text:
Battle of Bouvines

The Battle of Bouvines was fought on 27 July 1214 near the town of Bouvines in the County of Flanders. It was the concluding battle of the Anglo-French War of 1213–1214. Although estimates on the number of troops vary considerably among modern historians, at Bouvines, a French army commanded by King Philip Augustus routed a larger allied army led by Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV in one of the rare pitched battles of the High Middle Ages and one of the most decisive medieval engagements.

In early 1214, a coalition was assembled against King Philip Augustus of France, consisting of Otto IV, King John of England, Count Ferrand of Flanders, Count Renaud of Boulogne, Duke Henry I of Brabant, Count William I of Holland, Duke Theobald I of Lorraine, and Duke Henry III of Limburg. Its objective was to reverse the conquests made by Philip earlier in his reign.

After initial manoeuvring in late July, battle was offered near Bouvines on 27 July. The long allied column deployed slowly into battle order, leaving the allies at a disadvantage. The superior discipline and training of the French knights allowed them to carry out a series of devastating charges, shattering the Flemish knights on the allied left wing. In the centre, the allied knights and infantry under Otto enjoyed initial success, scattering the French urban infantry and nearly killing Philip. A counterattack by French knights smashed the isolated Allied infantry and Otto's entire centre division fell back. Otto fled the battle and his knightly followers were defeated by the French knights, who went on to capture the Imperial eagle standard. With the allied centre and left wing routed, only the soldiers of the right wing under Renaud of Boulogne and William de Longespee held on. They were killed, captured or driven from the field. A pursuit was not conducted as it was nearly dark.

The crushing French victory dashed English and Flemish hopes of regaining their lost territories. Having lost all credibility as emperor following the battle, Otto IV was deposed by Pope Innocent III, leading to Frederick II's accession to the Imperial throne. King John was compelled to hand over Anjou, the ancient patrimony of the Angevin kings of England, to Philip in a peace settlement. This confirmed the collapse of the Angevin Empire. The disaster at Bouvines forever altered the political situation in England, as John was so weakened that his discontented barons forced him to agree to Magna Carta in 1215. Counts Ferrand, Renaud and Longespee were captured and imprisoned. The balance of power shifted, with the popes of the 13th century increasingly seeking the support of a powerful France. Philip had achieved remarkable success in the expansion of his realm and by the end of his reign, in 1223, had not only laid the foundations for the era of Capetian pre-eminence in Europe which followed and marked much of the Late Middle Ages, but also those of the absolutism that came to define the Ancien Régime.

Prelude
In 1214, Ferdinand, Infante of Portugal and Count of Flanders, desired the return of the cities of Aire-sur-la-Lys and Saint-Omer, which he had recently lost to Philip II, King of France, in the Treaty of Pont-à-Vendin. He thus broke allegiance with Philip and assembled a broad coalition including Emperor Otto IV, King John of England, Duke Henry I of Brabant, Count William I of Holland, Duke Theobald I of Lorraine, and Duke Henry III of Limburg.

The campaign was planned by John, who was the fulcrum of the alliance; his plan was to draw the French away from Paris southward towards his forces and keep them occupied, while the main army, under Emperor Otto IV, marched on Paris from the north. John's plan was followed initially, but the Allies in the north moved slowly. John, after two encounters with the French, retreated to Aquitaine on 3 July.

On 23 July, having summoned his vassals, Philip had an army consisting of 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers. The Emperor finally succeeded in concentrating his forces at Valenciennes, although this did not include John, and in the interval Philip had counter-marched northward and regrouped. Philip now took the offensive himself, and after manoeuvring to obtain good ground for his cavalry he offered battle on 27 July, on the plain east of Bouvines and the river Marque.

Otto was surprised by the speed of his enemy and was thought to have been caught unprepared by Philip, who probably deliberately lured Otto into his trap. Otto decided to launch an attack on what was then the French rearguard.

The Allied army drew up facing south-west towards Bouvines, the heavy cavalry on the wings, the infantry in one great mass in the centre, supported by a cavalry corps under Otto himself. The French army formed up opposite in a similar formation, cavalry on the wings, infantry, including the town militias, in the centre. Philip, with the cavalry reserve and the royal standard, the Oriflamme, positioned himself to the rear of the men on foot. It is said by William the Breton, chaplain to Philip at the battle, that the soldiers stood in line in a space of 40,000 steps (15 ha), which leaves very little clearance and predisposes to hand-to-hand fighting. William the Breton also says in his chronicle that "the two lines of combatants were separated by a small space".

French
The French army contained 1,200–1,360 knights (of whom 765 were from the royal demesne) and 300 mounted sergeants. Philip had launched an appeal to the municipalities in northern France, in order to obtain their support. 16 of the 39 municipalities of the royal demesne answered the call to arms. They provided 3,160 infantry, broken down as: Amiens 250, Arras 1000, Beauvais 500, Compiegne 200, Corbie 200, Bruyeres 120, Cerny and Crepy-en-Laonnais 80, Crandelain 40, Hesdin 80, Montreuil-sur-Mer 150, Noyon 150, Roye 100, Soissons 160, and Vailly 50. The balance of the infantry, possibly another 2,000 men, were composed of mercenaries. The other communes of the royal demesne were supposed to provide a further 1,980 infantry, but it is doubtful that they did. In total, the royal army totalled approximately 6,000–7,000 men. The royal standard bearer of the Fleur-de-lis was Galore of Montigny.

The royal army was divided into three parts, or "battles":
 * The right wing, composed of the knights of Champagne and Burgundy, was commanded by Eudes, Duke of Burgundy, and his lieutenants: Gaucher of Châtillon, Count of Saint-Pol, Count Guillaume I de Sancerre, Count de Beaumont, Mathieu of Montmorency and Adam II Viscount of Melun. In the front of the right wing were men-at-arms and militia from Burgundy, Champagne, and Picardy led by 150 mounted sergeants from Soissons.
 * The central battle was led by Philip Augustus and his chief knights – Guillaume des Barres, Bartholomé de Roye, Girard Scophe, Guillaume de Garland, Enguerrand of Coucy and Gautier of Nemours. In front of the king and his 175 knights were 2,150 infantry from the towns of the Île de France and Normandy.
 * The left wing was led by Robert of Dreux, supported by Count William of Ponthieu. The main body of the left wing consisted of Bretons and militia from Dreux, Perche, Ponthieu, and Vimeux.
 * The bridge of Bouvines, the only means of retreat across the marshes, was guarded by 150 sergeants-at-arms, who also formed the French reserve.

