Back to all available

From blue to pink: Resazurin as a high-throughput proxy for metabolic rate in oysters

aquaculture-fisheries-and-fish-science
marine-biology

Abstract

Metabolic rate assays are essential for assessing organismal stress and resilience, yet their use in aquaculture remains limited. We evaluate a whole-organism, resazurin-based metabolic assay for oysters (Crassostrea gigas and C. virginica) across multiple experimental contexts. Resazurin fluorescence was strongly correlated with oxygen consumption, validating its use as a metabolic proxy. Thermal performance assays revealed expected temperature-dependent metabolic patterns, including clear optima and tipping points where stimulation shifted to metabolic depression. Acute thermal stress experiments showed that individuals exhibiting greater metabolic depression were more likely to survive, indicating metabolism as a predictor of mortality. We also detected genetic variation in metabolic responses, with significant family-level differences. Finally, metabolic rates of 50 selectively bred C. virginica families were significantly correlated with predicted performance. Together, these results establish resazurin as a reliable, scalable assay for whole-organism metabolism, offering a practical tool to support stock selection, hatchery management, and climate-resilient aquaculture.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].