A comparative study of the metabolic response in rainbow trout and Nile tilapia to changes in dietary macronutrient composition

43Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Metabolic mechanisms underlying the divergent response of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) to changes in dietary macronutrient composition were assessed. Fish were fed one of four isoenergetic diets having a digestible protein-to-digestible energy (DP:DE) ratio above or below the optimal DP:DE ratio for both species. At each DP:DE ratio, fat was substituted by an isoenergetic amount of digestible starch as the non-protein energy source (NPE). Dietary DP:DE ratio did not affect growth and only slightly lowered protein gains in tilapia. In rainbow trout fed diets with low DP:DE ratios, particularly with starch as the major NPE source, growth and protein utilisation were highly reduced, underlining the importance of NPE source in this species. We also observed species-specific responses of enzymes involved in amino acid catabolism, lipogenesis and gluconeogenesis to dietary factors. Amino acid transdeamination enzyme activities were reduced by a low dietary DP:DE ratio in both species and in tilapia also by the substitution of fat by starch as the NPE source. Such decreased amino acid catabolism at high starch intakes, however, did not lead to improved protein retention. Our data further suggest that a combination of increased lipogenic and decreased gluconeogenic enzyme activities accounts for the better use of carbohydrates and to the improved glycaemia control in tilapia compared with rainbow tront fed starch-enriched diets with low DP:DE ratio. Copyright © The Authors 2012.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Figueiredo-Silva, A. C., Saravanan, S., Schrama, J. W., Panserat, S., Kaushik, S., & Geurden, I. (2013). A comparative study of the metabolic response in rainbow trout and Nile tilapia to changes in dietary macronutrient composition. British Journal of Nutrition, 109(5), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711451200205X

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free