Allied
Otto's army contained some 1,300–1,500 knights: 600–650 Flemish, 425–500 Hainaulter and 275–350 from elsewhere. He also fielded approximately 7,500 infantry, to give a total force of just under 9,000 men. The imperial army was also formed up in three battles:
 * The left flank, under the command of Ferrand of Flanders with his Flemish knights – directed by Arnaud of Oudenaarde. The infantry were from Flanders and Hainaut.
 * The centre was under the command of Otto and of Theobald, Duke of Lorraine, Henry, Duke of Brabant, and Philip Courtenay, Marquis of Namur. It included many Saxons and infantry from Brabant and Germany. In the front of the battle stood German pike phalanxes. Saxon infantry formed the second line. Otto stood between these with 50 German knights.
 * The right flank, under the command of Renaud de Dammartin, included Brabant infantry and English knights, the latter under the command of the Earl of Salisbury, William Longespée.
 * On the extreme right, English archers supported the flank of both the Brabant infantry and the nobles of the two Lorraines (i.e. of the Duchy of Lorraine and the County of Bar).

Allied left
The battle opened with an attack by 150 light cavalrymen from the Abbey of Saint-Médard de Soissons against the Flemish knights on the allied left, aiming to throw it into confusion. The Flemish knights easily drove off the unarmoured horsemen. Some Flemish knights left their formations and chased the retreating light cavalry. 180 French knights from Champagne in turn attacked and killed or captured the over-aggressive Flemish knights. The Count of Flanders counter-attacked with his entire force of 600 knights and threw the French back.

Gaucher de Châtillon launched his 30 knights at the Flemish force, followed by a further 250 knights. They carried out a continuous series of charges, and halted the allied advance. Many knights on both sides fell from their horses in the first clash. The French were better ordered than the more loosely formed Flemish knights, and the Allied ranks grew thinner as they were assaulted by the compact French masses. Châtillon and Melun with their knights broke through the ranks of their Flemish counterparts, then wheeled and struck them from the rear, constantly switching targets. St. Pol's knights and the Burgundians engaged in an exhausting struggle against the Flemings, taking no prisoners. The Duke of Burgundy's horse was killed and the Duke thrown to the ground, but he was saved by his knights, who beat off the Flemish and found him a fresh horse.

The Flemings fought on for three hours despite their increasingly desperate situation, driven by knightly honour. Finally, the wounded and unhorsed Count of Flanders was captured by two French knights, triggering the collapse of his knights' morale.

Centre
The French urban militia infantry, 2,150 strong, were gathered under the Oriflamme in the centre, in front of Philip's knights and the fleur-de-lis standard. Soon after deploying, they were attacked by Allied knights and infantry under Otto and thrown back. Otto and his knights had nearly reached the French king when they were halted by French knights. The allied infantrymen broke through to Philip and his handful of knightly companions, unhorsing him with their hooked pikes. The French king's armour deflected an enemy lance and saved his life. Gales de Montigny used the royal standard to signal for help and another knight gave Philip a fresh horse.

The allied infantry used daggers to stab unhorsed French knights through the openings in their helmets and other weak spots in their armour. The Norman knight Etienne de Longchamp was killed in this way and the French suffered heavy losses. After repeated French counterattacks and a prolonged fight the Allies were thrown back.

The battle in the centre was now a mêlée between the two mounted reserves led by the King and the Emperor in person. The French knight Pierre Mauvoisin nearly captured Otto and his horse and Gérard la Truie stabbed the Emperor with a dagger, which bounced off his coat of mail and struck Otto's horse in the eye, killing it. Otto was saved by four German lords and their followers. As the French sent more knights to attack him personally he fled the field. The German knights fought to the bitter end to save their emperor, all being killed or captured. The Imperial Standard with the eagle and dragon was captured by the French knights, who brought it to their king. By this time, Allied resistance in the centre had ceased.

Allied right
Meanwhile, on the French left Robert de Dreux's troops were at first pressed by men led by William Longespée. William Longespée was unhorsed and taken prisoner by Philip of Dreux, the Bishop of Beauvais, and the English soldiers fled. Mathieu de Montmorency captured twelve enemy Imperial banners. (In memory of this feat, the shield of Montmorency includes an additional twelve eagles or sixteen altogether instead of the previous four.)

Last stand
The day was already decided in favour of the French when their wings began to close inwards to cut off the retreat of the imperial centre. The battle closed with the celebrated stand of Reginald of Boulogne (Renaud de Dammartin), a former vassal of King Philip, who formed a ring of 400–700 Brabançon pikemen. They defied every attack by the French cavalry, while Reginald made repeated sorties with his small force of knights. Eventually, long after the Imperial army had retreated, the Brabant schiltrom was overrun by a charge of 50 knights and 1,000–2,000 infantry under Thomas de St. Valery. Reginald was taken prisoner in the melee. A pursuit was not conducted owing to the approaching nightfall and a fear that the prisoners might escape. The French formations were recalled using trumpets.

Aftermath
The French cavalry had 2 knights killed; the French infantry casualties are not recorded. The Allies had 169 knights killed and "heavy" but unquantified losses among the infantry; including between 400 and 700 Brabant infantry killed. As well as Reginald of Boulogne two other counts were captured by the French, Hainaut Ferrand and William Longespée, as well as twenty-five barons and over a hundred knights.

The battle ended the threat from both Otto and John. According to Jean Favier, Bouvines is "one of the most decisive and symbolic battles in the history of France". For Philippe Contamine "the Battle of Bouvines had both important consequences and a great impact". Ferdinand Lot called it a "medieval Austerlitz".

