Boldness in Zebrafish Larvae—Development and Differences between a Domesticated Lab Strain and Offspring of Wild-Caught Fish

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled " Boldness in zebrafish larvae – development and differences between a domesticated lab strain and offspring of wild-caught fish" The study presents some interesting behavioural comparison between a common lab zebrafish strain and offspring of wild caught fish, and provide further support for the involvement of the dopaminergic system.

I find that this paper provides relevant information for the Fishes readership, and recommend that the article be approved for publication with minor corrections.

Below are my general comments and comments by section:

General comments

·       There are some minor, but important, corrections to the grammar that should be done prior to publication. These include mixing of single/plural references throughout the manuscript. Some examples:

o   Line 15- ‘environmental factors and previous experience are (not is) also known…’

o   Line 31- ‘Zebrafish (Danio rerio) are (not is) one of the most…’. Other references to zebrafish should be in plural.

o   Line 94- ‘neuromodulator that appears (not appear) to play….’

·       There is missing text in the abstract between lines 25 and 26

Methods

·       Figure 1 describes x3 repetition of experiments. This should also be described in the metho text

·       Line 155- title for section 2.3. should be ‘Daniovision and Ethovision’

·       Lines 178-179- ‘…mini prep kit…. was used (add) together with…’

·       Line 181- replace ‘analysed’ with ‘measured using’

·       Lines 204, 209- there are incorrectly placed full stop marks (also in other parts of the manuscript)

·       Line 206- ‘analysis where (not were) the two…’

Results

·       Tables are indicated in the text as (Tab). It is common to indicate tables as (Table). The word Tab can be confusing. Please correct throughout the manuscript

·       Table 2 legend- please name the ‘four variables’ in the legend

·       Tacle 2- the section presenting angular velocity looks like a separate table

·       Figure 3- there is no indication of parts A, B, C in the figure (only in the legend and results text).

·       Figure 3 legend- lacks information on statistical analysis and significance

Discussion

·       Lines 295-298- the sentence is unclear and should be re-written

·       Line 315- ‘…also compared to (add) the spiegeldanio…’

·       Lines 342-344- do not seem relevant here

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive response and comments which have improved our manuscript. 

We have made changes in the text according to the comments. In table 2 variable names have been added to the legend. In table 2 we have re-formated the section presenting angular velocity. In Fig 3 we have added A, B and C to the graphs. In the legend we refer to Table 2 where statistics are presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is good paper, well-written. The topis is really interesting taking into account a number of labs in the world working with zebrafish. Neverthelss, i am disspointed that Authors did not analyze TL line for comparison, it makes more sense for scientific community. Comparing ABs with wil-caught only do not have really translational value in my opinion. Consider it for future experiments.

From methodological point of view, experiments are well-designed. It seems one line is missing in abstract.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive response. We fully agree that it would have been interesting to include several lab strain. It would definitely be interesting to include larvae of other strains in future studies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx