Next Article in Journal
Ontogenetic, Spatial and Inter-Annual Variability in the Diet of European Hake Merluccius merluccius Linnaeus, 1758, in the North Aegean Sea
Previous Article in Journal
Population Dynamics Parameters and Exploitation Status of 55 Commercial Species in Egyptian Red Sea Fisheries: A Key to Sustainable Fisheries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transcriptome Analysis of Juvenile Black Rockfish Sebastes schlegelii under Air Exposure Stress
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of High Dietary Starch Levels on the Growth Performance, Liver Function, and Metabolome of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)

Key Laboratory of Healthy Freshwater Aquaculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Key Laboratory of Fish Health and Nutrition of Zhejiang Province, Huzhou Key Laboratory of Aquatic Product Quality Improvement and Processing Technology, Zhejiang Institute of Freshwater Fisheries, Huzhou 313001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2024, 9(7), 256; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9070256
Submission received: 11 June 2024 / Revised: 28 June 2024 / Accepted: 28 June 2024 / Published: 2 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiological Response Mechanisms of Aquatic Animals to Stress)

Abstract

:
In this study, we conducted a 16-week feeding trial to investigate the effects of a high-cassava starch diet on growth performance, liver function, and metabolism in largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). We formulated five diets containing varying levels of cassava starch: 12%, 9%, 6%, 3%, and 0% (termed M12, M9, M6, M3, and M0, respectively). We distributed these diets among largemouth bass with the initial body weight of 83.33 ± 0.55 g via an in-pond “raceway” aquaculture system. Our findings suggest that high level (12%) of cassava starch dietary inclusion adversely affected growth performance metrics such as weight gain rate and specific growth rate, along with feed utilization efficiency indicators, including protein efficiency, protein deposition rate, and the apparent digestibility of dry matter and protein. This negative impact was accompanied by a decrease in intestinal amylase activity. Through further transcriptomic analysis, we identified several key genes associated with carbohydrate metabolism, which underwent changes influencing liver function. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis revealed the involvement of these differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle). Comparative metabolomics analysis further indicated that the M9 group showed significant enrichment in pathways related to amino acid metabolism and alterations in the levels of metabolites involved in carbohydrate metabolism. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that incorporating up to 9% cassava starch in the diet can enhance growth performance in largemouth bass by stimulating digestive enzyme activities and promoting glucose utilization.
Key Contribution: High starch diets induced growth retardation of largemouth bass. Dietary inclusion of cassava starch significantly affected immune- and carbohydrate metabolism- related genes expression in the liver of largemouth bass.

1. Introduction

In recent years, sugars, as cost-effective and widely available energy sources, have been increasingly incorporated into aquatic animal feeds to provide not only energy but also spare proteins for growth. However, the metabolic capacity of fish to utilize these sugars efficiently is limited compared with terrestrial mammals. This limitation is attributed to factors such as reduced insulin receptors and the absence or low activity of key enzymes like hexokinase (HK) and low glucokinase (GK), which are essential for glucose metabolism [1]. Studies have shown that compared with simple sugars, complex carbohydrates such as starch are better suited for fish nutrition due to a structure that facilitates absorption and utilization [2,3]. As the most important carbohydrate in feed ingredients, starch has become an indispensable ingredient in aquatic feeds. However, many fish species, especially carnivorous ones, display glucose intolerance. For example, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) develop persistent hyperglycemia and suffer from liver damage and immunosuppression when their diet exceeds 20% carbohydrates [4]. Therefore, in recent years, research on the application of starch in the aquatic feed industry has emerged.
Largemouth bass has become one of the leading freshwater aquaculture species in China due to its taste, nutritional benefits, rapid growth, adaptability, omnivorous diet, low disease susceptibility, and minimal intermuscular bones. At present, although studies have evaluated the optimal feed starch sources and levels for largemouth bass, revealing enhanced growth with 0–13% corn starch [5] and optimal results with 10% wheat starch, the effects of cereal starch on the growth and digestion of largemouth bass remains underexplored [6]. Compared with cereal starch, cassava starch, characterized by a lower amylose-to-amylopectin ratio, suggests a potentially higher digestibility for fish due to its Lin high amylopectin content [7]. Cassava starch has been successfully applied in feeds across livestock, poultry, and aquaculture, coupled with its advantages in viscosity, permeability, and film-forming properties, which underscore its potential. Moreover, it has lower crude protein and crude ash content than corn starch, which are irreplaceable physicochemical properties [8]. In recent years, the application effects of cassava and cassava starch have been explored in aquatic feeds. It has been reported that adding cassava to the feed of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [9] and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) [10] improves nutrient absorption and muscle quality without compromising growth. However, investigations into cassava starch’s implications for largemouth bass, especially regarding liver metabolism, are notably lacking.
Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by assessing the effects of different levels of cassava starch on the growth performance, digestibility, and sucrose metabolism of largemouth bass, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the health implications of dietary starch in largemouth bass aquaculture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Diets

In the present study, five experimental diets were formulated to contain 12.71%, 11.6%, 10.70%, 9.83%, and 8.91% starch (named as M12, M9, M6, M3, and M0), respectively. Wheat gluten was used to homogenize feed starch levels to 12%. Fish meal was used as the main protein source, and soybean oil was used as the lipid source. Ingredients and detailed compositions of experimental diets are shown in Table 1. After being ground through a 247 µm mesh, the feed ingredients were mixed through a commercial food mixer. Pellet feed with a particle size of 10 mm was prepared and then naturally air-dried and stored at 4 °C until used.

2.2. Fish Management

Largemouth bass were obtained from a breeding farm in Huzhou, Zhejiang, China. These fish were fed with a commercial diet and acclimated for 2 weeks in circulating water tanks in the laboratory. After adapting to the experimental conditions, 1800 individuals (average initial weight: 83.33 ± 0.55 g) with healthy physiques and no injuries were randomly divided into five groups with five replicates. Each replicate had 120 individuals cultured in an in-pond “raceway” aquaculture system (length × wide × height: 3 m × 0.6 m × 2.5 m, water depth: 1.5 m). All fish were fed the diet to apparent satiation twice daily (8:00 and 17:00) for 112 days (13 August–2 December, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province). During the breeding period, the water temperature ranged from 22.0 to 32.5 °C, dissolved oxygen was more than 5.36 mg/L, ammonia-N was less than 0.25 mg/L, and nitrite nitrogen was less than 0.16 mg/L. The photoperiod of culture was 12 h light and 12 h dark. The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Ethics Committee of Agriculture Ministry Key Laboratory of Healthy Freshwater Aquaculture, Zhejiang Institute of Freshwater Fisheries (Huzhou, China) (AEEIZJF-20210101).

2.3. Sample Collection

At the end of the trial, the largemouth bass were fasted for 24 h, and then they were weighed and counted after being anesthetized with 0.01% MS-222 (Sigma, St Louis, MO, USA). The survival rate (SR), final body weight (FBW), weight gain rate (WGR), specific growth rate (SGR), feed conversion ratio (FCR), protein efficiency (PER), and protein retention efficiency (PRE) were calculated in each test pond. Individual body weight, body length, viscera, liver, and intestine weight were sequentially recorded from twenty randomly selected fish (half male and female) in each pond to calculate condition factor (CF), viscerosomatic index (VSI), hepatosomatic index (HSI), enterosomatic index (ESI), and visceral adipose index (VAI). In the above dissected fish, five per tank were used for liver and intestine enzyme activity analysis and glycogen content detection of liver. Additionally, six fish (half male and female) were pooled for whole-body composition analysis and muscle glycogen content. These two detections were also performed in pooled dorsal muscles of male and females respectively. Based on growth performance, liver tissues from 18 fish (6 in each pond) were collected from groups M12, M9, and M0, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and placed in a refrigerator at −80 °C for transcriptome sequencing.

2.4. Chemical Analysis

All chemical composition analyses of diets, the whole body, muscle, and the liver were performed by standard methods [11]. The Kjeldahl method (N × 6.25) was used to measure crude protein content. Moisture was determined after samples were dried at 105 °C till constant weight. Crude lipid was determined by the Soxhlet extraction method, and crude ash was determined by combustion in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 16 h. Starch was analyzed by colorimetric using 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid at a wavelength of 540 nm (TU-1900, PERSEE, Beijing, China). Total intestinal protein concentration and trypsin, lipase, and amylase activities were measured according to the instructions of a commercial kit (Jian Cheng Bioengineering Institute, Nanjing, China). All assays were performed in triplicate.

2.5. Hepatic Transcriptome Analysis

The total RNA of liver samples was isolated using Trizol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The concentration, purity, and integrity of the RNA were examined using the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Six extracted RNA samples were pooled as one sample to minimize the variation among individuals. Then, cDNA libraries were constructed with Illumina’s standard protocol for RNAseq library according to the procedures described [12]. Finally, the constructed libraries were sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq™ 4000 platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) by Genedenovo Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, China). The sequencing data were submitted to NCBI with accession no. PRJNA948576.
Data processing procedures were conducted as follows. In short, the sequence raw reads were filtered, low-quality reads were discarded, and the clean reads were mapped to the reference genome of largemouth bass (assembly GCF_014851395.1 ASM1485139v1) using Hisat2 v2.1.0 with default parameters [13]. The expression levels were normalized to fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads (FPKM) for further analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) analysis was performed by the DESeq2 R package v16.1.1 [14] with the criteria of FDR < 0.05 and log2|(fold change)| > 1. Finally, KEGG categories were enriched based on the KEGG database (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/, accessed on 14 April 2023).

2.6. LC-MS/MS Non-Target Metabonomics

In the present study, non-target metabonomics data were collected by Guangzhou Genedenovo Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, China) and analyzed on the OmicShare bioinformatics platform (v1). All samples were weighted and treated according to the method described in Ning et al. [15]. Quality control (QC) of each sample was conducted by mixing equal volumes of aliquots of the supernatants. LC-MS/MS analysis was performed by UHPLC (1290 Infinity LC, Agilent Technologies) coupled with QTOF (TripleTOF 6600, SCIEX, Shanghai, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projection to latent structures-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were carried out to distinguish metabolites between the three groups. The variable important in projection (VIP) value of differential metabolites was also calculated for difference identification. Only a metabolite with VIP ≥ 1 was reserved. A metabolite with the value of p < 0.05 was considered as a differential abundance metabolite (DAM). All the metabolites were matched against the KEGG database (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, http://www.genome.jp/kegg/, accessed on 14 April 2023) and the annotation information was analyzed.