Philip returned to Paris triumphant, marching his captive prisoners behind him in a long procession, as his subjects lined the streets to greet the victorious king. In the aftermath of the battle, Otto retreated to his castle of Harzburg and was soon overthrown as Holy Roman Emperor by Frederick II, who had already been recognised as emperor in the south a year and a half earlier. Count Ferdinand remained imprisoned following his defeat, while King John obtained a five-year truce, on very lenient terms given the circumstances.

Philip's decisive victory was crucial to the political situation in England. The battle ended all hope of a restoration of the Angevin Empire. So weakened was the defeated King John that he soon needed to submit to his barons' demands and agree to Magna Carta in 1215, limiting the power of the crown and establishing the basis for common law.

Commemoration
In thanksgiving for the victory, Philip Augustus founded the Abbey of Notre Dame de la Victoire, between Senlis and Mont l'Evêque. In 1914, to mark the seventh centenary, Félix Dehau had the parish church of Bouvines rebuilt with a number of stained-glass windows representing the history of the battle. In 2014, the eighth centenary was commemorated in Bouvines by an association called Bouvines 2014. A series of events, including an official ceremony and a show called "Bouvines la Bataille", attracted more than 6,000 viewers in Bouvines.

title: Battle of Bouvines


text:
Talk:Benito Mussolini

Infobox
Shouldn't the image in this article's infobox be dated, as is the case with almost every other biography on Wikipedia? 147.147.205.222 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * The date is not known. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023
Please decapitalize "Prime Minister" for not following MOS:JOBTITLE. 112.204.199.9 (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is used correctly, e.g., Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead image again
There's been some back and forth over the lead image again, so I figured it couldn't hurt to open up a new discussion thread. This was last discussed a couple years ago (here) but no clear consensus was achieved.

For reference, here are the two images that have recently been used:

I'm not crazy about either of them, frankly, and have no strong opinion as to which is better. But I see that others do have opinions on the matter, so it would be good to try to establish a consensus if possible. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, 1 looks more neutral, 2 looks like a piece of propaganda. ალექსანდროს (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Image 1 has an annoying background, which ruins the image; that’s the simple reason I reverted it. Articles on high-profile individuals are never allowed to have images with bad backgrounds. Trakking (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing propagandistic about the second image, which looks like any old black-and-white photo. It would have been ”propaganda” if he was wearing a crown, standing under a banner reading «our noble Caesar». If anything, the first image is more propagandistic since it portrays him as some kind of high-ranking military commander. In reality, both Mussolini and Hitler were only corporals—one of the lowest military ranks. Their primary talent was oratorical demagoguery. Trakking (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Propaganda can be subtle, and Image 2 is clearly less neutral than Image 1. Jtbwikiman (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I vote for Image 1. The second image has his profile partly shrouded by shadow.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * voting for image 2 as it looks better as portrait. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this issue?Emiya1980 (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The second is a classic photo of Mussolini as he wanted to be seen (grim look, jaw out: this pose has been the subject of countless satirical drawings abroad), while the first shows him as he actually was. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, I say number one (although there are better photos around). Alex2006 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Picture
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini? Emiya1980 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Since, my original vote "F" was removed, I suppose I would just say to stick with the current pic, any picture would honestly due. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

