, chemically based characteristics such as attractability
and palatability are suggested to be important in increasing
the rate of feed intake (Lindsay and Vogt 2004), but evidence
that supports specific classifications of these compounds
for zebrafish is lacking. Additional studies are needed to
further determine which dietary characteristics enhance feed
intake.
Storage of diets can be a challenge for any study of nutrition. Once a diet has been prepared, it must be either fed directly or stored for some period of time before use. Wet or
moist diets greater than 15% moisture must be used immediately or stored under refrigerated conditions. These diets
have a reduced shelf life, usually less than a week, because
they are susceptible to fungal and bacterial degradation, even
in the presence of specific antifungal or antibacterial inhibitors. Dry diets (moisture content <15%) are not as susceptible to fungal or bacterial degradation. Storage in cool, dry,
and dark (some nutrients photo-oxidize) conditions will
lengthen their shelf life. Storage in frostless freezers or under
carbon dioxide or nitrogen gas also greatly lengthens shelf
life of both moist and dry diets. Commercial feeds are often
packaged in airtight, lined containers and may be stable for
up to a year or more after production. For these diets, oxidation of specific nutrients is a greater risk to the nutritional
value of the diet. Proteins and lipids are particularly vulnerable to oxidative degradation. To minimize oxidation of these
nutrients, diets may contain strong chemical antioxidants,
which themselves could affect dietary requirements of nutrient antioxidants. Rancidity tests can be applied to determine
the levels of oxidation for freshness determination of the diet.
Practical feeds sometimes contain specific grains or cereals, a relatively inexpensive source of many essential nutrients. However, during the production or storage of these
grains, specific fungi may grow, particularly under conditions
152
of increased water content and high temperatures, and produce aflatoxins. Aflatoxins have been shown to be very toxic
to many aquatic and terrestrial species. The full response of
zebrafish to dietary aflatoxins is not known, but Troxel
and colleagues (1997) have shown that zebrafish can metabolize aflatoxin B1 postinjection, exhibiting some resistance to hepatocarcinogenicity. In addition, Spitsbergen
and Kent (2003) found that all life stages of wild Florida
zebrafish were remarkably resistant to aflatoxin B1, but
little is known about inbred research strains held in longterm culture. Doubt about the quality of a diet should always
result in its discard.
Basic Nutrient Requirements
Many organisms share common metabolic pathways and,
therefore, will have similar nutrient requirements. Table 3
presents a synopsis of those nutrients that will be required in
the diet. The quality and quantity of classes of proximate
nutrients (e.g., proteins, carbohydrates, neutral and polar lipids)
will differ with source (e.g., menhaden, soybean, casein,
starch). Most of these potential nutrients have not been evaluated in zebrafish, but it is likely there will be a dietary requirement for many of these nutrients, and it is also likely that
excessive levels of some of these nutrients will be toxic and
either reduce growth rates significantly or cause mortality.
Few studies have specifically evaluated protein requirements in zebrafish (Zhu et al. 2009). Most information on
protein requirements is for other cyprinids, with suggested
levels of 30-53% protein (Ulloa et al. 2011) and with minimal reporting as to the quality of the protein (Carvalho
et al. 1997; Ostaszewska et al. 2008). Protein (amino acid)
requirements should be an important area of future research.
Carbohydrate requirements have not been determined; however, Robison and colleagues (2008) reported that a lack of
dietary carbohydrate decreased growth rates and affected the
transcriptome. They also stated that growth rates of zebrafish
were unaffected by high levels of dietary carbohydrates
(up to 35% starch), but body composition did change. Lipid
requirements have been minimally evaluated in zebrafish.
Meinelt and colleagues (1999; 2000) stated that both n3 and
n6 fatty acids are required for growth, egg production, and
fertilization success. Jaya-Ram and colleagues (2008) reported that fatty acid profiles of various organs changed in
response to changes in the source of dietary lipids. They also
suggested that a balanced ratio of n3 to n6 sources of lipid is
necessary for optimal egg production and hatching rate.
Stoletov and colleagues (2009) found that excessive dietary
cholesterol negatively impacts physiological function. Hypercholesterolemia was induced in zebrafish fed a commercial diet enriched with cholesterol, and high weight gain,
high triglycerides, and plaque formation in vascular tissues
were also observed. Fiber and ash requirements (or tolerances) have not been evaluated; however, Robison and colleagues (2008) varied levels of dietary alpha-cellulose and
silica (each up to 17.5%) and observed minimal effects on
ILAR Journal
growth. These results are valuable to the preparation of dietary formulations for research because these indigestible
nutrients (when used as bulking agents) can be used to manipulate quantities of digestible nutrients.
Mineral and vitamin requirements are not fully characterized but should be similar to those found in related aquatic
species, particularly other cyprinids. Padgett-Vasquez and
colleagues (2008) reported that juvenile growth was not affected when dietary calcium was limited and levels in the
water were <1 ppm, indicating that the uptake of calcium
from the water is very effective and most likely accomplished through the gills. Nutritional requirements of microminerals have not received much attention, with most
microminerals evaluated exclusively to understand their role
in toxicity. Nutritionally, zinc has been implicated as an important dietary micromineral for its role in inducing cell differentiation in the gills of zebrafish (Zheng et al. 2010).
Adult zebrafish fed diets depleted in boron produced gametes that, when fertilized, failed to produce viable embryos,
as compared with those produced by parents fed boronsupplemented diets (Rowe and Eckhert 1999). Mehrad and
colleagues (2011) reported that inclusion of ascorbic acid at
levels of 1000 mg/kg of feed increased growth rates, body
weight, and fecundity in zebrafish. Vitamin D and its metabolites circulate in the blood of the zebrafish, and receptors
for this vitamin are widely distributed in many tissues (Craig
et al. 2008), suggesting its potential importance as a dietary
nutrient (Miller et al. 2010). Lebold and colleagues (2011)
fed zebrafish diets that were deficient in vitamin E (alphatocopherol); survival of offspring of deficient adults was
lower, malformations resulted, and fatty acid profiles were
altered, indicating the importance of vitamin E as a nutrient.