2.7. Calculations

Formulas used in the study are as follows.
Survival rate (SR, %) = final fish number/initial fish number × 100;
Weight gain rate (WGR, %) = (final body weight − initial body weight)/initial body weight × 100;
Specific growth rate (SGR, %/d) = [Ln (final body weight) − Ln (initial body weight)] × 100/days;
Feed conversion rate (FCR) = dry feed intake/(final body weight − initial body weight);
Protein efficiency ratio (PER) = total weight gain/protein intake;
Protein retention efficiency (PRE, %) = (final protein weight − initial protein weight)/protein intake × 100;
Condition factor (CF, g/cm3) = body weight/body length3;
Viscerosomatic index (VSI, %) = internal organ weight/body weight × 100;
Hepatosomatic index (HSI, %) = liver weight/body weight × 100;
Enterosomatic index (ESI, %) = intestine weight/body weight × 100;
Gonadosomatic index (GSI, %) = gonad weight/body weight × 100.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All data were presented as the mean value ± standard deviation (SD). A one-way ANOVA was performed for the data analysis of five groups in SPSS (v25.0) software in the present study, and Student’s t-test and Tukey’s HSD were used for significance analysis. p < 0.05 was considered significantly different. The graphics were drawn using GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance and Feed Utilization

The results of growth performance and feed utilization are shown in Table 2. The FCR and PER had no statistically significant difference in all five groups (p > 0.05). The M9 and M6 group exhibited significantly higher FBW, WGR, and SGR compared with the high-cassava starch (M12) group (p < 0.05). In the M9 group, the FBW was 3.14 times the initial weight after 111 days of cultivation. There was no significant difference in FBW after adding wheat gluten to diets (group M9 ~ M0) (p > 0.05). In addition, the PRE in the M9 group was notably higher than those in the other four groups (p > 0.05).

3.2. Morphometric Parameters and Chemical Composition

Morphological parameters were measured in the five groups of male and female individuals, respectively (Table 3). The indices of ESI and GSI had no differences among groups, whether male or female. Similar results were observed with CF of males. In females, CF showed a downward and then upward trend with the supplementation of wheat gluten in diets. The M6 and M3 groups had lower values of CF than the other three groups (p < 0.05). Both VSI and HSI were higher in the M12 and M6 group, independent of gender (p < 0.05). Dietary inclusion of different levels of cassava starch had no significant effect on the moisture and crude protein contents of male largemouth bass (p > 0.05) (Table 4). Similar results were observed for the crude protein and lipid contents of female fish. In males, the M9 and M3 groups had higher levels of crude lipid, yet the M12 and M0 groups had more crude ash compared with other groups, suggesting no apparent pattern. In muscle, the crude ash content of female individuals in the M12 group was significantly higher than that in the other four groups. Remarkable variations in moisture, crude protein, and crude lipid in male muscle were detected, with the maximum values distributed in the M3, M0, and M12 groups, respectively. Males in the M9 group had the highest crude protein and crude lipid content in the liver (p < 0.05).

3.3. Intestinal Digestive and Absorption Enzyme Activity

Dietary inclusion of different levels of cassava starch had no significant effect on the activity of intestinal trypsin and lipase in largemouth bass (p > 0.05, Table 5). The activities of intestinal amylase in the M12 group were significantly higher than those in the M6 and M3 groups (p < 0.05).

3.4. Detection and Functional Enrichment Analysis of DEGs in Liver

In the present study, largemouth bass from the M12, M9, and M0 groups were used to detect the difference at the transcriptional level. Nine libraries were constructed using the RNA from livers. A total of 23,578,187 raw sequencing reads were obtained. After trimming and quality control, the high-quality reads were mapped to the referenced genome, with a high mapping rate ranging from 96.01% to 97.46%. In total, 27,881 annotation genes of largemouth bass were identified. Expression profiles of genes from nine libraries were exhibited in the violin plot (Figure 1a). The mRNA expression showed high repeatability in M12 and M9, with correlation coefficients greater than 0.980 (Figure 1b). However, M0 had weak correlation with the other two groups; it was also greater than 0.911. M12-1 and M0-2 were outlays from the principal component analysis (PCA) analysis.
Under the conditions of FDR < 0.05 and |log2FC| ≥ 1, 157, 53, and 94 differentially expressed genes were identified in the comparisons of M12 vs. M0, M12 vs. M9, and M9 vs. M0, respectively (Figure 1d). To deeply understand the biological processes in which the DEGs were involved, KEGG pathway enrichment analysis was carried out. DEGs were divided into six categories, of which a total of 199 pathways were significantly enriched. In the category of metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and nucleotide metabolism were the top involved pathways. In the category of organismal systems, the endocrine system was most enriched (Figure 2a). Pathways associated with the digestive system (pancreatic secretion and protein digestion and absorption) were exclusively over-represented, with high cassava starch level addition (Figure 2b). Pathways associated with carbohydrate metabolism (glycolysis/gluconeogenesis) were over-represented at the M9 stage (Figure 3).

3.5. Liver Metabolome

Analyses of the liver samples from M12, M9, and M0 were conducted in both positive (POS) and negative (NEG) ionization modes. Samples were densely overlapped in PCA analysis, suggesting a high reliability of sequencing datasets. As a result, a total of 17,845 and 11,286 metabolites were identified in POS and NEG mode, respectively. The clustered relationship and expression patterns of metabolites from these three groups are displayed in Figure 4, showing reliability for subsequent analysis. Multivariate statistical analysis was performed using the OPLS-DA model to maximize capture of the DAMs among groups (Figure 5). The cross-validation scores of OPLS-DA analysis for M0, M9, and M12 are displayed in Figure 5. Two-by-two comparison reveals that M0, M9, and M12 are clearly classified into independent clusters representing different metabolic profiles. In comparisons of M12 with the other two groups, both Q2s were more than 0.5, showing great prediction ability for this model.
Then, with the threshold of the OPLS-DA variable important in projection (VIP) score ≥ 1 and p-value < 0.05, significantly different metabolites (SDMs) between any two groups were carried out. As shown in Figure 6a, a total of 960, 787, and 531 different metabolites were identified between the comparisons of M12 vs. M0, M12 vs. M9, and M9 vs. M0, respectively. M12 had more DAMs with the other two groups. Between M12 and M0, the significantly different metabolites were notably enriched “Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism” (p < 0.05). Similar results can be found between M12 and M0. The SDMs between M9 and M0 were mainly related to “choline metabolism in cancer”.

