| Literature DB >> 35264245 |
Emilie Cardona1,2, Emilien Segret3,4, Yoann Cachelou5, Thibaut Vanderesse5, Laurence Larroquet6, Alexandre Hermann6, Anne Surget6, Geneviève Corraze6, Frederic Cachelou4, Julien Bobe3, Sandrine Skiba-Cassy6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The broodstock diet, and in particular the lipid and fatty acid composition of the diet, is known to play a key role in reproductive efficiency and survival of the progeny in fish. A major problem when replacing both fish meal and fish oil by plant sources is the lack of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). To address this problem, we studied the effect of the plant-based diet supplemented with Schizochytrium sp. microalgae, source of DHA, compared to a conventional commercial diet rich in fish meal and fish oil on reproductive performance and egg quality and the consequences on progeny, in female rainbow trout broodstock.Entities:
Keywords: Egg quality; Micro-algae; Nutritional programming; Plant diet; Rainbow trout; Reproduction
Year: 2022 PMID: 35264245 PMCID: PMC8908652 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-022-00680-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Ingredients (only for MAB diet) and composition of female broodstock diets
| Ingredients, % | MAB | CB |
|---|---|---|
| 6.9 | ||
| Corn gluten | 19.7 | |
| Soybean meal | 14.5 | |
| Pea protein concentrate (Lysamine) | 15.0 | |
| Soy protein concentrate | 9.6 | |
| Bean protein concentrate | 9.0 | |
| Guar 70 PFR Roasted | 9.0 | |
| Alfalfa protein concentrate | 5.0 | |
| Rapeseed oil | 3.2 | |
| Linseed oil | 1.1 | |
| Choline chloride 60% | 0.3 | |
| Soy lecithin | 1.0 | |
| Minerals premix | 1.6 | |
| Vitamin premix | 1.5 | |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.2 | |
| L-Lysine | 0.8 | |
| L-Méthionine | 0.5 | |
| Carophyll pink (astaxanthin) | 0.04 | |
| Dry Matter, % | 91.7 | 92.6 |
| Proteins, % DM | 54.1 | 49.5 |
| Lipids, % DM | 12.1 | 15.2 |
| Carbohydrate, % DM | 11.5 | 15.3 |
| Ash, % DM | 5.2 | 12.2 |
| Energy, kJ/g DM | 23.3 | 22.2 |
| Cholesterol, mg/100 mg of DM | 24.9 | 177.6 |
| Phytosterol, mg/100 mg of DM | 180.5 | 53.7 |
DM = dry matter.
Ingredients (only for MAO diet) and composition of progeny diets
| Ingredients, % | MAO | CO |
|---|---|---|
| 2.6 | ||
| Corn gluten | 18.0 | |
| Soybean meal | 5.1 | |
| Pea protein concentrate | 20.5 | |
| Soy protein concentrate | 23.6 | |
| Bean protein concentrate | 4.0 | |
| Guar 70 PFR Roasted | 2.0 | |
| Alfalfa protein concentrate | 5.0 | |
| Rapeseed oil | 9.2 | |
| Linseed oil | 2.0 | |
| Choline chloride 60% | 0.3 | |
| Soy lecithin | 2.5 | |
| Minerals premix | 1.5 | |
| Vitamin premix | 1.2 | |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.2 | |
| L-Lysine | 0.6 | |
| L-Methionine | 0.6 | |
| Dry Matter, % | 97.2 | 92.1 |
| Proteins, % DM | 56.9 | 52.0 |
| Lipids, % DM | 23.3 | 17.3 |
| Ash, % DM | 6.0 | 10.4 |
| Energy, kJ/g DM | 25.7 | 19.2 |
| Cholesterol, mg/100 mg of DM | 38.6 | 301.1 |
| Phytosterol, mg/100 mg of DM | 268.0 | 5.4 |
DM = dry matter.
Fig. 1Experimental design (W=Week of rearing)
Fig. 2Evolution of female weight according the diet treatment. The red arrows represent the spawning periods. The measurements were carried out on the same females at different times; data can be considered as dependent. Linear mixed model was applied, the best model was then selected using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Replicates correspond to different individual females (n = 90 per treatment). “n.s”: not significant; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001
Fig. 3Evolution of plasma cholesterol concentrations over the vitellogenesis during Cycle 3. Plasma sampling was performed at different times during the reproductive Cycle 3: just after the second reproduction period (week 40, W40), before the change of photoperiod, i.e. early vitellogenesis (week 52, W52), at mid vitellogenesis (week 58, W58), at the last step of vitellogenesis (week 68, W68) and during spawning season (week 75, W75). . The measurements were carried out on the same animals (females were individually identified with a RFID Pit-tag) at different times; data can be considered as dependent. Linear mixed model was applied; the best model was then selected using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Replicates correspond to different individual females (n = 10 per treatment). “n.s”: not significant; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001. Different letters indicate significant differences between maternal origin, which were investigated with a Tukey post hoc test
Reproductive performances of females, egg quality and fingerling biometric parameters according to diet treatment during reproductive Cycle 2 and Cycle 3
| Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Statistical results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diets | CB | MAB | CB | MAB | Diet | Cycle | Diet × Cycle | |
| Survival, % | 90.32 ± 2.38 | 91.81 ± 0.71 | 94.10 ± 3.78 | 90.00 ± 14.14 | n.s | n.s | n.s | |
| Weight female at spawning time, g | 3770.39 ± 349.83 | 3799.18 ± 310.41 | 5285.21 ± 623.48 | 5016.32 ± 510.36 | n.s | *** | ** | |
| Egg spawn weight, g | 551.91 ± 123.11 | 542.98 ± 119.53 | 682.56 ± 135.11 | 675.02 ± 133.11 | n.s | *** | n.s | |
| Absolute fecundity, eggs per female | 7887.09 ± 2008.14 | 8086.81 ± 2046.72 | 9175.20 ± 2005.94 | 9988.04 ± 2173.13 | n.s | *** | n.s | |
| Relative fecundity, eggs/kg of female | 2108.84 ± 543.57 | 2134.54 ± 534.79 | 1764.04 ± 450.98 | 2007.70 ± 451.19 | n.s | *** | n.s | |
| Egg diameter, mm | 5.20 ± 1.11 | 5.15 ± 0.19 | 4.90 ± 0.48 | 4.64 ± 0.63 | ** | *** | * | |
| Coefficient of variation of egg diameter | 3.29 ± 1.11 | 3.15 ± 0.88 | 3.07 ± 0.51 | 3.03 ± 0.43 | n.s | n.s | n.s | |
| White eggs, % | 6.41 ± 8.58 | 6.66 ± 9.98 | 8.89 ± 16.72 | 2.88 ± 5.13 | n.s | n.s | * | |
| Fry survival after resorption, % | _ | _ | 47.58 ± 33.65 | 70.29 ± 17.55 | * | _ | _ | |
| Fry weigth, mg | _ | _ | 12.99 ± 1.48 | 12.53 ± 1.52 | n.s | _ | _ | |
| Malformation rate of fry, % | _ | _ | 3.87 ± 5.55 | 4.30 ± 6.63 | n.s | _ | _ | |
| No resorption rate of fry, % | _ | _ | 0.40 ± 0.82 | 0.41 ± 0.35 | n.s | _ | _ | |
Values are means ± s.d. Two-way analysis of variance was carried out in order to assess effects of diet and cycle of reproduction. Replicates to asses statistical effect on reproductive performances of females and egg quality correspond to different individual females (n = 90 females per treatment). Replicates to asses statistical effect on fingerling biometric parameters correspond to different individual egg batches (n = 10 egg batches per treatment). “n.s”: not significant; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001
Main fatty acids (% of total FA) of broodstock diets (C and MA)
| Broodstock diet | ||
|---|---|---|
| Saturated fatty acids (SFA) | CB | MAB |
| 14:0 | 6.30 ± 0.06 | 0.47 ± 0.04 |
| 16:0 | 18.81 ± 0.12 | 17.54 ± 0.37 |
| 18:0 | 3.14 ± 0.38 | 2.39 ± 0.02 |
| Total saturated FA (SFA) | 29.27 ± 0.81 | 21.46 ± 0.11 |
| 16:1 | 9.21 ± 2.65 | 0.44 ± 0.10 |
| 18:1 | 14.49 ± 0.47 | 24.08 ± 0.30 |
| 20:1 | 2.14 ± 0.21 | 0.63 ± 0.07 |
| 22:1 | 1.62 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.00 |
| Total monosatured FA | 27.59 ± 3.39 | 25.73 ± 0.04 |
| 16:2 n-4 | 1.34 ± 0.13 | 0.01 ± 0.01 |
| 16:3 n-4 | 1.37 ± 0.03 | 0.08 ± 0.00 |
| 16:4 n-1 | 2.40 ± 0.33 | 0.04 ± 0.00 |
| 18:2 n-6 | 5.74 ± 0.46 | 20.27 ± 0.96 |
| 20:4 n-6 | 0.78 ± 0.20 | 0.18 ± 0.16 |
| 22:5 n-6 | 0.14 ± 0.05 | 4.89 ± 0.15 |