In addition, Utomo and colleagues (2008) determined that
the provision of dietary vitamin E increased fecundity, fertilization rate, and hatching rate. Vitamin E also protected
against the toxic effects of PCB 126 in developing embryos
(Na et al. 2009). Retinoic acid, which is derived from vitamin A, induced successful development of the zebrafish intestine (Nadauld et al. 2005). The role of pigments such as
carotenoids (other than as retinoids) or xanthophylls has not
been adequately investigated; the potential value of these
pigments as provitamins and/or antioxidants (Haga et al.
2008) requires further study.
Very good evidence of the qualitative requirement of
some vitamins does exist. However, quantitative requirements of vitamins, whether alone or in combination, can
change depending on the initial nutritional, physiological,
and reproductive state of the individual as well as environmental conditions during experimental trials.
Feed Management
Feed management, the criteria used in feeding a diet, has
received widespread consideration as a factor affecting
daily nutritional requirements of zebrafish (Lawrence 2007;
Reed and Jennings 2010; Westerfield 2007). Despite the
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
acknowledged importance of feed management practices,
the amount of labor and time often dictates feed management criteria and not necessarily the nutritional requirements
of the organism. Yet proper feed management practice is
important and should be designed with consideration of the
nutrient and physical properties of the diet. Most studies report both the feed amount and daily/weekly feeding regime
(feed ration and rates), but direct effects of feed management
criteria on specific outcomes have seldom been investigated.
For the determination of specific nutrient requirements,
appropriate feed management criteria must be determined.
These criteria include feed ration, feeding rate, feeding time,
multiple feedings/rations, preexposure/sensitization, sex differences and differentiation, and the role of intestinal flora.
Feed Ration
Feed ration is the amount of diet proffered per individual or
per group of individuals. Feed rations are usually proffered
as a specific quantity (e.g., grams per individual or percent of
body weight). Feed ration can be based on an “as fed” basis
(total weight of the diet proffered) or by dry weight (moisture removed from diet). Both expressions of feed quantity
are important and should be reported. In most nutrition studies, an ad libitum ration is usually provided. However, an ad
libitum ration can introduce new factors that confound the
results, including leaching on uneaten food and mixing of
feeds with fecal material in the bottom of the tank. An alternative would be to provide a ration that would be less than
satiation. A subsatiation ration yields lower growth rates but
makes it possible to have a direct measure of feed intake.
Whenever possible, the amount of feed ingested, generally
over a predetermined time period, should be reported. The
ability to quantify feed intake is essential in determining
daily quantitative nutrient requirements. Accurate measurements will allow the determination of the amount of a specific nutrient consumed under specific culture conditions.
Quantitative determination of feed intake by zebrafish will
be a challenging task and should be estimated based on several measurements conducted over a period of days to compensate for daily variation. Accurate estimates of feed intake
(addressed below) should be an area of active research for
zebrafish nutritionists.
Feeding Rate
Feeding rate, the frequency of providing a feed ration, is the
ration per individual per unit time (e.g., grams per individual, grams per unit of body weight, or grams per percent
body weight per feeding). Feeding is commonly reported on
a per day basis. Unfortunately, feeding rates are often practically determined by the level of an investigator’s costs
(i.e., the labor involved in conducting the experiment). However, feeding rate is suggested to have a significant effect on
zebrafish nutrition, particularly if formulated diets are used
(Carvalho et al. 2006; Eaton and Farley 1974; Goolish et al.
153
1999). Feed rations can be provided once per day or several
times over the day or night. There is considerable interest as
to the appropriate feeding rate, and feeding rate should be
investigated for various age and size classes of zebrafish.
Nutrient leaching is an important consideration when using
formulated diets in water; consequently, feeding rates must
be adjusted to reduce the time that a diet is in the water before it is ingested. Multiple daily feedings combined with a
diet that possesses good physical integrity may be the best
approach to optimize feed rate. Feed ration and feeding rates
should not be confused with feed intake because feed intake
requires accurate measurements of the amount of fed diet
that is actually consumed (ingested).
Feeding Time
Feeding time refers to the time of day (or night) when the diet
is provided. Diets can be fed to zebrafish at any time of the day
or night; however in most labs, feeding time is determined by
convenience (i.e., when labor is available). No general consensus exists about the appropriate time to feed in relation to feeding rate in most zebrafish studies. It is possible that feeding in
the laboratory may be optimized at periods associated with
changes in the light-dark cycle or based on circadian rhythms,
but data to support optimal feeding times are not available.
There is evidence that fish behavior can be entrained to specific feeding times (Comperatore and Stephan 1987) and may
ultimately affect feed intake. The specific time(s) of feeding
should be standardized and reported for each study. The combined effects of feeding time and feed ration (number of times
and ration of feeding per unit time) needs further study.
Multiple Feedings/Rations
If more than one ration is fed per day, it is important to consider the amount of feed fed relative to the time of feeding.
Although the effect of time of feeding has yet to be well defined in zebrafish, ingestion of a ration may vary according
to the time of the day. Thus, a ration would need to be modified to optimize ingestion at specific feeding times. There are
no reports on preferential feeding times in zebrafish; however,
zebrafish have been shown to develop food-anticipatory
activity when fed on a fixed schedule (Blanco-Vives and
Sánchez-Vásquez 2009).