4. Discussion

Evidence has demonstrated that high dietary carbohydrate levels impair growth performance in aquatic animals [16]. However, our study revealed that cassava starch supplementation showed a beneficial effect on weight gain and feed utilization of largemouth bass as the supplementation level increased, suggesting cassava starch’s potential to reduce fishmeal usage in aquafeeds while promoting growth performance. This result aligns with findings in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [17], where cassava starch improved growth, feed utilization, and nutrient composition, and in African catfish (Clurius guriepiuu), where a 49-day study by Olurin et al. [18] observed similar growth enhancement. These results collectively indicate cassava starch’s efficacy in fish growth promotion. However, with an increased proportion of cassava starch added to the diet, growth performance showed a non-significant decrease in snakehead fish (Channa striata) [19], paralleling the observed trends. This may be attributed to the biotechnological treatment of cassava starch, which reduced the content of certain anti-nutritional factors like concentrated tannins and flax bitter glycosides. Compared with terrestrial animals, the utilization of carbohydrates in fish is relatively low, and the carbohydrate level of feed for marine and freshwater fish should not exceed 20% and 40%, respectively. In the present study, a group with 9% cassava starch addition showed better growth performance.
Digestive efficiency, particularly the digestion of starch, is the most important factor in aquaculture nutrition, with amylase activity being a key indicator of cassava starch utilization in fish feeds. In this study, increasing cassava starch supplementation initially led to a decrease in the activity of intestinal amylase, followed by an increase, which is consistent with trends reported in snakehead (Channa argus) studies [20], indicating that an optimal level of cassava starch supplementation can enhance the secretion of amylase and enhance digestive efficiency in largemouth bass. In addition, it is important to note that the levels of starch addition were not the same at the highest amylase activity, suggesting differences in the ability of largemouth bass to utilize starch. This variability may be influenced by the size of starch granules and the ratio of straight-chain to branched-chain starch [21]. Previous studies reported that cassava starch, with a higher proportion of branched-chain molecules (20:80 ratio), is more easily hydrolyzed by enzymes compared with other starches, such as corn starch and wheat gluten, which was evidenced by the superior digestion of cassava starch [22,23]. Therefore, the largemouth bass displayed a stronger digestion ability for cassava starch than for wheat gluten in the present study. However, trypsin and lipase activities gradually decreased with the increase in cassava starch concentration, aligning with variations in the apparent digestibility of crude protein and lipids. Thus, it can be speculated that the digestive enzyme activity has a close relationship with the apparent digestibility of feed nutrients, ultimately affecting the content of crude protein and lipids, as well as other morphometric parameters.
In aquatic animals, the liver is involved in various biological processes, including lipid synthesis, starch degradation, and nutrient transport [24]. The inclusion of different levels of starch in the diet can alter carbohydrate metabolism in the liver. Previous studies have confirmed that high levels of starch in the diet upregulated carbohydrate biosynthesis-related genes and downregulated steroid biosynthesis-related genes in spotted sea bass (Lateolabrax maculatus) [25]. In the current study, a total of 157 DEGs were identified between M12 and M0, 53 DEGs between M12 and M9, and 94 DEGs between M0 and M9, showing a significant impact of cassava starch on liver carbohydrate deposition. KEGG enrichment analysis further highlighted that 35 genes were enriched in several pathways closely related to carbohydrate metabolism, including glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, with a notable difference between the M12 and M9 groups. Among these DEGs, there was nearly 30 percent in common in the comparisons involving the M12 group and the other two groups, suggesting a greater capacity for cassava starch deposition in the M12 group. Previous studies have shown that the balance between glucose storage and production depends on key enzymes associated with glycolysis, glycogenolysis, and gluconeogenesis [26]. In the present study, the formulated diet contained different levels of starch, which does not exist in forage fish and their feeding habits. Despite largemouth bass’s reported low efficiency in dietary starch utilization [5], our results indicate that high cassava starch diets significantly upregulated genes associated with the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), including GK and pyruvate kinase (PK), enhancing hepatic glucose metabolism and energy production [27].
In the present study, we explored the hepatic metabolomics profiling of largemouth bass fed with three levels of cassava starch diets using GC-MS techniques. Our analysis revealed significant alterations in metabolites primarily associated with the metabolism of glycine, serine, and threonine, suggesting that the cassava starch supplementations can bolster growth performance through enhanced amino acid metabolic pathways. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins that are crucial for diet quality. Some amino acids, such as glycine, serine, aspartic acid, and norleucine, were elevated in the livers of largemouth bass in the M12 and M9 groups. While glycine is not classified as essential in fish diets, it has been shown to support the growth of fish and the efficiency of nutrient absorption in rainbow trout (O. mykiss) [28]. Moreover, glycine, serine, and threonine are abundant in collagen and elastin, which are essential proteins in connective tissue health [29,30]. Therefore, sufficient supply of the three amino acids is crucial for maximum collagen synthesis and optimal fish health [31]. These amino acids, along with vital vitamin B, play roles in regulating the function of the nervous system [32]. Additionally, serine and threonine regulate the body’s immune system, strengthen the body’s immunity, enhance antiviral and antioxidant functions, and maintain the body’s normal activity and homeostasis level [33]. The observed increase in these amino acids and improvements in digestive enzyme activities provide compelling evidence that optimal cassava starch supplementation can improve amino acid metabolism, thereby enhancing largemouth bass growth.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the optimal inclusion rate of cassava starch in the diet for largemouth bass should not exceed 9% based on evaluations using morphometric parameters and feed conversion ratios. Excessive dietary cassava starch may damage hepatic metabolism, reducing feed nutrient digestibility and hindering growth performance in largemouth bass. Therefore, this study’s exploration of varying cassava starch levels provides valuable insights for determining appropriate starch inclusion rates, offering a basis for optimizing commercial feed formulations for largemouth bass aquaculture.