| Total PUFA n-6 | 9.80 ± 4.20 | 25.97 ± 0.75 |
| 18:3 n-3 | 0.95 ± 0.06 | 8.76 ± 0.19 |
| 18:4 n-3 | 1.74 ± 0.09 | 0.11 ± 0.01 |
| 20:5 n-3 | 15.50 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.15 |
| 22:5 n-3 | 1.72 ± 0.24 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 22:6 n-3 | 5.63 ± 1.02 | 15.50 ± 0.46 |
| Total PUFA n-3 | 24.29 ± 0.74 | 16.27 ± 0.60 |
| SFA/PUFA | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.01 |
| n3 / n6 | 3.67 ± 0.31 | 0.97 ± 0.02 |
| Index Insat | 198.83 ± 0.39 | 216.74 ± 4.61 |
| EPA/DHA | 2.80 ± 0.50 | 0.02 ± 0.01 |
| ARA/EPA | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.26 |
| ARA/DHA | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.01 |
Fatty acid profiles (% of total FA) of eggs from females fed C or MA diet sampled during Cycle 2 and Cycle 3 of the experimentation
| Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Statistical results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saturated fatty acids (SFA) | CB | MAB | CB | MAB | Diet | Cycle | Diet x Cycle |
| 12:0 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ |
| 14:0 | 2.27 ± 0.14 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 2.62 ± 0.14 | 0.45 ± 0.04 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 15:0 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | *** | *** | * |
| 16:0 | 15.47 ± 0.50 | 14.10 ± 0.69 | 16.14 ± 0.77 | 15.04 ± 0.40 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 17:0 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | *** | n.s | n.s |
| 18:0 | 5.70 ± 0.38 | 4.71 ± 0.36 | 5.91 ± 0.25 | 5.50 ± 0.35 | *** | *** | ** |
| 20:0 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | *** | ** | n.s |
| 22:0 | n.d | n.d | n.d | n.d | _ | _ | _ |
| Total saturated FA (SFA) | 24.03 ± 0.39 | 19.65 ± 0.99 | 25.26 ± 0.99 | 21.35 ± 0.69 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 16:1 | 5.56 ± 0.23 | 2.90 ± 0.26 | 6.12 ± 0.29 | 2.75 ± 0.32 | *** | n.s | *** |
| 17:1 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | *** | *** | *** |
| 18:1 | 19.92 ± 0.92 | 23.91 ± 1.30 | 17.48 ± 0.69 | 20.79 ± 0.77 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 20:1 | 1.50 ± 0.12 | 1.38 ± 0.25 | 1.64 ± 0.18 | 1.63 ± 0.21 | * | *** | n.s |
| 22:1 | 0.04 ± 0.05 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | *** | n.s | n.s |
| Total monosatured FA | 27.04 ± 0.95 | 28.18 ± 1.07 | 25.38 ± 1.02 | 25.17 ± 0.99 | n.s | *** | n.s |
| 16:2 n-4 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 16:3 n-4 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | *** | *** | *** |
| 16:4 n-1 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 18:2 n-4 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | ** | n.s | *** |
| 18:3 n-4 | 0.51 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.52 ± 0.04 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | *** | * | n.s |
| 18:4 n-1 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.08 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | *** | * | *** |
| 18:2 n-6 | 5.14 ± 0.41 | 10.94 ± 1.27 | 4.09 ± 0.34 | 11.20 ± 0.71 | *** | ** | *** |
| 18:2 n-4 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | ** | n.s | *** |
| 18:3 n-6 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.06 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.06 | *** | n.s | *** |
| 20:2 n-6 | 1.04 ± 0.08 | 1.93 ± 0.24 | 0.95 ± 0.09 | 2.40 ± 0.32 | *** | ** | *** |
| 20:3 n-6 | 0.60 ± 0.08 | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 1.21 ± 0.17 | *** | ** | *** |
| 20:4 n-6 | 1.80 ± 0.08 | 3.29 ± 0.20 | 1.74 ± 0.06 | 3.91 ± 0.22 | *** | *** | * |
| 22:2 n-6 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.15 ± 0.08 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | *** | *** | * |
| 22:4 n-6 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.30 ± 0.05 | *** | *** | *** |
| 22:5 n-6 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 2.26 ± 0.22 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 2.56 ± 0.19 | *** | *** | *** |
| Total PUFA n-6 | 11.29 ± 0.52 | 20.35 ± 1.05 | 10.23 ± 0.48 | 22.26 ± 0.85 | *** | n.s | *** |
| 16:4 n-3 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 18:3 n-3 | 1.00 ± 0.09 | 3.03 ± 0.39 | 0.61 ± 0.09 | 2.90 ± 0.20 | *** | *** | * |
| 18:4 n-3 | 0.39 ± 0.06 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.08 | ** | * | n.s |
| 20:3 n-3 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.07 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.40 ± 0.06 | *** | * | * |