See above.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Please stop pinging me. There's sufficient support for the status quo to close this RFC and save everyone the time. Nemov (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on both counts. As I stated above, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter, but A is fine. It looks like all the available images are less than ideal in one way or another, and we're not approaching an alternative consensus here. I say close as "no consensus" and keep the status quo for the time being. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Generalrelative You have the right to vote for the status quo. However, in light of the number of editors who have voice opinions in opposition to it, closing the Rfc would be premature. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nemov Your opinion has already been noted. Now do me a favor and shut up. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My last two comments were after you pinged me. It would be wise of you to strike this comment. Nemov (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You first, Nemov.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you were irrationally and grossly uncivil to Nemov, for no reason. Nemov has nothing to strike or apologize for, having simply asked you to stop pinging, which is a reasonable request.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had wanted to avoid discussing this issue any further on this page. However, seeing as how yet another editor has seen fit to pile on, I see I have little choice but to address the issue directly. The comment I made to which you are referring (while admittedly rude) did not arise in a vacuum. On at least two prior instances, Nemov has openly accused me in the middle of an Rfc thread of wasting other editors’ time while trying to solicit opinions toward a consensus (see the ongoing Rfc on Frederick the Great’s talk page for more evidence). Based on my reading of the essay on civility, such comments are not in accord with its guidelines on politeness and courtesy either. While I admit to the uncivil nature of my prior comment on this page, Nemov (and any other editor taking his side for that matter) should take his comments into consideration before leaping to judgment against me as the only one deserving of correction. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To all other viewers of the thread, I apologize for the argument between myself and Nemov above. Since it only serves to disrupt the Rfc, I have already attempted to strike it but have been prohibited from doing so. Feel free to post your opinions and any objections you may have to the Rfc on this thread. However, please avoid personal attacks or other examples of incivility. For purposes of this Rfc, I think it would be constructive for everyone  to take this into account. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are free to strike your own comments, Emiya1980. Generalrelative (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nothing more to say regarding this matter, Generalrelative. Please confine all future comments on this thread to those relevant to the Rfc. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not opposed to the status quo picture, it being among one of my acceptable versions, even if I somewhat prefer another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish So you prefer A over the other options presented?Emiya1980 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Try actually reading what I wrote, maybe? How was I somewhat prefer another unclear? Repeat: Prefer D since it's in color, is sensibly illustrative, and not contrived or weird like E. After that, probably A, C, B, E in decreasing order. It's not necessary for you in particular to understand personally which version someone else prefers and to keep trying to enumerate them. That kind of activity at an RfC is not helpful or constructive. It is the role of the closer to assess the consensus level of the available options (though it's rather obvious this will be "no consensus" at this point and thus default to the status quo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did read what you wrote. Your post was ambiguous. It sounded like you were voting for the status quo notwithstanding your prior preferences to the contrary. Any objective editor looking to close would find such clarification helpful in that regard. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 * A or C, but I see no strong rationale for changing the status quo. I specifically reject B and B2 as inferior in quality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please indicate which of the images listed above you would prefer as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini. Your contribution towards any of the aforementioned choices would be appreciated. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See above.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)M
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whichever you dislike; this mass pinging is distasteful. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not know why I have been pinged. But the best image, imo, is the current image A. It's a close-up, and not wearing a hat. You see his whole face. Mussolini looks intimidating. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, and A will do fine.Kelisi (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a serious reason to change the status quo image, which is that it contravenes the policy on the neutral point of view - or are images exempt from it? As explained above with reference to a reliable source, options A and D speak the visual language of the Mussolini regime. Each of them asserts - either explicitly (original caption for D) or implicitly (scholarly interpretation of A) - that Mussolini was a visionary statesman. Such a notion obviously does not prevail in current scholarship. The status quo image, if it is to have a place in the article, needs a caption informing of its propaganda message. VampaVampa (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * VampaVampa makes a good point. There has already been a good deal of discussion among editors about avoiding the use of propagandistic or otherwise flattering portraits as lede images for Nazis. If we're going to apply such a standard to leaders of the Third Reich, it makes little sense to use a flattering portrait in the lede for the likes of Mussolini, a mass-murdering dictator and a Nazi collaborator. In my opinion, A and both versions of B are the worst offenders in this regard. Both (to varying degrees) depict Mussolini as he wanted to be seen: an overlord and messiah worthy of fear and/or adoration by the masses. Conversely, while there was undoubtedly a propagandistic purpose behind its creation, D's nature as a tool designed to glorify its subject matter is significantly less pronounced thereby making the image more open to interpretation by an objective viewer. While one could argue it depicts Mussolini as a mighty general ready to take on the world, one could likewise argue it merely depicts him as a megalomaniacal despot trying to look tough in military garb. With that being said, C is probably the most objective of the portrayals listed above.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * D merely depicts him as a megalomaniacal despot trying to look tough in military garb - I think you hit the nail on its head with regard to D here, and helped me realise the limitation of my argument. In assessing appropriateness one needs to take today's perceptions into account. Photo D, while designed to be a piece of blatant propaganda, has not aged well - to the point of looking cartoonish. That could be a argument in favour of D - it is at once official and unflattering by today's standards. By contrast, A still has a positive appeal to the contemporary viewer and should be opposed all the more. I can't figure out B, but while grim it is likely to exert uncritical fascination. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand your point and agree with it to an extent, but I think you're leaning on it a bit too hard. We should strive to use the best quality image that is most representative of the subject, while also keeping due weight in mind. We do often use images for figures which are rooted in propaganda, like c:File:Che Guevara - Guerrillero Heroico by Alberto Korda.jpg and c:File:Mao Zedong in 1959 (cropped).jpg; in the opposite vein, we avoid c:File:Kim Il Sung Portrait-3.jpg because even though it is a famous image it is wildly inaccurate to how he actually looked. Curbon7 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even applying the standard of "best quality image", the status quo image falls short though. Almost half of Mussolini's head is shrouded in shadow, obscuring his profile. Both C and D are better-quality images.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well yes I was just speaking in general about the neutrality point. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if Che Guevara and Mao Zedong articles use propaganda images, I think that is an argument to change them. I appreciate that you found those examples, I am baffled that Che Guevara would be depicted in the most cliched way possible on Wikipedia - that is not an informative image for an encyclopedia to use, unless the subject is propaganda or perceptions of the subject. There is a much better realistic image of Guevara in another section of that article.
 * In general I think it would be counterproductive for the participants in this RfC to spend time reflecting on the possible options in this discussion only to default to a usage based on popularity. VampaVampa (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to make an argument in favor of changing the lede images for Che Guevara and Mao Zedong on top of Mussolini. While it is true the images used for said articles were originally created for propaganda purposes, they are nonetheless good-quality images and do not significantly alter how the figures appeared in real life for the sake of enhancing their standing. Conversely, the present image of Benito Mussolini fails on both counts. Not only is it an image of inferior quality to the other choices presented, it partly obscures Mussolini's profile for the sake of lending him an otherworldly, messianic mystique. The combination of such factors make this one of the worst possible image choices for the lede.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * D > B2 > B1 > A > C > E > F. The photo should be front-facing, well-exposed and ideally less contrived-feeling where possible (per SMcCandlish). I prefer the uniform to not. This is all ultimately just weighted preferences, because none of them is perfect on all fronts, but the coloured photo achieves best on most factors. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A Still looks best as formal portrait, he does not wear uniform and the picture it not heavy cutted. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A is fine for the same reasons it was introduced years and years ago by us Olds ;). It's the official portrait as Prime Minister (i.e. the highest actual office), it's good quality, the mug is well displayed, etc etc. The current suggestions do not depict more of said mug, but less. I will also add that piling on 16 alternatives alongside the "incumbent" is perhaps a bit WP:GAMEY: should have proposed a change (itc an alternative portrait) and let contributors weight it up against the status quo, but ok.. Director (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Benito Mussolini


text:
Battle of Actium

The Battle of Actium was a naval battle fought between Octavian's maritime fleet, led by Marcus Agrippa, and the combined fleets of both Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII Philopator. The battle took place on 2 September 31 BC in the Ionian Sea, near the former Roman colony of Actium, Greece, and was the climax of over a decade of rivalry between Octavian and Antony.

In early 31 BC, the year of the battle, Antony and Cleopatra were temporarily stationed in Greece. Mark Antony possessed 500 ships and 70,000 infantry, and made his camp at Actium, and Octavian, with 400 ships and 80,000 infantry, arrived from the north and occupied Patrae and Corinth, where he managed to cut Antony's southward communications with Egypt (via the Peloponnese) with help from Marcus Agrippa. Octavian previously gained a preliminary victory in Greece, where his navy successfully ferried troops across the Adriatic Sea under the command of Marcus Agrippa. Octavian landed on mainland Greece, opposite of the island of Corcyra (modern Corfu) and proceeded south, on land.