Author Contributions

L.S.: conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft. J.G.: resources, project administration, funding acquisition. Q.L.: formal analysis, data curation. J.J.: visualization. J.C.: formal analysis. L.G.: formal analysis. B.Y.: data curation. J.P.: validation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the major agricultural technology collaborative promotion plan project in Zhejiang Province with grant number “2022XTTGSC01”, the key research and development plan project in Zhejiang Province with grant number “2021C02024”, Huzhou Natural Science Fund Project with grant number “2022YZ36”, and the special project of the research institutes of Zhejiang Province with grant number “2023YSZX005”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Ethics Committee of Agriculture Ministry Key Laboratory of Healthy Freshwater Aquaculture, Zhejiang Institute of Freshwater Fisheries (Huzhou, China) (AEEIZJF-20210101).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The sequencing data were submitted to NCBI with accession no. PRJNA948576.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Sobiecki, J.G.; Appleby, P.N.; Bradbury, K.E.; Key, T.J. High compliance with dietary recommendations in a cohort of meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford study. Nutr. Res. 2016, 36, 464–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cui, X.J.; Zhou, Q.C.; Liang, H.O.; Yang, J.; Zhao, L.M. Effects of dietary carbohydrate sources on the growth performance and hepatic carbohydrate metabolic enzyme activities of juvenile cobia (Rachycentron canadum Linnaeus.). Aquac. Res. 2010, 42, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prakash, S.; Maas, R.M.; Horstmann, P.; Elbers, J.J.; Kokou, F.; Schrama, J.W.; Philip, A.J.P. Effect of dietary starch, amylase and ash on nutrient digestibility, faecal waste production and faecal characteristics of rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 2024, 583, 740612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hoseini, S.M.; Taheri Mirghaed, A.; Ghelichpour, M.; Pagheh, E.; Iri, Y.; Kor, A. Effects of dietary tryptophan supplementation and stocking density on growth performance and stress responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 2020, 519, 734908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lin, S.M.; Shi, C.M.; Mu, M.M.; Chen, Y.J.; Luo, L. Effect of high dietary starch levels on growth, hepatic glucose metabolism, oxidative status and immune response of juvenile largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2018, 78, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, J.L.; Kuang, W.M.; Zhong, Y.F.; Zhou, Y.L.; Chen, Y.J.; Lin, S.M. Effects of supplemental dietary bile acids on growth, liver function and immunity of juvenile largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) fed high-starch diet. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2020, 97, 602–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Luchese, C.L.; Rodrigues, R.B.; Tessaro, I.C. Cassava starch-processing residue utilization for packaging development. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 2238–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fan, M.; Hu, T.; Zhao, S.; Xiong, S.; Xie, J.; Huang, Q. Gel characteristics and microstructure of fish myofibrillar protein/cassava starch composites. Food Chem. 2017, 218, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Oliveira Cavalheiro, J.M.; Oliveira de Souza, E.; Bora, P.S. Utilization of shrimp industry waste in the formulation of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus) feed. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 602–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sun, F.; Huang, Q.; Hu, T.; Xiong, S.; Zhao, S. Effects and mechanism of modified starches on the gel properties of myofibrillar protein from grass carp. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2014, 64, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Yuan, X.Y.; Zhang, X.T.; Xia, Y.T.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Wang, B.; Ye, W.W.; Ye, Z.F.; Qian, S.C.; Huang, M.M.; Yang, S.; et al. Transcriptome and 16S rRNA analyses revealed differences in the responses of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) to early Aeromonas hydrophila infection and immunization. Aquaculture 2021, 541, 736759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, D.; Langmead, B.; Salzberg, S.L. HISAT: A fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 357–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Love, M.I.; Huber, W.; Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ning, X.; Peng, Y.; Tang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, K.; Ji, J.; Yin, S. Integrated analysis of transcriptome and metabolome reveals distinct responses of Pelteobagrus fulvidraco against Aeromonas veronii infection at invaded and recovering stage. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 10121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, J.; Li, X.; Han, T.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Yang, M.; Xu, Y.; Harpaz, S. Effects of different dietary carbohydrate levels on growth, feed utilization and body composition of juvenile grouper Epinephelus akaara. Aquaculture 2016, 459, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mahanama, D.; Radampola, K.; Heenkenda, E. Effect of cassava starch sources on growth and feed utilization of Nile Tilapia fingerlings (Oreochromis niloticus) reared under two dietary protein levels. Aquac. Stud. 2021, 21, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Olurin, K.B. Growth of African catfish Clarias gariepinus fingerlings, fed different levels of cassava. Int. Res. J. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2013, 22, 4334–4343. [Google Scholar]