| 20:4 n-3 | 0.79 ± 0.10 | 0.54 ± 0.05 | 0.72 ± 0.11 | 0.41 ± 0.06 | *** | *** | n.s |
| 20:5 n-3 | 10.91 ± 0.54 | 5.07 ± 0.32 | 10.60 ± 0.71 | 3.58 ± 0.45 | *** | *** | *** |
| 21:5 n-3 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | *** | n.s | *** |
| 22:5 n-3 | 4.33 ± 0.33 | 1.77 ± 0.15 | 4.99 ± 0.62 | 1.25 ± 0.13 | *** | n.s | *** |
| 22:6 n-3 | 18.95 ± 1.45 | 20.09 ± 1.46 | 19.70 ± 1.36 | 21.40 ± 0.94 | *** | *** | n.s |
| Total PUFA n-3 | 35.57 ± 1.38 | 27.94 ± 1.42 | 36.64 ± 0.89 | 27.04 ± 0.64 | *** | *** | *** |
| SFA/PUFA | 0.50 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.03 | 0.53 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | *** | *** | n.s |
| n3 / n6 | 4.09 ± 0.31 | 1.57 ± 0.12 | 4.83 ± 0.25 | 1.38 ± 0.05 | *** | *** | *** |
| Index Insat | 257.33 ± 6.52 | 253.43 ± 6.21 | 258.24 ± 3.97 | 253.14 ± 4.22 | * | *** | n.s |
| EPA/DHA | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.54 ± 0.07 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | *** | *** | n.s |
| ARA/EPA | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.65 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 1.11 ± 0.13 | *** | *** | *** |
| ARA/DHA | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | *** | *** | *** |
Values are means ± s.d. Two-way analysis of variance was carried out in order to assess effects of diet and cycle of reproduction. Replicates correspond to different individual egg batches (n = 10 per treatment). “n.s”: not significant; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001
Fig. 4Effect of maternal nutrition on fry performances (A) during classic growth trial where fry were fed a CO diet for 12 weeks (evolution of mean body weight (g) during the 12 week-trial, individual weight (g) and survival percent (%) after 8 and 12 weeks) and (B) after 4 weeks of nutritional challenge where fry were fed the MAO diet (individual weight (g) and survival percent (%)). One-way analysis of variance was carried out in order to assess effects of maternal nutritional origin on individual final weight; replicates correspond to different individual fingerlings (n = 30 fingerlings per treatment). Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out to assess the effect of maternal nutritional origin on survival rate (n = 4 racks at week 8 and n = 2 racks at week 12) and the weight mean during rearing (n = 2 racks per treatment from week 0 to week 4 and n = 4 racks from week 5 to week 8). “n.s”: not significant; “*”: P < 0.05
Proximate composition of progeny according to maternal nutritional origin and diet of progeny (fed a commercial diet or challenged with a MA diet)
| Progeny diet | CO | MAO | Statistical results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal origin | CB | MAB | CB | MAB | Maternal origin | Progeny diet |
| Dry Matter, % | 22.8 ± 0.3 | 21.9 ± 0.00 | 23.6 ± 0.3 | 23.9 ± 0.1 | n.s | *** |
| Protein, % WM | 14.3 ± 0.5 | 13.81 ± 0.1 | 13.9 ± 0.2 | 13.8 ± 0.1 | n.s | *** |
| Lipids, % WM | 7.1 ± 0.2 | 7.2 ± 0.2 | 9.1 ± 0.1 | 9.3 ± 0.2 | n.s | *** |
| Ash, % WM | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | n.s | *** |
| Energy, kJ/g WM | 5.8 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.3 | 6.4 ± 0.1 | 6.5 ± 0.1 | n.s | ** |
Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out to assess the effects of diet and cycle of reproduction on proximate composition. Replicates correspond to different pools of fingerlings (n = 4 per treatment). Values are means ± s.d. “n.s”: not significate; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001. WM = wet matter.
Fig. 5Relative expression of genes involved in hepatic lipid metabolism of the progeny according maternal origin (MO) and progeny diet (PD: fed a C diet or challenged with a MA diet). Only genes where a significant effect of maternal origin are represented. Other results are presented in Additional file 3: Table S3. Different pathways of pentose phosphate (A), of β-oxidation FA (B), of biosynthesis of PUFA (C), of cholesterol synthesis (D) and of cholesterol elimination (E) are represented in different boxes. Two-way analysis of variance was carried out in order to assess effects of maternal nutritional origin and diet of progeny. Replicates correspond to liver from different individual fingerlings (n = 10 per treatment). “n.s”: not significate; “*”: P < 0.05; “**”: P < 0.01; “***”: P < 0.001. a.u = arbitrary unit. Different letters indicate significant differences between groups, which were investigated with a Tukey post hoc test