Trapped on both land and sea, portions of Antony's army deserted and fled to Octavian's side (daily), and Octavian's forces became comfortable enough to make preparations for battle. Antony's fleet sailed through the bay of Actium on the western coast of Greece, in a desperate attempt to break free of the naval blockade. It was there that Antony's fleet faced the much larger fleet of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships under commanders Gaius Sosius and Agrippa. Antony and his remaining forces were spared only due to a last-ditch effort by Cleopatra's fleet that had been waiting nearby. Octavian pursued them and defeated their forces in Alexandria on 1 August 30 BC—after which Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide.

Octavian's victory enabled him to consolidate his power over Rome and its dominions. He adopted the title of Princeps ("first citizen"), and in 27 BC was awarded the title of Augustus ("revered") by the Roman Senate. This became the name by which he was known in later times. As Augustus, he retained the trappings of a restored Republican leader, but historians generally view his consolidation of power and the adoption of these honorifics as the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

Background
The alliance among Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus, commonly known as the Second Triumvirate, was renewed for a five-year term at Tarentum in 37 BC. However, the triumvirate broke down when Octavian saw Caesarion, the professed son of Julius Caesar and Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt, as a major threat to his power. This occurred when Mark Antony, the other most influential member of the triumvirate, abandoned his wife, Octavian's sister Octavia Minor. Afterward he moved to Egypt to start a long-term romance with Cleopatra, becoming Caesarion's de facto stepfather. Octavian and the majority of the Roman Senate saw Antony as leading a separatist movement that threatened to break the Roman Republic's unity.

Octavian's prestige and, more importantly, his legions' loyalty had been boosted by Julius Caesar's legacy of 44 BC, by which he was officially adopted as Caesar's only son and the sole legitimate heir of his enormous wealth. Antony had been the most important and most successful senior officer in Caesar's army (magister equitum) and, thanks to his military record, claimed a substantial share of the political support of Caesar's soldiers and veterans. Both Octavian and Antony had fought against their common enemies in the Liberators' civil war that followed the assassination of Caesar.

After years of loyal cooperation with Octavian, Antony started to act independently, eventually arousing his rival's suspicion that he was vying to become sole master of Rome. When he left Octavia Minor and moved to Alexandria to become Cleopatra's official partner, many Roman politicians suspected that he was trying to become the unchecked ruler of Egypt and other eastern kingdoms while still maintaining his command over the many Roman legions in the East. As a personal challenge to Octavian's prestige, Antony tried to get Caesarion accepted as a true heir of Caesar, even though the legacy did not mention him. Antony and Cleopatra formally elevated Caesarion, then 13, to power in 34 BC, giving him the title "King of the Kings" (Donations of Alexandria). Such an entitlement was seen as a threat to Roman republican traditions. It was widely believed that Antony had once offered Caesarion a diadem. Thereafter, Octavian started a propaganda war, denouncing Antony as an enemy of Rome and asserting that he intended to establish a monarchy over the Roman Empire on Caesarion's behalf, circumventing the Roman Senate. It was also said that Antony intended to move the imperial capital to Alexandria.

As the Second Triumvirate formally expired on the last day of 33 BC, Antony wrote to the Senate that he did not wish to be reappointed. He hoped that it might regard him as its champion against the ambition of Octavian, whom he presumed would not be willing to abandon his position in a similar manner. The causes of mutual dissatisfaction between the two had been accumulating. Antony complained that Octavian had exceeded his powers in deposing Lepidus, in taking over the countries held by Sextus Pompeius and in enlisting soldiers for himself without sending half to him. Octavian complained that Antony had no authority to be in Egypt; that his execution of Sextus Pompeius was illegal; that his treachery to the king of Armenia disgraced the Roman name; that he had not sent half the proceeds of the spoils to Rome according to his agreement; and that his connection with Cleopatra and acknowledgement of Caesarion as a legitimate son of Caesar were a degradation of his office and a menace to himself.

In 32 BC, one-third of the Senate and both consuls, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Gaius Sosius, allied with Antony. The consuls had determined to conceal the extent of Antony's demands. Ahenobarbus seems to have wished to keep quiet, but on 1 January Sosius made an elaborate speech in favor of Antony, and would have proposed the confirmation of his act had it not been vetoed by a tribune. Octavian was not present, but at the next meeting made a reply that provoked both consuls to leave Rome to join Antony; Antony, when he heard of it, after publicly divorcing Octavia, went at once to Ephesus with Cleopatra, where a vast fleet was gathered from all parts of the East, of which Cleopatra furnished a large proportion. After staying with his allies at Samos, Antony moved to Athens. His land forces, which had been in Armenia, came down to the coast of Asia and embarked under Publius Canidius Crassus.

Octavian kept up his strategic preparations. Military operations began in 32 BC, when his general Agrippa captured Methone, a Greek town allied to Antony. But by the publication of Antony's will, which Lucius Munatius Plancus had put into Octavian's hands, and by carefully letting it be known in Rome what preparations were going on at Samos and how Antony was effectively acting as the agent of Cleopatra, Octavian produced such a violent outburst of feeling that he easily obtained Antony's deposition from the consulship of 31 BC, for which Antony had been designated. In addition to the deposition, Octavian procured a proclamation of war against Cleopatra. This was well understood to mean against Antony, though he was not named. In issuing a war declaration, the Senate deprived Antony of any legal authority.

Battle
Antony initially planned to anticipate an attack by descent upon Italy toward the end of 32 BC; he went as far as Corcyra. Finding the sea guarded by a squadron of Octavian's ships, Antony retired to winter at Patrae while his fleet for the most part lay in the Ambracian Gulf, and his land forces encamped near the promontory of Actium, while the opposite side of the narrow strait into the Ambracian Gulf was protected by a tower and troops.

