Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31222662›Full record

ArticleFish physiology and biochemistry2019

Impact of confinement and food access restriction on the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus, L.) during caging: a multi-biomarker approach.

Audrey Catteau, Antoine Le Guernic, Adrien Marchand, Younes M I Hani, Olivier Palluel, Cyril Turiès, Anne Bado-Nilles, Odile Dedourge-Geffard, Alain Geffard, Jean-Marc Porcher

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Fish physiology and biochemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Audrey CatteauUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France. audrey.catteau@ineris.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8022-8413
Antoine Le GuernicUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Adrien MarchandUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Younes M I HaniUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Olivier PalluelUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Cyril TurièsUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Anne Bado-NillesUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Odile Dedourge-GeffardUMR-I 02 SEBIO, UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA), Campus Moulin de la Housse, BP 1039, 51687, Reims, France.
Alain GeffardUMR-I 02 SEBIO, UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA), Campus Moulin de la Housse, BP 1039, 51687, Reims, France.
Jean-Marc PorcherUMR-I 02 SEBIO (Stress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des milieux aquatiques), Institut National de l'Environnement et des Risques (INERIS), BP 2, 60550, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France. jean-marc.porcher@ineris.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caging is an active biomonitoring strategy that employs a sentinel species, sometimes a species naturally absent from the studied site, in the surveillance of water bodies to verify whether biota may be at risk. The main advantage of caging is the possibility to standardize several biotic and abiotic parameters. However, little knowledge is available about the effects of confinement on physiology and metabolism of caged organisms. The aim of this study is to characterize confinement and food access restriction effects, induced via caging experiments using a multi-biomarker approach (biometric data, immunity, antioxidant, metabolic detoxication, and digestive enzymes). The study has been undertaken using the same experiment conducted in ecosystem conditions using three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) during two different periods: one in April, corresponding to breeding season, and the other in October, outside breeding season. Fifteen fish were maintained for 21 days in different conditions (caged or uncaged and with or without food supply). The main result was that confinement stress had little impact on the biological markers of sticklebacks. However, the stressors seemed to increase the negative effects of food restriction on these biomarkers, when sticklebacks needed more energy, that is, during their breeding period. Outside breeding period, most investigated biomarkers were not impacted by caging. This study showed a way to specify the conditions of application and interpretation of biomarkers during active monitoring to ensure an effective, reliable diagnosis of water body quality.

Indexed as

Stress, PhysiologicalAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsBehavior ControlBiomarkersFemaleLiverMaleReproductionSmegmamorphaBiomarkersBiomarkersBiomonitoringCagingFishFood restriction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.