  19. Boonkusol, D.; Tongbai, W. Beneficial effects of soybean and cassava in local wisdom feed diets on growth performance with nutritional and economic analysis of snakehead fish (Channa striata). OnLine J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 22, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ding, X.; Nie, X.; Yuan, C.; Jiang, L.; Ye, W.; Qian, L. Effects of dietary multienzyme complex supplementation on growth performance, digestive capacity, histomorphology, blood metabolites and hepatic glycometabolism in snakehead (Channa argus). Animals 2022, 12, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, Y.; Fan, J.; Huang, H.; Zhou, H.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, W.; Zhang, W.; Deng, J.; Tan, B. High dietary non-starch polysaccharides detrimental to nutrient digestibility, digestive enzyme activity, growth performance, and intestinal morphology in largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1015371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Krogdahl, Å.; Hemre, G.I.; Mommsen, T.P. Carbohydrates in fish nutrition: Digestion and absorption in postlarval stages. Aquac. Nutr. 2005, 11, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gaylord, T.G.; BARROWS, F.T.; RAWLES, S.D.; LIU, K.; BREGITZER, P.; HANG, A.; OBERT, D.E.; MORRIS, C. Apparent digestibility of nutrients and energy in extruded diets from cultivars of barley and wheat selected for nutritional quality in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquac. Nutr. 2009, 15, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hu, G.; Gu, W.; Sun, P.; Bai, Q.; Wang, B. Transcriptome analyses reveal lipid metabolic process in liver related to the difference of carcass fat content in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Int. J. Genom. 2016, 2016, 7281585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jin, G.; Zhang, L.; Mai, K.; Chen, X.; Xu, S.; Ai, Q. Effects of different dietary lipid sources on growth performance, hepatic lipid deposition and transcriptome response in spotted sea bass (Lateolabrax maculatus). Aquaculture 2023, 566, 739143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ma, D.; Fan, J.; Zhu, H.; Su, H.; Jiang, P.; Yu, L.; Liao, G.; Bai, J. Histologic examination and transcriptome analysis uncovered liver damage in largemouth bass from formulated diets. Aquaculture 2020, 526, 735329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Caseras, A.; Metón, I.; Fernández, F.; Baanante, I.V. Glucokinase gene expression is nutritionally regulated in liver of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta (BBA) Gene Struct. Expr. 2000, 1493, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Belghit, I.; Philip, A.J.P.; Maas, R.M.; Lock, E.-J.; Eding, E.H.; Espe, M.; Schrama, J.W. Impact of dietary glutamate and glycine on growth and nutrient utilization in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 2023, 568, 739311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Omura, Y.; Inagaki, M. Immunocytochemical localization of taurine in the fish retina under light and dark adaptations. Amino Acids 2000, 19, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonzalez, J.; Bahmad, H.F.; Ocejo, S.; Abreu, A.; Popp, M.; Gogola, S.; Fernandez, V.; Recine, M.; Poppiti, R. The usefulness of elastin staining to detect vascular invasion in cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 15264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, P.; Mai, K.; Trushenski, J.; Wu, G. New developments in fish amino acid nutrition: Towards functional and environmentally oriented aquafeeds. Amino Acids 2009, 37, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Han, F.; Shi, L.; Han, C.; Huang, Z.; Xu, L. Effects of insufficient serine on health and selenoprotein expression in rats and their offspring. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1012362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Fang, Y.-Z.; Yang, S.; Wu, G. Free radicals, antioxidants, and nutrition. Nutrition 2002, 18, 872–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Characterization of differentially expressed genes. (a) Violin plot showing the expression profiles of samples in three groups. With each group, numbers mean biological triplicates. (b) Correlation matrix of gene expression among biological triplicates. (c) The PCA plot displaying the variations in genes among three groups. (d) Comparisons of differentially expressed genes in three groups. (e) Venn diagram showing overlapping DEGs in M12, M9, and M0 groups.
Figure 1. Characterization of differentially expressed genes. (a) Violin plot showing the expression profiles of samples in three groups. With each group, numbers mean biological triplicates. (b) Correlation matrix of gene expression among biological triplicates. (c) The PCA plot displaying the variations in genes among three groups. (d) Comparisons of differentially expressed genes in three groups. (e) Venn diagram showing overlapping DEGs in M12, M9, and M0 groups.
Fishes 09 00256 g001
Figure 2. KEGG enrichment of DEGs among M12, M9, and M0 groups. (a) Enriched KEGG classes at level 2. (b) Significantly enriched KEGG pathways by DEGs. The colored bars indicate p value.
Figure 2. KEGG enrichment of DEGs among M12, M9, and M0 groups. (a) Enriched KEGG classes at level 2. (b) Significantly enriched KEGG pathways by DEGs. The colored bars indicate p value.
Fishes 09 00256 g002
Figure 3. The clustering analysis of DEGs. (a) The significant subclusters of DEGs. The black line shows the average values of the relative expression levels in each subcluster. Numbers of DEGs are shown in the left corner. Significantly enriched modules were colored (p < 0.05). Modules with similar trend was marked with the same color (red or gray) (b,c) KEGG enrichment of subcluster 4 and 7.
Figure 3. The clustering analysis of DEGs. (a) The significant subclusters of DEGs. The black line shows the average values of the relative expression levels in each subcluster. Numbers of DEGs are shown in the left corner. Significantly enriched modules were colored (p < 0.05). Modules with similar trend was marked with the same color (red or gray) (b,c) KEGG enrichment of subcluster 4 and 7.
Fishes 09 00256 g003
Figure 4. Hierarchical clustered relationship and the expression profiles of metabolites from the positive ion mode (POS) and negative ion mode (NEG) in three groups. (a) M12 vs. M0; (b) M12 vs. M9; (c) M9 vs. M0.
Figure 4. Hierarchical clustered relationship and the expression profiles of metabolites from the positive ion mode (POS) and negative ion mode (NEG) in three groups. (a) M12 vs. M0; (b) M12 vs. M9; (c) M9 vs. M0.
Fishes 09 00256 g004
Figure 5. Orthogonal projection to latent structures-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots analysis obtained from POS and NEG mode in three groups. (a) M12 vs. M0; (b) M12 vs. M9; (c) M9 vs. M0.
Figure 5. Orthogonal projection to latent structures-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots analysis obtained from POS and NEG mode in three groups. (a) M12 vs. M0; (b) M12 vs. M9; (c) M9 vs. M0.
Fishes 09 00256 g005
Figure 6. KEGG enrichment of differential abundance metabolites (DAMs) among M12, M9, and M0 groups. (a) Comparisons of differentially expressed metabolites in three groups. (bd) Enriched KEGG classes at level 2 between each pairing of two groups.
Figure 6. KEGG enrichment of differential abundance metabolites (DAMs) among M12, M9, and M0 groups. (a) Comparisons of differentially expressed metabolites in three groups. (bd) Enriched KEGG classes at level 2 between each pairing of two groups.
Fishes 09 00256 g006
Table 1. Formulation and composition of the experimental diets (air-dry basis).
Table 1. Formulation and composition of the experimental diets (air-dry basis).
IngredientsPercentage (%)
M12M9M6M3M0
Fish meal a40
Chicken meal6
Yeast extract6
Enzymolysis intestinal membrane protein powder5
Spray-dried animal blood cells2.5
Corn protein powder4
Shrimp meal4
Cottonseed meal6
Soya bean meal3.5
Fermented soybean meal5
Wheat gluten036912
Cassava starch129630
Ca(H2PO4)2
Soybean oil4
Premix b3
Total100
Nutrient levels
Moisture6.085.415.215.895.08
Crude protein49.9050.5351.0551.5952.08
Crude lipid13.7612.8913.7413.6513.03
Crude ash11.8112.4712.4612.2412.49
Starch12.7111.6610.709.838.91
Note: a Supplied by Tongwei Co., Ltd. (Chengdu, China). Fish meal: 60.10% crude protein, 8.59% crude lipid; fish oil, soy oil, and soy lecithin: 100% crude lipid. b Mineral premix (mg/kg diet): Mg, 100 mg; Fe, 150 mg; Zn, 80 mg; Mn, 20 mg; Cu, 4 mg; Co, 0.1 mg; Se, 0.1 mg. Vitamin premix (mg or IU/kg diet): vitamin A 4000 IU; vitamin B1, 4 mg; vitamin B2, 8 mg; vitamin B6, 3.8 mg; vitamin B12, 0.03 mg; vitamin D3, 2000 IU; vitamin E, 50 mg; vitamin K, 5 mg; pantothenic acid, 35 mg; nicotinic acid, 30 mg; inositol, 200 mg; folic acid, 3 mg; biotin, 0.2 mg.
Table 2. Effects of experimental diets on the growth performance in largemouth bass.
Table 2. Effects of experimental diets on the growth performance in largemouth bass.
Final BW (g/Fish)Weight Gain Rate (WGR, %)Specific Growth Rate (SGR, %/d)Feed Conversion Rate (FCR, %)Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER)Protein Retention Efficiency (PRE, %)
M12234.773 ± 4.664 a181.7 ± 5.5 a0.930 ± 0.020 a0.837 ± 0.0501.670 ± 0.0951.820 ± 0.060 a
M9261.990 ± 7.029 b214.7 ± 8.5 b1.030 ± 0.020 b0.893 ± 0.0211.770 ± 0.0402.200 ± 0.085 b
M6256.243 ± 3.925 b207.7 ± 5.0 b1.013 ± 0.015 b0.857 ± 0.0571.677 ± 0.1101.933 ± 0.045 a
M3251.163 ± 5.329 ab204.7 ± 11.6 b0.993 ± 0.021 b0.870 ± 0.0561.687 ± 0.1061.920 ± 0.062 a
M0251.733 ± 18.367 ab202.0 ± 21.9 ab0.993 ± 0.064 b0.933 ± 0.0741.783 ± 0.1441.980 ± 0.219 a