After Octavian's proposals for a conference with Antony were scornfully rejected, both sides prepared for the struggle the next year. The early months passed without any notable events, other than some successful forays by Agrippa along the coasts of Greece, primarily designed to divert Antony's attention. In August, troops landed near Antony's camp on the north side of the strait. Still, Antony could not be tempted out. It took some months for his full strength to arrive from the various places in which his allies or his ships had wintered. During these months Agrippa continued his attacks upon Greek towns along the coast, while Octavian's forces engaged in various successful cavalry skirmishes, so that Antony abandoned the strait's north side between the Ambracian Gulf and the Ionian Sea and confined his soldiers to the southern camp. Cleopatra now advised that garrisons be put into strong towns and that the main fleet return to Alexandria. The large contingent furnished by Egypt gave her advice as much weight as her personal influence over Antony, and it appears that this movement was agreed to.

Octavian learned of this and debated how to prevent it. At first of a mind to let Antony sail and then attack him, he was prevailed upon by Agrippa to give battle. On 1 September he addressed his fleet, preparing them for battle. The next day was wet and the sea was rough. When the trumpet signal for the start rang out, Antony's fleet began issuing from the straits and the ships moved into line and remained quiet. Octavian, after a short hesitation, ordered his vessels to steer to the right and pass the enemy's ships. For fear of being surrounded, Antony was forced to give the word to attack.

Order of battle

The two fleets met outside the Gulf of Actium on the morning of 2 September. Antony's fleet had 250 larger galleys, with towers full of armed men. He led them through the straits towards the open sea. Octavian's fleet had 400 galleys. His fleet was waiting beyond the straits, led by the experienced admiral Agrippa, commanding from the left wing of the fleet, Lucius Arruntius the centre and Marcus Lurius the right. Titus Statilius Taurus commanded Octavian's armies, and observed the battle from shore to the north of the straits. Antony and Lucius Gellius Poplicola commanded the Antonian fleet's right wing, Marcus Octavius and Marcus Insteius commanded the centre, while Gaius Sosius commanded the left wing; Cleopatra's squadron was behind them. Sosius launched the initial attack from the fleet's left wing while Antony's chief lieutenant Publius Canidius Crassus commanded the triumvir's land forces.

Pelling notes that the presence of two former consuls on Antony's side commanding the wings indicates that it was there that the major action was expected to take place. Octavius and Insteius, commanding Antony's centre, were lower-profile figures.

Combat
It is estimated that Antony had around 140 ships, to Octavian's 260. Antony had shown up to Actium with a much larger force of around 500 ships, but could not man all of them. The problem facing Antony was desertion. Plutarch and Dio speak of how desertion and disease plagued Antony's camp. What Antony lacked in quantity was made up for in quality: his ships were mainly the standard Roman warship, quinqueremes with smaller quadriremes, heavier and wider than Octavian's, making them ideal weapon platforms, however, due to their larger size they were less manoeuvrable than Octavian's ships. Antony's personal flagship, like his admirals', was a "ten". An "eight" war galley had around 200 heavy marines, archers and at least six ballista catapults. Larger than Octavian's ships, Antony's war galleys were very difficult to board in close combat and his troops were able to rain missiles onto smaller and lower ships. The harpax, Agrippa's device made for grappling and boarding enemy ships, made this task a bit easier. The galleys' bows were armoured with bronze plates and square-cut timbers, making a successful ramming attack with similar equipment difficult. The only way to disable such a ship was to smash its oars, rendering it immobile and isolated from the rest of its fleet. Antony's ships' main weakness was lack of manoeuvrability; such a ship, once isolated from its fleet, could be swamped with boarding attacks. Also, many of his ships were undermanned with rowing crews; there had been a severe malaria outbreak while they were waiting for Octavian's fleet to arrive.

Octavian's fleet was largely made up of smaller "Liburnian" vessels. His ships, though smaller, were still manageable in the heavy surf and could outmanoeuvre Antony's ships, get in close, attack the above-deck crew with arrows and ballista-launched stones, and retreat. Moreover, his crews were better-trained, professional, well-fed and rested. A medium ballista could penetrate the sides of most warships at close range and had an effective range of around 200 yards. Most ballistas were aimed at the marines on the ships' fighting decks.

Before the battle one of Antony's generals, Quintus Dellius, defected to Octavian, bringing with him Antony's battle plans.

Shortly after midday, Antony was forced to extend his line from the protection of the shore and finally engage the enemy. Seeing this, Octavian's fleet put to sea. Antony had hoped to use his biggest ships to drive back Agrippa's wing on the north end of his line, but Octavian's entire fleet, aware of this strategy, stayed out of range. By about noon the fleets were in formation but Octavian refused to be drawn out, so Antony was forced to attack. The battle raged all afternoon without decisive result.

Cleopatra's fleet, in the rear, retreated to the open sea without engaging. A breeze sprang up in the right direction and the Egyptian ships were soon out of sight. Lange argues that Antony would have had victory within reach were it not for Cleopatra's retreat.

Antony had not observed the signal, and believing that it was mere panic and all was lost, followed the fleeing squadron. The contagion spread fast; everywhere sails unfurled and towers and other heavy fighting gear went by the board. Some fought on, and only long after nightfall, when many a ship was blazing from the firebrands thrown upon them, was the work done. Making the best of the situation, Antony burned the ships he could no longer man while clustering the remainder tightly together. With many oarsmen dead or unfit to serve, the powerful, head-on ramming tactic for which the Octaries had been designed was now impossible. Antony transferred to a smaller vessel with his flag and managed to escape, taking a few ships with him as an escort to help break through Octavian's lines. Those left behind were captured or sunk.

J. M. Carter gives a differing account of the battle. He postulates that Antony knew he was surrounded and had nowhere to run. To turn this to his advantage, he gathered his ships around him in a quasi-horseshoe formation, staying close to the shore for safety. Then, should Octavian's ships approach his, the sea would push them into the shore. Antony foresaw that he would not be able to defeat Octavian's forces, so he and Cleopatra stayed in the rear of the formation. Eventually Antony sent the ships on the northern part of the formation to attack. He had them move out to the north, spreading out Octavian's ships, which until this point were tightly arranged. He sent Sosius to spread the remaining ships to the south. This left a hole in the middle of Octavian's formation. Antony seized the opportunity and, with Cleopatra on her ship and him on a different ship, sped through the gap and escaped, abandoning his entire force.