Preexposure/Sensitization
The nutritional and physiological state of a zebrafish at the
beginning of a nutrition study will most likely affect the outcome of the determination of the requirement for a specific
nutrient. Zebrafish can store significant nutrient reserves in
their alimentary canal organs, muscle tissue, and gonads. For
example, many minerals and fat-soluble vitamins can be
stored in tissues and released as these cellular stores are mobilized. As such, investigations may require a conditioning
154
period wherein the nutrient reserves are depleted prior to the
initiation of an experiment. Consequently, a period of starvation (or feeding with a diet limited in a specific nutrient) may
be required to limit the tissue availability of a specific nutrient in a subsequent experimental trial. Whenever possible,
nutrient availability in these organs before and after nutrient
requirement determinations or nutrient restriction should be
determined, particularly for vitamins and microminerals.
Sex Differences and Differentiation
It is well known that growth rates, asymptotic size, and body
composition differ between sexes. Sexual dimorphism is apparent within several weeks of growth, and proportional allocation of energy to somatic or gonadal growth will most
likely differ between the sexes. Basic nutrient requirements
should be very similar, but caloric and some nutrient requirements could change depending on the reproductive state of
the individual. Further studies would be valuable.
Sex differentiation is not fully understood in zebrafish.
All zebrafish initially have undifferentiated ovary-like gonads, but by 30 days posthatch, all oocytes disappear from
male gonads, and males undergo testicular differentiation
(Takahashi 1977). Studies have shown that the sex of a
zebrafish can be induced or changed by chemical manipulation (Andersen et al. 2003; Uchida et al. 2004). Consequently, some practical ingredients in semipurified diets may
contain non-nutrient chemicals (e.g., isoflavones) that induce undesired sex changes in zebrafish, possibly resulting
in altered basic metabolic pathways and changes in nutrient
(or caloric) requirements. Therefore, care must be exercised
in the choice of dietary ingredients that contain those nonnutrient compounds found to exert such unintended effects.
Use of purified ingredients in diet formulations should
largely eliminate this concern.
Role of Intestinal Flora
Intestinal flora are important in development of the alimentary canal and associated anlagen. At 5 days postfertilization,
the intestine is fully functional and zebrafish begin to feed
exogenously. At this time, lipid and protein macromolecule
uptake occurs in an intestine that contains normal microflora
(Farber et al. 2001; Wallace et al. 2005). The initial colonization of the zebrafish intestine occurs concurrently with
formation, and proper differentiation of intestinal cells is
dependent on the presence of microflora obtained from their
environment (Bates et al. 2006). If appropriate microflora are
not present in the intestine, specific aspects of cell differentiation are arrested, and the uptake of protein macromolecules
and possibly other nutrients is affected (Bates et al. 2006).
Rawls and colleagues (2004) reported that 212 genes in the
zebrafish are regulated by the intestinal microflora, suggesting considerable interactions between specific microflora and
cell signaling pathways and the onset of cell differentiation.
Functions of specific microflora taxa in the zebrafish intestine
ILAR Journal
are not known, but variations in the microflora taxa occur
among facilities (Roeselers et al. 2011). Interestingly, microflora of fish from rearing facilities that had historical connections are similar. Despite variation in domesticated fish, the
microflora of domesticated fish remains strikingly similar to
that of recently caught wild fish (Roeselers et al. 2011).
Therefore, selection for specific bacterial taxa appears to be
independent of the host environment or domestication status.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the level of feed ration—and
potentially diet content—is likely to affect host physiologic
processes as a function of the microbial community (Rawls et
al. 2006). The role of bacteria in the intestine and their response or the consequence of their response to specific dietary nutrients need further investigation.
Outcomes and Metrics
Outcome assessment requires that specific outcomes be
evaluated in reference to the determination of specific nutrient requirements. The specific outcome being assessed will
be dependent on the question or goal of the study, but several
outcomes are used consistently in many studies, thereby allowing nutritional comparisons. As such, there are specific
metrics that ideally should be reported, some of which are
currently not within the realm of determinations with zebrafish
due to their small size.
Feed Intake
It would be desirable to report feed intake when possible.
The absolute requirements for specific nutrients cannot be
accurately determined unless this intake is measured. It can
be reported as wet or dry matter consumed or in terms of
organic material, inorganic material, energy, or a specific nutrient. If zebrafish are fed ad libitum, then care should be
used in estimating feed intake because nutrient leaching will
adversely affect the recovery of any uneaten food collected
for analysis. Despite the need for feed intake measurements,
this task will be very difficult with zebrafish. Their small size
makes it extremely challenging to determine intake for individuals. Most labs provide a ration ad libitum, so intake cannot easily be determined. It may be possible to evaluate feed
intake for a defined population (representing an average per
individual), but social interaction (e.g., competition) would
have to be considered as a potentially confounding factor. It
may also be possible to feed a subsatiation ration, thereby
ensuring a direct and accurate measurement of feed intake.
Oka and colleagues (2010) were able to estimate intake in
overfed, maintenance, and calorie-restricted diet treatments
by feeding known numbers of Artemia nauplii and counting
the number of nauplii remaining after feeding; however, one
must appreciate the amount of time and care that was required to determine feed intake in this or similar studies. In
short, the ideal desire to have this important metric will be
mitigated by the realistic difficulty in measuring feed intake.
Most studies may only be able to provide estimates (if at all);
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
however, even estimates would provide important information for nutrition studies.
