↓ Skip to main content

Physiological and transcriptomic responses to fishmeal-based diet and rapeseed meal-based diet in two strains of gibel carp (Carassius gibelio)

Overview of attention for article published in Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Physiological and transcriptomic responses to fishmeal-based diet and rapeseed meal-based diet in two strains of gibel carp (Carassius gibelio)
Published in
Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10695-018-0560-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenjie Xu, Junyan Jin, Dong Han, Haokun Liu, Xiaoming Zhu, Yunxia Yang, Shouqi Xie

Abstract

The present study investigated differences in the utilization of fishmeal (FM) and rapeseed meal (RM) by gibel carp (Carassius gibelio) and explored the effects of protein sources on the responses of different genotypes. Gibel carp strains A (4.12 ± 0.03 g) and F (3.47 ± 0.00 g) were fed FM diet or RM diet for 56 days, and after which, growth performance, body composition, hematologic indices, and hepatic transcriptomes were measured. The effects of strain and diet on growth performance, body composition, and hematologic indices were analyzed by two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The results revealed that total replacement of FM with RM caused poor growth and feed utilization in both strains as well as the existence of genotype-diet interactions. Strain A showed better growth performance than strain F in the FM group, while the strain F grew better than strain A in the RM group. Transcriptomic analysis showed that the three main biological processes affected by the RM diet were amino acid metabolism, lipid metabolism, and digestive system. The different responses to the RM diet between strains were involved in amino acid metabolism, immune responses, and lipid metabolism. Identifying the underlying mechanisms by which different strains differently respond to meal sources might be the basis to develop a selective breeding program towards strains accepting alternative meal sources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Researcher 4 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#17,989,170
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Fish Physiology and Biochemistry
#342
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,601
of 335,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fish Physiology and Biochemistry
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.