With the end of the battle, Octavian exerted himself to save the crews of the burning vessels and spent the whole night on board. The next day, as much of the land army had not escaped to their own lands, submitted, or were followed in their retreat to Macedonia and forced to surrender, Antony's camp was occupied, bringing an end to the war.

Alternative theories
Scientists researching the "dead water" phenomenon are investigating whether the Egyptian fleet may have been trapped in dead water, which can substantially reduce the speed of a ship.

Aftermath
The battle had extensive political consequences. Under cover of darkness some 19 legions and 12,000 cavalry fled before Antony was able to engage Octavian in a land battle. Thus, after Antony lost his fleet, his army, which had been equal to Octavian's, deserted. Though he had not laid down his imperium, Antony was a fugitive and a rebel without that shadow of a legal position the presence of the consuls and senators had given him in the previous year. Some of the victorious fleet went in pursuit of him, but Octavian visited Greece and Asia and spent the winter at Samos, though he had to briefly visit Brundisium to settle a mutiny and arrange for assignations of land.

At Samos Octavian received a message from Cleopatra with the present of a gold crown and throne, offering to abdicate in favor of her sons. She was allowed to believe that she would be well treated, for Octavian was anxious to secure her for his triumph. Antony, who had found himself generally deserted, after vainly attempting to secure the army stationed near Paraetonium under Pinarius and sending his eldest son Antyllus with money to Octavian and an offer to live at Athens as a private citizen, found himself in the spring attacked on two sides. Cornelius Gallus was advancing from Paraetonium and Octavian landed at Pelusium, with the connivance, it was believed, of Cleopatra. Antony was defeated by Gallus and, returning to Egypt, advanced on Pelusium.

Despite a minor victory at Alexandria on 31 July 30 BC, more of Antony's men deserted, leaving him with insufficient forces to fight Octavian. A slight success over Octavian's tired soldiers encouraged him to make a general attack, in which he was decisively beaten. Failing to escape by ship, he stabbed himself in the stomach upon mistakenly believing false rumours propagated by Cleopatra claiming that she had committed suicide. He did not die at once, and when he found out that Cleopatra was still alive, he insisted on being taken to the mausoleum where she was hiding and died in her arms. She was soon brought to the palace and vainly attempted to move Octavian to pity.

Cleopatra killed herself on 12 August 30 BC. Most accounts say she put an end to her life by the bite of an asp conveyed to her in a basket of figs. Octavian had Caesarion killed later that month, finally securing his legacy as Caesar's only 'son', while sparing Cleopatra's children by Antony, with the exception of Antony's older son. Octavian admired the bravery of Cleopatra and gave her and Antony a public military funeral in Rome. The funeral was grand and a few of Antony's legions marched alongside the tomb. A day of mourning throughout Rome was enacted. This was partly due to Octavian's respect for Antony and partly because it further helped show the Roman people how benevolent Octavian was. Octavian had previously shown little mercy to surrendered enemies and acted in ways that had proven unpopular with the Roman people, yet he was given credit for pardoning many of his opponents after the Battle of Actium. Further, after the battle, upon Octavian's return to Rome he celebrated his triple triumph spread over three days: the first for his victory over Illyria, the second for the Battle of Actium, and the third for his conquest of Egypt.

Octavian's victory at Actium gave him sole, uncontested control of "Mare Nostrum" ("Our Sea", i.e., the Roman Mediterranean) and he became "Augustus Caesar" and the "first citizen" of Rome. The victory, consolidating his power over every Roman institution, marked Rome's transition from republic to empire. Egypt's surrender after Cleopatra's death marked the demise of both the Hellenistic Period and the Ptolemaic Kingdom, turning it into a Roman province.

To commemorate his victory, Octavian founded the nearby city of Nicopolis ("City of Victory") in 29 BC on the southernmost promontory of Epirus, opposite Actium at the mouth of the Ambracian Gulf. On a hill just north of the new city, at the site where he had made his camp in 31 BC, he constructed a victory monument decorated with the bronze rostra (rams) taken from the captured warships of Antony's fleet.

title: Battle of Actium


text:
Zebrafish

The zebrafish (Danio rerio) is a freshwater fish belonging to the minnow family (Cyprinidae) of the order Cypriniformes. Native to India and South Asia, it is a popular aquarium fish, frequently sold under the trade name zebra danio (and thus often called a "tropical fish" although it is both tropical and subtropical).

The zebrafish is an important and widely used vertebrate model organism in scientific research, particularly developmental biology, but also gene function, oncology, teratology, and drug development, in particular pre-clinical development. It is also notable for its regenerative abilities, and has been modified by researchers to produce many transgenic strains.

Taxonomy
The zebrafish is a derived member of the genus Brachydanio, of the family Cyprinidae. It has a sister-group relationship with Danio aesculapii. Zebrafish are also closely related to the genus Devario, as demonstrated by a phylogenetic tree of close species.

Range
The zebrafish is native to freshwater habitats in South Asia where it is found in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. The northern limit is in the South Himalayas, ranging from the Sutlej river basin in the Pakistan–India border region to the state of Arunachal Pradesh in northeast Indian. Its range is concentrated in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River basins, and the species was first described from Kosi River (lower Ganges basin) of India. Its range further south is more local, with scattered records from the Western and Eastern Ghats regions. It has frequently been said to occur in Myanmar (Burma), but this is entirely based on pre-1930 records and likely refers to close relatives only described later, notably Danio kyathit. Likewise, old records from Sri Lanka are highly questionable and remain unconfirmed.

Zebrafish have been introduced to California, Connecticut, Florida and New Mexico in the United States, presumably by deliberate release by aquarists or by escape from fish farms. The New Mexico population had been extirpated by 2003 and it is unclear if the others survive, as the last published records were decades ago. Elsewhere the species has been introduced to Colombia and Malaysia.

