Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
The work presented by McKay et al. details the development of a new wireless network-enabled automated feeder system with which diet amount and schedule can be controlled across individually housed killifish. The manuscript describes the characterization of the system and demonstrates the robustness, precision, and high fidelity in feeding control achieved due to modular design.
The technique in principle can be applied to hundreds of tanks and to other species that are reared in similar tank system racks.
Strengths:
- The authors provide a convincing account of the use of automated feeder systems for implementing experiments where diet is controlled precisely. The experimental design allows the authors to clearly demonstrate feeding schedules optimal for killifish growth, reproduction, and longevity. Their characterization and results will be highly valuable for a growing community of researchers who are beginning to use killifish in laboratory settings and can choose the regimen most suited to their research goals. The system presented in this study may also allow for better husbandry practices with the potential to mimic the ephemeral natural habitats of this species more closely in the laboratory.<br /> - The authors also conducted additional experiments comparing restricted food delivery schedules. The conclusion they reach that a time and quantity restricted feeding regimen increases the lifespan of males based on this experiment is well justified from the data presented. The differences between the sexes are interesting to note as the authors observed similar results with two different cohorts, though cohorts can differ in the median and maximum lifespan.
Weaknesses:
- The authors imply the value of automated feeders is in scaling to hundreds of individual animals/tanks. I agree with the author's assessment of this need in research labs, however, it is not easy to infer exactly how many automated feeders were operating simultaneously in this study. Estimates of the costs of building, and operating (maintenance, server use, and cloud computing costs) for conducting 1 experiment (2 conditions, 24 animals per condition) running over 100 days will be valuable for other researchers interested in adapting this resource. A clearer supplementary video 1 that demonstrates the entire feeder properly, in the home tank will also be valuable for the researchers interested in adapting the system.<br /> - The proof of concept experiment showing associative learning is extremely interesting but is quite difficult to assess, based on the detail provided in the results and the method. The rationale behind key considerations for behavioral measures, whether based on previous studies or, due to technical constraints are difficult to judge. This needs a better description. In particular, results mention a "pipeline", but this is obscure, in the methods section. Clearer definitions would also be needed to evaluate if an objective scoring system for was used in measures such as the"startle" response. In principle, as all trajectories are recorded, it should be possible to describe a range of acceleration/velocity changes that quantify most parameters such as startle, unless it was manually scored. As this will be a first, clarity on how "early" and "late" sessions were categorized; exact experimental design on the number of trails that made up a session; whether all animals went through same number of trials in Figure 5, etc. will improve the description and future adaptations of the experimental design.<br /> - One more cautionary note is in the interpretation that young individuals had significantly higher learning index scores than old individuals, as the size of the effects can't be estimated from the type of data provided and the analysis used. Given the fairly small sample size for animals used in learning index calculations (< 15), and as the authors demonstrate in diet restriction experiments there can be cohort-dependent differences as well, I would caution against such an interpretation. The p values reported in Suppl. Figure 4E especially brings home the need to move away from dichotomous thinking of yes/no based on a threshold, without taking into account effect sizes. Please refer to this recent post in eNeuro on the inherent issues with such interpretations, and methods to overcome them (https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0091-21.2021). The deficiency in "old" may not be as large, and it would be important to interpret this appropriately. Other normalization issues, rather than learning could account for small differences between the young and the old. For instance, a small latency in the average velocity and/or other locomotion kinematics differences between fish categorized as old vs. young could result in the criterion of "3 seconds before the food drops" to meet the "threshold of learning" being unmet. The data available in the paper at present can't be used to evaluate such a point.

Screen capture from the movie