Digestibility
Feed intake of wet or dry diet does not necessarily indicate
that a specific nutrient was available biologically to the individual. Thus, digestibility (often referred to as absorption
efficiency) determinations are required for the evaluation of
a specific nutrient or nutrient class. Digestibility refers to the
amount of nutrient absorbed by the individual and is generally calculated as the amount of nutrient consumed minus
the amount of nutrient retained in the feces. Direct determination (gravimetric collection of all feces for analysis) is an
effective determinant of apparent dry matter digestibility in
many species, but would be a time-consuming and difficult
procedure in zebrafish due to the small size of the fish and
the solubility of the feces (as well as the difficulty in collection). Indirect measures of digestibility might include the
use of specific markers, such as acid-washed diatomaceous
earth, chromic oxide, or other indigestible markers. Studies
must also consider that various forms (organic vs. inorganic
conjugates, practical vs. purified) and sources (different vendors, batches, or lots) of specific nutrients or nutrient classes
may vary in digestibility. Consequently, empirical determinations of specific organic and inorganic nutrients are required to fully estimate nutrient digestibility.
Problematically, digestibility analyses will be a challenge in zebrafish and may require population determinations (grouped fish evaluations). Awareness of digestibility
and its consequences is important; however, we must be
realistic in our efforts to evaluate metrics such as digestibility because accurate determinations are not currently possible and will require the development of new technologies
and procedures not currently reported.
Survival and Growth
Survival and growth are common outcomes measured when
evaluating daily nutrient requirements. Survival has limited
value as a metric for determination of daily nutrient requirements and generally only reflects a response to an extreme
limitation or toxicity of a specific nutrient. It is useful in assessing overall conditions of the culture system, and reference feed and control populations should have greater than
90% survival. Organismal growth is the most common metric used to estimate nutrient requirements, but limitations do
exist. Weight gain (dry matter or organic matter weight gain)
is a good estimation of growth or production and can be expressed as absolute weight gain (grams) or as a percentage of
the initial weight (percent increase). For the use of weight
gain as a comparative outcome, the assumption is that the
gain is not attributed to proportionally different amounts of
water content that might be treatment dependent. Accordingly, a proximate analysis of zebrafish tissue should accompany every experiment in which growth is presumably due
155
to the accretion of organic matter. Specific growth rates
(percent body weight gain per day, calculated as [(ln final
weight – ln initial weight) / time (days)] × 100) can be used
to estimate organismal growth rates but are restricted to the
known period of exponential growth. These growth rates
also have comparative restrictions among experiments, unless the fish are the same size and the water temperature of
the experiments is the same. Linear measurement (such as
total length) is one of the most common ways to estimate
growth, partly because it is usually less invasive and can be
conducted by image analysis. Linear measurements are often
recommended because larval and early juvenile zebrafish
are particularly sensitive to handling stress associated with
weight measurements. Length measurements can be coupled
with other single-dimension measurements of anatomical
variations such as abdominal height. Linear measurements
can sometimes be used to develop body condition indices
(Siccardi et al. 2009). Despite their popularity, linear measurements do not reflect multidimensional growth and, in some
cases, must be limited to single sex evaluations.
Parichy and colleagues (2009) provided a detailed morphological analysis of growth and development of important
anatomical features in zebrafish. This excellent treatise can
provide insight into various metrics that could be evaluated
in response to altered nutritional states.
Production Efficiencies and Energetics
As indicated previously, production represents increases
in dry or organic matter and is a common metric used in
the evaluation of specific nutrients. In addition to production, the rate or efficiency of production can be a valuable
metric for evaluating daily nutrient requirements. A common efficiency measurement in many species is the feed
conversion ratio. This is the ratio of weight of the feed
proffered (as fed) to the amount of wet fish biomass produced. A low feed conversion ratio is desirable, and an
optimal diet would potentially produce the most biomass
per unit feed. Production efficiency is usually calculated
as dry tissue produced relative to dry food consumed and
expressed as a percentage. Production efficiency has excellent utility for estimating the efficiency of converting
food to biomass (an alternative would be organic tissue
matter produced relative to organic food matter consumed). However, this metric requires accurate measurements of feed intake, which we have indicated is very
difficult to assess in zebrafish. Furthermore, a high production efficiency may not always be associated with a
healthy fish because an obese fish could score comparatively high in production efficiency but low in health assessment. Consequently, production efficiency would be most
useful if coupled with another suitable metric (e.g., body
composition, organ pathology). Size constraints in zebrafish
will provide a challenge for the use of efficiency metrics.
In many animals, the energetic value of specific foodstuffs can affect consumption and, consequently, production
156
and production efficiency. It has been observed anecdotally that zebrafish can be satiated, but whether satiation is
induced by energy intake, protein intake, or another metric is not known. Reduced feed intake caused by the provision of high-energy or high-protein food ingestion can
significantly reduce the ingestion of other specific nutrients
in the diet, thereby limiting production. Energy levels in
relation to protein content or other nutrients may be an
important index that affects production and production efficiencies and should be a subject of future investigation.
The protein-to-energy ratio (sometimes reported as the
energy-to-protein ratio) is an important metric when the
proximate nutritional and energetic quality of feeds are evaluated. The protein-to-energy ratio is usually reported as
milligrams of protein per kilojoule of diet or milligrams of
protein per kilocalorie of diet. As a nutrient, protein nitrogen
does not appear to be limiting in most commercial zebrafish
diets, but empirical evidence is not available. Not all
sources of protein are easily digestible or metabolizable
(Ostaszewska et al. 2008), so caution must be used in interpreting the contribution of protein nitrogen in various feeds.
Organ Analyses
Because specific nutrients can affect nutrient allocation to
specific tissues or organs, evaluation of organs can be useful in determining nutrient requirements (and toxicities).
The most prominent organs in terms of both size and relation to nutrition are the liver, intestine, muscle, and gonads.
Organ weights can be compared directly among treatments,
or indirectly through the use of organ indices or ratios (organ indices and ratios must be compared with caution because incorrect interpretation can occur when allometric
relationships are found; Packard and Boardman 1999). Of
course, the greatest challenge comes from the dissection of
zebrafish organs because weights of these small tissues are
difficult to measure accurately. For this reason, histological
examination of these tissues may provide insight into the
value or requirement of a specific nutrient. Recovery of the
entire intact tissue is not required for histological analyses.
For this approach to be successful a “normal” (healthy) histological record must be determined for each tissue. Several studies have evaluated these tissues (Oka et al. 2010;
Tiso et al. 2009; Wallace et al. 2005; Wallace and Pack
2010), but a definitive “normal” control is difficult to establish. For example, most diets used in zebrafish studies are
nutrient dense and have high caloric values. As such, many
fish in these cultures may, in fact, be obese and would therefore exhibit histopathologies associated with an obese individual rather than a healthy individual (Oka et al. 2010).
Fortunately, it is suggested that zebrafish possess adipocyte
demographics that are similar to those found in humans
(Flynn et al. 2009). An evaluation of a healthy natural population should be beneficial and the condition associated with
the feeding of a reference diet must be determined for comparisons to be valid.
ILAR Journal
Physiological Metrics
The most common metrics used to evaluate daily nutrient
requirements involve growth or growth-related indices (i.e.,
metrics related to morphological determinants). However,
many formulated diets will contain adequate (but not optimal) quantities of nutrients, particularly micronutrients, and
significant differences in growth metrics will not be observed. Although growth metrics may not be affected by
some nutrients, significant physiological consequences may
be manifested in response to dietary levels of these nutrients.
Accordingly, differences in metabolic pathways, reproductive success, or in the response to stress and disease (e.g.,
production of reactive oxygen species) may exist. As previously stated, additional outcomes that measure the functional consequence of limited or toxic levels of specific
nutrients will need to be developed in zebrafish, and may
include stress or disease tolerance as well as those mechanisms important in normal physiological function.
Reproduction
Reproductive output (fecundity) is very important and is one
of the most desired outcomes of zebrafish culture. However,
few studies have causally evaluated specific diets (natural or
formulated) and their effects on production and fecundity
(Markovich et al 2007; Meinelt et al 1907). For females, it is
possible to evaluate fecundity based on the number of fertilizable eggs (exhibiting normal development) produced per
unit time. For males, the ability to mate and produce sperm
to fertilize eggs successfully would be a desired marker. Different labs have different expectations and approaches for
determining reproductive output (there are no universally accepted procedures), and a diet that allows a zebrafish to mature quickly and produce viable gametes is desired. Although
a short time to maturation (egg to egg culture) is desired for
most laboratory approaches, precocious gamete development may provide embryos and offspring that, over generations, may exhibit problems associated with increased rates
of growth and maturity (e.g., epigenetic influences). There is
inadequate genomic information on offspring assessment at
this time.
other physiological systems. Systems biology approaches
may allow us to model the interactions among the metabolic
pathways. In addition, differences between sexes in terms of
their molecular response must be considered (Robison et al.
2008). Application of these various molecular approaches
using this important animal model should provide important
insight into the effects of diet and the specific nutrients
therein on normal and pathological function.
Statistical Design and Evaluation
Nutritional research must aptly include good and appropriate statistical design and analysis. A good design must have
identified a priori outcomes to be evaluated by standard statistical assessments. As is often the case, the desire to evaluate various parameters a posteriori may also exist, and many
important observations can be made during the course and at
the final stages of nutrition research. A full treatise on experimental design is well beyond the scope of this paper, but
several important considerations should be mentioned.
Although group or pooled observations provide insight
into specific outcomes, providing sufficient replicatees is necessary. Whenever possible, individual observations should be
part of the experimental design in nutrition research because
individual observations increase the power of the statistical
test. Zebrafish can be variable in their responses, so knowledge of individual variation can help define the precision and
accuracy of outcome assessments. Individual observations
can allow the use of analysis of covariance to determine the
effect of body size and treatment on specific organ outcomes.
However, individual observations are time consuming and are
not always easily accomplished in all laboratories. For those
of us who are not gifted with statistical understanding, whether
using individuals or pooled observations, consultation with
appropriate experts in the field is desirable in both the design
and evaluation of nutritional outcomes.
The future of nutritional outcomes resides in the use of
appropriate molecular tools, including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and systems biology.
The cost of these tools often dictates the number of fish (or
tissue samples) that can be analyzed. For use of these molecular tools, consultation with a statistician would be of
benefit for any investigator evaluating nutrition.
Molecular Assessment
The current availability of many genomic markers will
serve as an important tool for evaluating the effects of
nutrition or specific nutrients on many physiological or
cellular responses (reviewed by Ulloa et al. 2011), including
polygenic responses such as growth (Wright et al. 2006).
Chip technologies will allow researchers to evaluate specific nutrients on a variety of metabolic pathways. Proteomic
and metabolomic approaches may prove valuable as well
(Gómez-Requeni et al. 2010). Epigenetic effects of diet have
been observed in cardiovascular performance of zebrafish
(Schwerte et al. 2005) and will most likely be important in
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
Conclusions: What Is the Importance of
Diet Development in Zebrafish?
“The ability to replicate research is fundamental for good
science” (Barnard et al. 2009).
Barnard and colleagues (2009) explain clearly the rationale
for standardized diets in laboratory animals. For the last
three decades, mammalian animal model researchers have
recognized that “good” science requires limiting experimental variability ideally to that which exists endogenously in
157
the organism. As these researchers and other scientists have
recognized, through the use of a standardized diet, control
over one of the most important sources of environmental
variability is achieved. The current and inevitable variations
arising from the use of commercial or other live and formulated diets among zebrafish researchers will soon encounter
resistance from funding agencies that promote this model for
biomedical research. Future studies will most likely require
that strict dietary regimes be established for zebrafish stocks
so that the foundation for comparable data sets can be determined. Similar dietary regimes are available for mammalian
models and, in the United States, have been approved by institutions including the American Institute for Nutrition and
the National Academy of Sciences. Additionally, a recent
contribution by the National Research Council (2011) will
aid in the development of appropriate diets.
The future benefits of scientific studies conducted with
zebrafish depend, in part, on the development of a standardized reference diet. Such a diet will not meet the requirements of every research program but can be modified for the
specific purposes of the researcher. From these reference diets, open-formulation diets can be produced and serve as a
dietary standard across all studies, particularly across various strains within and among zebrafish laboratories. There is
adequate information among cyprinid diets, and, with additional research, a standard reference diet can be a reality.
Commercial diets (closed formulation, ingredients are proprietary and can potentially change without notification)
have some utiliy but are not adequately controlled to allow
for comparisons of datasets. As indicated in the Guidelines
for the Uses of Fishes in Research (American Fisheries Society et al. 2004), commercial feeds are formulated not on a
specific and consistent list of ingredients but rather to meet
broad nutrient requirements for protein, carbohydrate, and
fat. Specific ingredients will vary from batch to batch. Consequently, the capability of these feeds to meet specific nutrient requirements consistently is not possible, and the impact
of this variability on outcomes measured for experimental
organisms must be considered in the design of studies
(Barrows and Hardy 2001).
This paper is an introductory primer to the basic methodology needed to achieve an understanding of zebrafish nutrition. Currently, we are in the very early stages of understanding
zebrafish nutrition and diet development; however, a standard diet is essential for conducting further research if
zebrafish continue to serve as a biomedical research model.
A standardized diet can be used while nutrient requirements
are being determined, which will ultimately refine the composition of the standardized diet. This will enhance its value
as a means to introduce environmental control so that the
reported results of experiments will no longer be in question.
Refinement will assist in defining the roles of specific nutrients in organismal, physiological, and molecular responses.
Investment in the formulation and testing of potential
standardized diets, followed by determination of the nutrient requirements of zebrafish, is no longer just an idea; it is
timely, relevant, and essential. The ultimate definition of a
158
nutritionally complete diet will be important for maximizing the benefit of this important scientific model for all levels of research.
Acknowledgments
Numerous individuals contributed to our manuscript. We
would like to thank Christian Lawrence for his encouragement in proceeding with this contribution. In addition, we
thank the anonymous reviewers for their valued input on the
manuscript. We thank Dr. David Allison for support of the
Nutritional and Obesity Research Center, Department of Biology, Aquatic Animal Research Core facility at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and for his encouragement.
We would also like to thank Dr. Addison Lawrence and
Dr. John Lawrence for previous topical discussions, and
our entire laboratory of students and staff who provided additional support during the period of completion of the
manuscript. The work was supported in part by the National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases,
National Institutes of Health (P30DK056336). The content
is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute
of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases or the National Institutes of Health.
References
American Fisheries Society, the American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, and the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists. 2004. Guidelines for the use of fishes in research. Available
online at http://fisheries.org/docs/policy_useoffishes.pdf (accessed
October 2, 2012).
American Heritage Medical Dictionary. 2007. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Andersen L, Holbech H, Gessbo A, Norrgren L, Petersen GI. 2003. Effects
of exposure of 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol during early development on
sexual differentiation and induction of vitellogenin in zebrafish (Danio
rerio). Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 134:365-374.
Barnard DE, Lewis SM, Teter BB, Thigpen JE. 2009. Open- and closedformula laboratory animal diets and their importance to research.
JAALAS 48:709-713.
Barnes S, Coward L, Kirk M, Sfakianos J. 1998. HPLC-mass spectrometry
analysis of isoflavones. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 217:254-262.
Barrionuevo WR, Burggren WW. 1999. Oxygen consumption and heart rate
in developing zebrafish (Danio rerio): Influences of temperature and
ambient oxygen. Am J Physiol 267:505-513.
Barrows FT, Hardy RW. 2001. Nutrition and feeding. In: Medemeyer GA,
ed. Bethesda (MD): Fish Hatchery Management, American Fisheries
Society. p 483-558.
Bates JM, Mittge EK, Kuhlman J, Baden KN, Cheesman SE, Guillemin K.
2006. Distinct signals from the microbiota promote different aspects of
zebrafish gut differentiation. Dev Biol 297:374-386.
Blanco-Vives B, Sánchez-Vásquez FJ. 2009. Synchronization to light and
feeding time of circadian rhythms of spawning and locomotor activity
in zebrafish. Physiol Behav 98:268-275.
Boisen AMZ, Amstrup J, Novak I, Grosell M. 2003. Sodium and chloride
transport in soft water and hard water acclimated zebrafish (Danio
rerio). Biochim Biophys Acta 1618:207-218.
Carvalho AP, Escaffre A-M, Teles AO, Bergot P. 1997. First feeding of common carp larvae on diets with high levels or protein hydrolysates. Aquacult Int 5:361-367.
ILAR Journal
Carvalho AP, Araujo L, Santos MM. 2006. Rearing zebrafish (Danio rerio)
larvae without live food: Evaluation of a commercial, a practical and a
purified starter diet on larval performance. Aquacult Res 37:1107-1111.
Comperatore CA, Stephan FK. 1987. Entrainment of duodenal activity to
periodic feeding. J Biol Rhythms 2:227-242.
Craig PM, Wood CM, McClelland GB. 2007. Gill membrane remodeling
with soft-water acclimation in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Physiol Genomics
30:53-60.
Craig TA, Sommer S, Sussman CR, Grande JP, Kumar R. 2008. Expression
and regulation of the vitamin D receptor in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. J
Bone Miner Res 23:1486-1496.
Creaser CW. 1934. The technique of handling the zebrafish (Brachydanio
rerio) for the production of eggs which are favorable for embryological
research and are available at any specified time throughout the year.
Copeia 1934:151-161.
del Pozo A, Sanchez-Ferez JA, Sánchez-Vásquez FJ. 2011. Circadian
rhythms of self-feeding and locomotor activity in zebrafish (Danio
rerio). Chronobiol Int 28:39-47.
Eaton RC, Farley RD. 1974. Growth and the reduction of depensation of
zebrafish. Brachydanio rerio, reared in the laboratory. Copeia 1:204-209.
Engeszer RE, Patterson LB, Rao AA, Parichy DM. 2007. Zebrafish in the
wild: A review of natural history and new notes from the field. Zebrafish
4:21-40.
Farber SA, Pack M, Ho SY, Johnson ID, Wagner DS, Dosch R, Mullins MC,
Hendrickson HS, Hendrickson EK, Halpern ME. 2001. Genetic analysis
of digestive physiology using fluorescent phospholipid reporters. Science 292:1385-1388.
Flynn EJ III, Trent CM, Rawls JF. 2009. Ontogeny and nutritional control
of adipogenesis in zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Lipid Res 50:1641-1652.
Gómez-Requeni P, Conceição LEC, Olderbakk Jordal AE, Ronnestad I.
2010. A reference growth curve for nutritional experiments in zebrafish
(Danio rerio) and changes in whole body proteome during development. Fish Physiol Biochem 36:1199-1215.
Goolish EM, Okautake K, Lesure S. 1999. Growth and survivorship of larval
zebrafish Danio rerio on processed diets. N Am J Aquacult 61:189-198.
Haga S, Uji S, Suzuki T. 2008. Evaluation of the effects of retinoids and
carotinoids on egg quality using a microinjection system. Aquaculture
282:111-116.
Jaya-Ram A, Kuah M-K, Lim P-S, Kolkovski S, Shu-Chien AC. 2008. Influence of dietary HUFA levels on reproductive performance, tissue
fatty acid profile and desaturase and elongase mRNAs expression in
female zevrafish Danio rerio. Aquaculture 277:275-281.
Jayaram KC. 1999. The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Delhi:
Narendra Publishing House.
Kaushik S, Georga I, Koumoundouros D. 2011. Growth and body composition of zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae fed a compound feed from first
feed onward: Toward implications on nutrient requirements. Zebrafish
8:87-95.
Lawrence C. 2007. The husbandry of zebrafish (Danio rerio): A review.
Aquaculture 269:1-20.
Lebold KM, Jump DB, Miller GW, Wright CL, Labut EM, Barton CL,
Tanguay RL, Traber MG. 2011. Vitamin E deficiency decreases long
chain PUFA in zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Nutr 141:2113-2118.
Lindsay SM, Vogt RG. 2004. Behavioral responses of newly hatched zebrafish
(Danio rerio) to amino acid chemostimulants. Chem Senses 29:93-100.
Markovich ML, Rizzuto NV, Brown PB. 2007. Diet affects spawning in
zebrafish. Zebrafish 4:69-74.
Matthews M, Trevarrow B, Matthews J. 2002. A virtual tour of the Guide
for zebrafish users. Lab Anim 31:34-40.
McClure MM, McIntyre PB, McCune AR. 2006. Notes on the natural diet
and habitat of eight danionin fishes, including the zebrafish, Danio rerio. J Fish Biol 69:553-570.
Mehrad B, Jafaryan H, Taati M. 2011. Impact of different dietary vitamin C
contents on growth, survival, fecundity and egg diameter in the zebrafish,
Danio rerio (Pisces, Cyprinidae). ABAH Bioflux 3:18-25.
Meinelt T, Schulz C, Wirth M, Kürzinger H, Steinberg C. 1999. Dietary
fatty acid composition influences the fertilization rate of zebrafish
(Danio rerio Hamilton-Buchanan). J Appl Ichthyol 15:19-23.
Volume 53, Number 2
2012
Meinelt T, Schulz C, Wirth M, Kürzinger H, Steinberg C. 2000. Correlation
of diets high in n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids with high growth rate in
zebrafish (Danio rerio). Comp Med 50:43-45.
Miller GW, Labut EM, Lebold K, Floeter A, Tanguay RL, Traber MG. 2010.
Zebrafish as a model to determine the mechanisms of vitamin E function. FASEB J 24:534.1.
Na Y, Seok S, Baek M, Lee H, Kim D, Park S, Lee H-K, Park J. 2009. Protective effects of viatmin E against 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
(PCB 126) induced toxicity in zebrafish embryos. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf 72:714-719.
Nadauld LD, Shelton DN, Chidester S, Yost HJ, Jones DA. 2005. The
zebrafish retinol dehydrogenase, rdh1l, is essential for intestinal development and is regulated by the tumor suppressor adenomatous
polypoisis coli. J Biol Chem 280:30490-30495.
NRC [National Research Council]. 2011. Nutritional Requirements of Fish
and Shrimp. Washington: National Academies Press.
Oka T. Nishimura Y, Zang L, Hirano M, Shimada Y, Wang Z, Umemoto N,
Kuroyanagi J, Nishimura N, Tanaka T. 2010. Diet-induced obesity in
zebrafish shares common pathophysiological pathways with mammalian obesity. BMC Physiol 10:1-13.
Ostaszewska T, Dabrowski K, Hliwa P, Gomolka P, Kwasek K. 2008. Nutritional regulation of intestin morphology in larval cyprinid fish, silver
bream (Vimba vimba). Aquacult Res 39:1268-1278.
Packard GC, Boardman TJ. 1999. The use of percentages and size-specific
indices to normalize physiological data for variation in body size:
Wasted time, wasted effort? Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr
Physiol 122:37-44.
Padgett-Vasquez S, Siccardi A III, D’Abramo LR, Watts SA. 2008. The effect of dietary calcium on zebrafish (Danio rerio), growth, survival, and
bone mineral density (BMD). J Ala Acad Sci 79:86.
Parichy DM, Elizondo MR, Mills MG, Gordon TN, Engeszer RE. 2009.
Normal table of postembryonic zebrafish development: Staging by externally visible anatomy of the living fish. Dev Dynam 238:2975-3015.
Rawls JF, Samuel BS, Gordon JI. 2004. Gnotobiotic zebrafish reveal evolutionarily conserved responses to the gut microbiota. PNAS 101:4596-4601.
Rawls JF, Mahowald MA, Ley RE, Gordon JI. 2006. Reciprocol gut microbiota transplants from zebrafish and mice to germ-free recipients reveal
host habitat selection. Cell 127:423-433.
Reed B, Jennings M. 2010. Guidance on the Housing and Care of Zebrafish
Danio rerio. West Sussex, UK: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Robison BD, Drew RE, Murdoch GK, Powell M, Rodnick K, Settles M,
Stone D, Churchill E, Hill RA, Papasani MR, Lewis SS, Hardy RW.
2008. Sexual dimorphism in hepatic gene expression and the response
to dietary carbohydrate manipulation in the zebrafish (Danio rerio).
Comp Biochem Physiol D Genomics Proteomics 3:141-154.
Roeselers G, Mittge EK, Stephens WZ, Parichy DM, Cavanaugh CM,
Guillemin K, Rawls JF. 2011. Evidence for a core gut microbiota in
the zebrafish. ISME J 5:1595-1608.
Rowe RI, Eckhert CD. 1999. Boron is required for zebrafish embryogenesis. J Exp Biol 202:1649-1654.
Schwerte T, Voigt S, Pelster B. 2005. Epigenetic variations in early cardiovascular performance and hematopoiesis can be explained by maternal
and clutch effects in developing zebrafish (Danio rerio). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 141:200-209.
Siccardi AJ III, Garris HW, Jones WT, Moseley DB, D’Abramo LR, Watts
SA. 2009. Growth and survival of zebrafish (Danio rerio) fed different
commercial and laboratory diets. Zebrafish 6:275-280.
Spence R. 2011. Zebrafish ecology and behaviour. In: Kalueff AV, Cachat
JM, eds. Zebrafish Models in Neurobehavioral Research, Neuromethods 52. New York: Springer Science. p 1-46.
Spence R, Fatema MK, Ellis S, Ahmed ZF, Smith C. 2007. The diet growth
and recruitment of wild zebrafish (Danio rerio) in Bangladesh. J Fish
Biol 71:304-309.
Spitsbergen JM, Kent ML. 2003. The state of the art of the zebrafish model
for toxicology and toxicologic pathology research—Advantages and
current limitations. Toxicol Pathol 31:62-87.
Sterba G. 1962. Freshwater Fishes of the World. London: Vista Books.
159
Stoletov K, Fang L, Choi S, Hartvigsen K, Hansen L, Hall C, Pattison J,
Juliano J, Miller ER, Almazan F, Crosier P, Witztum JL, Klemke RL,
Miller YI. 2009. Vascular lipid accumulation, lipoprotein oxidation, and
macrophage lipid uptake in hypercholesteroliemic zebrafish. Circ Res
104:952-960.
Takahashi H. 1977. Juvenile hermaphroditism in the zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio. Bull Fac Fish Hokkaido University 28:57-65.
Talwar PK, Jhingran AG. 1991. Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries. Calcutta: Oxford & I.B.H. Publishing.
Tiso N, Moro E, Argenton F. 2009. Zebrafish pancreas development. Mol
Cell Endocrinol 312:24-30.
Troxel CM, Reddy AP, O’Neal PE, Hendricks JD, Bailey GS. 1997. In vivo
aflatoxin B1 metabolism and hepatic DNA adduction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 143:213-220.
Uchida D, Yamashita M, Kitano T, Iguchi T. 2004. An aromatase inhibitor or high water temperature induced oocyte apoptosis and depletion of P450 aromatase activity in the gonads of genetic female
zebrafish during sex-reversal. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integ
Physiol 137:11-20.
Ulloa PE, Iturra P, Neira R, Araneda C. 2011. Zebrafish as a model organism
for nutrition and growth: Towards comparative studies of nutritional
genomics applied to aquacultured fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 21:646-666.
160
Utomo NB, Zairin M, Yusuf TL, Mokoginta I, Bintang M. 2008. Influences
of dietary vitamin E on egg and larvae quality of zebrafish (Brachydanio
rerio). J Penelitian Perikanan 11:83-88.
Vergauwen L, Benoot D, Blust R, Knapen D. 2010. Long-term warm or
cold acclimation elicits a specific transcriptional response and affects
energy metabolism in zebrafish. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integ
Physiol 157:149-157.
Wallace KN, Akhter S, Smith EM, Lorent K, Pack M. 2005. Intestinal
growth and differentiation in zebrafish. Mech Develop 122:157-173.
Wallace KN, Pack M. 2003. Unique and conserved aspects of gut development in zebrafish. Develop Biol 225:12-29.
Westerfield M. 2007. The Zebrafish Book. A Guide for the Laboratory Use
of Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
Wright D, Nakamichi R, Drause J, Butlin R. 2006. QTL analysis of behavioral and morphological differentiation between wild and laboratory
zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Genet 36:271-284.
Zheng D, Kille P, Feeney GP, Cunningham P, Handy RD, Hogstrand C.
2010. Dynamic transcriptomic profiles of zebrafish gills in response to
zinc supplementation. BMC Genomics 11:1-19.
Zhu M, Wang T, Zhang C, Gao C, Mu Y, Sun D. 2009. Nutritional requirements and current status of diets of laboratory zebrafish and swordtails.
Chinese J Comp Med 12:64-68.
ILAR Journal