Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36680627›Full record

ArticleFish physiology and biochemistry2023

Effect of feed restriction and refeeding on body condition, digestive functionality and intestinal microbiota in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Maria Messina, Lucilla Iacumin, Giulia Pascon, Francesca Tulli, Emilio Tibaldi, Gloriana Cardinaletti

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fish physiology and biochemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nutrient Deprivation inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Valorization of Mushroom By-Products FromAquaculture nutrition · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria MessinaDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. maria.messina@uniud.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3217-1272
Lucilla IacuminDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-8109
Giulia PasconDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7043-0677
Francesca TulliDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1179-9853
Emilio TibaldiDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6304-839X
Gloriana CardinalettiDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3553-9327
University of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present work was to investigate the influence of fasting and refeeding on body condition, gut physiology and microbiota in reared O. mykiss. Ninety-six fish were randomly allotted among three groups subjected to different feeding plan: C (control, fed for 5 weeks); R (restricted ration over 3 weeks followed by 2 weeks feeding); F (fasted over 3 weeks followed by 2 weeks feeding) in a well's fresh water flow-through rearing plan. Sampling occurred at 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 days during the refeeding period. At day 0 and throughout the feeding period until day 14, the weight of the fish was significantly affected by the feeding restriction. Feed deprivation reduced significantly the viscerosomatic and hepatosomatic indexes. Brush border membrane enzymes' specific activity was modulated by feeding regimes until day 7, to level in all experimental groups at day 14. At the end of the restricted/fasted period, the microbiota of the C group was made up of 70% of Actinobacteria, 24% of Proteobacteria, 4.2% of Firmicutes and < 1% of Bacteroides, while the restricted and fasted group were characterized by a strong reduction of Actinobacteria, and a significant increase in Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. The feed deprivation determined a dysbiosis, allowing the development of different commensal or pathogenic bacteria. In conclusion, the effects of 2 weeks of feed deprivation, excluding those related to body weight, are gradually mitigated by refeeding, which allows the restoration of digestive functions and a healthy intestinal microbiota.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeOncorhynchus mykissAnimal FeedAnimalsFastingActinobacteriaFastingFish growthGut microbiotaIntestine physiologyProteobacteria

Identifiers

PMID36680627
PMCPMC9935662
OpenAlexW4317659810

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.