Note: Data in the same column sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Values are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3).
Table 3. Effects of dietary starch on somatic indices of largemouth bass.
Table 3. Effects of dietary starch on somatic indices of largemouth bass.
Condition Factor (CF, g/cm3)Viscerosomatic Index (VSI, %)Hepatosomatic Index (HSI, %)Enterosomatic Index (ESI, %)Gonadosomatic Index (GSI, %)
MaleM122.290 ± 0.1597.213 ± 0.214 ab2.437 ± 0.175 a0.580 ± 0.0170.647 ± 0.058
M92.367 ± 0.0756.713 ± 0.120 b1.970 ± 0.036 b0.550 ± 0.0100.737 ± 0.021
M62.337 ± 0.0297.290 ± 0.598 a2.407 ± 0.212 a0.550 ± 0.0400.727 ± 0.137
M32.260 ± 0.1086.657 ± 0.042 b2.187 ± 0.057 ab0.577 ± 0.0380.690 ± 0.075
M02.317 ± 0.0836.663 ± 0.264 b2.123 ± 0.172 b0.533 ± 0.0150.697 ± 0.049
FemaleM122.380 ± 0.108 a7.140 ± 0.220 a2.520 ± 0.203 a0.517 ± 0.0061.607 ± 0.148
M92.433 ± 0.101 a6.803 ± 0.211 ab2.283 ± 0.215 ab0.567 ± 0.0471.947 ± 0.516
M62.290 ± 0.053 b7.140 ± 0.195 a2.423 ± 0.195 a0.573 ± 0.0381.757 ± 0.234
M32.163 ± 0.021 b6.680 ± 0.378 bc2.350 ± 0.344 ab0.560 ± 0.0361.857 ± 0.172
M02.323 ± 0.04 a6.353 ± 0.040 c1.980 ± 0.171 b0.543 ± 0.0311.810 ± 0.377
Note: Data in the same column sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Values are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3).
Table 4. Effects of dietary starch on composition of whole body, muscle, and liver of largemouth bass.
Table 4. Effects of dietary starch on composition of whole body, muscle, and liver of largemouth bass.
MoistureCrude ProteinCrude LipidCrude Ash
Whole fishMaleM1268.740 ± 1.49817.740 ± 0.7508.743 ± 0.486 ab4.317 ± 0.188 a
M967.117 ± 1.80517.917 ± 0.6779.390 ± 0.631 a3.780 ± 0.035 b
M667.500 ± 0.63717.173 ± 1.2108.873 ± 0.605 ab3.840 ± 0.156 b
M366.987 ± 0.98217.073 ± 1.1599.390 ± 0.498 a4.000 ± 0.241 ab
M067.783 ± 1.13417.387 ± 0.1108.223 ± 0.649 b4.183 ± 0.228 a
FemaleM1268.627 ± 0.442 a17.067 ± 0.5118.997 ± 0.0554.033 ± 0.298 ab
M967.980 ± 0.592 a17.480 ± 0.3399.217 ± 0.5323.837 ± 0.158 ab
M666.443 ± 0.798 b17.343 ± 0.9108.513 ± 1.0284.047 ± 0.193 ab
M367.433 ± 0.307 ab16.627 ± 0.1008.723 ± 0.8794.227 ± 0.163 a
M068.767 ± 1.474 a16.913 ± 0.3958.737 ± 0.7563.710 ± 0.329 b
MuscleMaleM1277.830 ± 0.469 a19.180 ± 0.301 b1.327 ± 0.135 a1.163 ± 0.040
M977.390 ± 0.442 ab19.177 ± 0.095 b1.603 ± 0.083 ab1.187 ± 0.035
M677.020 ± 0.337 ab19.360 ± 0.340 ab1.660 ± 0.400 ab1.207 ± 0.031
M376.880 ± 0.347 a19.497 ± 0.352 ab1.913 ± 0.225 b1.170 ± 0.061
M077.023 ± 0.737 ab19.763 ± 0.413 a1.657 ± 0.217 ab1.173 ± 0.049
FemaleM1276.817 ± 1.45319.903 ± 1.2091.590 ± 0.2351.28 ± 0.026 a
M977.617 ± 0.62919.317 ± 0.5201.350 ± 0.2631.200 ± 0.036 b
M676.427 ± 0.34419.730 ± 0.4141.803 ± 0.4971.170 ± 0.010 b
M376.733 ± 0.67420.020 ± 0.2911.677 ± 0.6131.200 ± 0.046 b
M077.133 ± 0.73319.783 ± 0.2571.467 ± 0.1561.193 ± 0.029 b
LiverMaleM1271.007 ± 1.4029.090 ± 0.423 b1.043 ± 0.294 b0.897 ± 0.057 b
M972.150 ± 1.45910.227 ± 0.388 a1.207 ± 0.468 a0.973 ± 0.081 bc
M670.903 ± 0.9769.753 ± 0.559 ab1.833 ± 0.195 ab1.093 ± 0.012 a
M370.913 ± 1.8779.750 ± 0.509 ab1.637 ± 0.205 ab1.120 ± 0.046 a
M072.027 ± 1.8689.800 ± 0.770 ab1.273 ± 0.482 ab1.080 ± 0.095 ac
FemaleM1271.290 ± 1.3659.417 ± 0.545 b1.387 ± 0.3690.993 ± 0.110
M971.820 ± 2.03610.417 ± 0.829 ab1.603 ± 0.3661.080 ± 0.113
M670.353 ± 0.9469.473 ± 0.386 ab1.817 ± 0.0421.163 ± 0.104
M370.267 ± 0.32510.160 ± 0.618 ab1.817 ± 0.3201.220 ± 0.227
M071.463 ± 1.62910.577 ± 0.300 a1.520 ± 0.1951.227 ± 0.032
Note: Data in the same column sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Values are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3).
Table 5. Comparison of intestine biochemical parameters of largemouth bass.
Table 5. Comparison of intestine biochemical parameters of largemouth bass.
Trypsin (U/mgprot)Lipase (U/gprot)Amylase (U/mgprot)
M1268.523 ± 4.41287.950 ± 6.6420.300 ± 0.060 a
M962.203 ± 6.48780.803 ± 3.4130.240 ± 0.050 ab
M662.223 ± 2.48078.920 ± 17.4030.203 ± 0.015 b
M369.497 ± 7.19199.270 ± 29.9410.183 ± 0.067 b
M070.010 ± 6.90091.013 ± 18.1320.223 ± 0.042 ab
Note: Data in the same column sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Values are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, L.; Guo, J.; Li, Q.; Jiang, J.; Chen, J.; Gao, L.; Yang, B.; Peng, J. Effects of High Dietary Starch Levels on the Growth Performance, Liver Function, and Metabolome of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Fishes 2024, 9, 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9070256

AMA Style

Sun L, Guo J, Li Q, Jiang J, Chen J, Gao L, Yang B, Peng J. Effects of High Dietary Starch Levels on the Growth Performance, Liver Function, and Metabolome of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Fishes. 2024; 9(7):256. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9070256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Lihui, Jianlin Guo, Qian Li, Jianhu Jiang, Jianming Chen, Lingmei Gao, Bicheng Yang, and Jun Peng. 2024. "Effects of High Dietary Starch Levels on the Growth Performance, Liver Function, and Metabolome of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)" Fishes 9, no. 7: 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9070256

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop