Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31227751›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Automated monitoring of behaviour in zebrafish after invasive procedures.

Anthony G Deakin, Jonathan Buckley, Hamzah S AlZu'bi, Andrew R Cossins, Joseph W Spencer, Waleed Al'Nuaimy, Iain S Young, Jack S Thomson, Lynne U Sneddon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advancing Zebrafish (Veterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification of Individual Zebrafish (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. From Land to Water: Taking Fish Welfare Seriously.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Anthony G DeakinElectrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-3875
Jonathan BuckleyDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, Institute of Integrative Biology, The BioScience Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Hamzah S AlZu'biElectrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Andrew R CossinsDepartment of Functional and Comparative Genomics, Institute of Integrative Biology, The BioScience Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0813-5212
Joseph W SpencerElectrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Waleed Al'NuaimyElectrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Iain S YoungDepartment of Functional and Comparative Genomics, Institute of Integrative Biology, The BioScience Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Jack S ThomsonSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Nicholson Building, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK.
Lynne U SneddonDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, Institute of Integrative Biology, The BioScience Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. lsneddon@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K000888/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fish are used in a variety of experimental contexts often in high numbers. To maintain their welfare and ensure valid results during invasive procedures it is vital that we can detect subtle changes in behaviour that may allow us to intervene to provide pain-relief. Therefore, an automated method, the Fish Behaviour Index (FBI), was devised and used for testing the impact of laboratory procedures and efficacy of analgesic drugs in the model species, the zebrafish. Cameras with tracking software were used to visually track and quantify female zebrafish behaviour in real time after a number of laboratory procedures including fin clipping, PIT tagging, and nociceptor excitation via injection of acetic acid subcutaneously. The FBI was derived from activity and distance swum measured before and after these procedures compared with control and sham groups. Further, the efficacy of a range of drugs with analgesic properties to identify efficacy of these agents was explored. Lidocaine (5 mg/L), flunixin (8 mg/L) and morphine (48 mg/L) prevented the associated reduction in activity and distance swum after fin clipping. From an ethical perspective, the FBI represents a significant refinement in the use of zebrafish and could be adopted across a wide range of biological disciplines.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalAnimalsAutomationClonixinFemaleLidocaineMorphineZebrafishClonixinflunixinLidocaineMorphine

Identifiers

PMID31227751
PMCPMC6588586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.