Rearing Conditions and Automated Feed Distribution Systems for Zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article entitled "Specific rearing conditions and automated feed distribution systems for zebrafish (Danio rerio) towards optimizing healthy growth and welfare: a review" is very interesting, and well organized.

My primary concern is that the article only discusses conventional platforms, and does not cover the recent microfluidic tools for automated culturing and real-time imaging of zebrafish. The microfluidic platforms have been demonstrated in several works, including:

 

Miniaturized embryo array for automated trapping, immobilization and microperfusion of zebrafish embryos, PloS one, 2012, 7 (5), e36630

Please properly discuss the unique features of microfluidic technologies for studying and culturing zebrafish, and cite the above reference.

Also please consider adding a table to summarize and compare various technologies, discussed throughout the review article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript entitled “Specific rearing conditions and automated feed distribution systems for zebrafish (Danio rerio) towards optimizing healthy growth and welfare: a review”, the authors aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common protocols for zebrafish husbandry. The authors also intended to present automated systems for zebrafish feeding.

This manuscript consists of two parts, which should have built a coherent and comprehensive story, but failed to do so.  The main focus of the first part is placed on feeding zebrafish larvae, whereas automated systems presented in the second part are used (mainly if not only) for feeding post-larval stages. The description of the automated solutions shows a clear bias toward one brand. For unknow reason, other available options, such as rotating barrel fish feeders or systems based on peristaltic pumps, were not discussed.

The choice of references and the way how they were cited are undoubtedly the weak point of this work. Very few recent scientific articles were cited, and many are missing, e.g., DOI: 10.1177/0023677219869037, and doi.org/10.1111/brv.12831. Consequently, quite a few statements are based on outdated literature or non-scientific papers. For example, the information that the optimal protocols for post-larval zebrafish have not been formally determined (lines 310-311) is based on a publication from 2007, ignoring the progress made over the last 15 years. The recommendation of 24-30 °C as the temperature appropriate for zebrafish housing is based on the publication by Matthews et al. (from 2002), in which any data did not support the statements. The text also contains statements that do not relate to generally accepted principles and are not supported by any reference. For example, in lines 168-170, the authors write that “when conducting small-scale experiments, appropriate filters and maintenance, such as regular cleaning of filters and bi-weekly exchange of water, is required and fish can be raised at low density (one fish per litre)”. On what basis is such a frequency of water replacement and stocking density recommended?

The test also contains statements about unjustified strong overtones/misinterpretations. For example, in lines 122-126, referring to Lawrence, C. 2007, the authors write “……., nitrogenous wastes from ammonia, nitrites and nitrates (tolerated up to 100 part per million, ppm) …… represent other important rearing parameters to satisfy for providing adequate rearing conditions [24]”. In contrast, in the original text it is written that “Levels of NH3 in excess of 0.02 ppm are typically toxic to aquatic animals and, therefore, must be eliminated in closed recirculating systems”.

Taking into account the errors and shortcomings in the text, I believe that the manuscript in its current form is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work can be published in its current form.

Author Response

We thank very much Reviewer 1 for his/her report.