Habitats
Zebrafish typically inhabit moderately flowing to stagnant clear water of quite shallow depth in streams, canals, ditches, oxbow lakes, ponds and rice paddies. There is usually some vegetation, either submerged or overhanging from the banks, and the bottom is sandy, muddy or silty, often mixed with pebbles or gravel. In surveys of zebrafish locations throughout much of its Bangladeshi and Indian distribution, the water had a near-neutral to somewhat basic pH and mostly ranged from 16.5 to(-) 34 C in temperature. One unusually cold site was only 12.3 C and another unusually warm site was 38.6 C, but the zebrafish still appeared healthy. The unusually cold temperature was at one of the highest known zebrafish locations at 1576 m above sea level, although the species has been recorded to 1795 m.

Description
The zebrafish is named for the five uniform, pigmented, horizontal, blue stripes on the side of the body, which are reminiscent of a zebra's stripes, and which extend to the end of the caudal fin. Its shape is fusiform and laterally compressed, with its mouth directed upwards. The male is torpedo-shaped, with gold stripes between the blue stripes; the female has a larger, whitish belly and silver stripes instead of gold. Adult females exhibit a small genital papilla in front of the anal fin origin. The zebrafish can reach up to 4-5 cm in length, although they typically are 1.8-3.7 cm in the wild with some variations depending on location. Its lifespan in captivity is around two to three years, although in ideal conditions, this may be extended to over five years. In the wild it is typically an annual species.

Psychology
In 2015, a study was published about zebrafishes' capacity for episodic memory. The individuals showed a capacity to remember context with respect to objects, locations and occasions (what, when, where). Episodic memory is a capacity of explicit memory systems, typically associated with conscious experience.

The Mauthner cells integrate a wide array of sensory stimuli to produce the escape reflex. Those stimuli are found to include the lateral line signals by McHenry et al. 2009 and visual signals consistent with looming objects by Temizer et al. 2015, Dunn et al. 2016, and Yao et al. 2016.

Reproduction

The approximate generation time for Danio rerio is three months. A male must be present for ovulation and spawning to occur. Zebrafish are asynchronous spawners and under optimal conditions (such as food availability and favorable water parameters) can spawn successfully frequently, even on a daily basis. Females are able to spawn at intervals of two to three days, laying hundreds of eggs in each clutch. Upon release, embryonic development begins; in absence of sperm, growth stops after the first few cell divisions. Fertilized eggs almost immediately become transparent, a characteristic that makes D. rerio a convenient research model species. Sex determination of common laboratory strains was shown to be a complex genetic trait, rather than to follow a simple ZW or XY system.

The zebrafish embryo develops rapidly, with precursors to all major organs appearing within 36 hours of fertilization. The embryo begins as a yolk with a single enormous cell on top (see image, 0 h panel), which divides into two (0.75 h panel) and continues dividing until there are thousands of small cells (3.25 h panel). The cells then migrate down the sides of the yolk (8 h panel) and begin forming a head and tail (16 h panel). The tail then grows and separates from the body (24 h panel). The yolk shrinks over time because the fish uses it for food as it matures during the first few days (72 h panel). After a few months, the adult fish reaches reproductive maturity (bottom panel).

To encourage the fish to spawn, some researchers use a fish tank with a sliding bottom insert, which reduces the depth of the pool to simulate the shore of a river. Zebrafish spawn best in the morning due to their Circadian rhythms. Researchers have been able to collect 10,000 embryos in 10 minutes using this method. In particular, one pair of adult fish is capable of laying 200–300 eggs in one morning in approximately 5 to 10 at time. Male zebrafish are furthermore known to respond to more pronounced markings on females, i.e., "good stripes", but in a group, males will mate with whichever females they can find. What attracts females is not currently understood. The presence of plants, even plastic plants, also apparently encourages spawning.

Exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), commonly used in a large variety of plastic items, disrupt the endocannabinoid system and thereby affect reproduction in a sex-specific manner.

Feeding
Zebrafish are omnivorous, primarily eating zooplankton, phytoplankton, insects and insect larvae, although they can eat a variety of other foods, such as worms and small crustaceans, if their preferred food sources are not readily available.

In research, adult zebrafish are often fed with brine shrimp, or paramecia.

In the aquarium
Zebrafish are hardy fish and considered good for beginner aquarists. Their enduring popularity can be attributed to their playful disposition, as well as their rapid breeding, aesthetics, cheap price and broad availability. They also do well in schools or shoals of six or more, and interact well with other fish species in the aquarium. However, they are susceptible to Oodinium or velvet disease, microsporidia (Pseudoloma neurophilia), and Mycobacterium species. Given the opportunity, adults eat hatchlings, which may be protected by separating the two groups with a net, breeding box or separate tank. In captivity, zebrafish live approximately forty-two months. Some captive zebrafish can develop a curved spine.

They can range from a few centimeters to a few inches, and provide movement in a freshwater fish tank.

The zebra danio was also used to make genetically modified fish and were the first species to be sold as GloFish (fluorescent colored fish).

Strains
In late 2003, transgenic zebrafish that express green, red, and yellow fluorescent proteins became commercially available in the United States. The fluorescent strains are trade-named GloFish; other cultivated varieties include "golden", "sandy", "longfin" and "leopard". The leopard danio, previously known as Danio frankei, is a spotted colour morph of the zebrafish which arose due to a pigment mutation. Xanthistic forms of both the zebra and leopard pattern, along with long-finned strains, have been obtained via selective breeding programs for the aquarium trade.

Various transgenic and mutant strains of zebrafish were stored at the China Zebrafish Resource Center (CZRC), a non-profit organization, which was jointly supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Wild-type strains
The Zebrafish Information Network (ZFIN) provides up-to-date information about current known wild-type (WT) strains of D. rerio, some of which are listed below.

 * AB (AB)
 * AB/C32 (AB/C32)
 * AB/TL (AB/TL)
 * AB/Tuebingen (AB/TU)
 * C32 (C32)
 * Cologne (KOLN)
 * Darjeeling (DAR)
 * Ekkwill (EKW)
 * HK/AB (HK/AB)
 * HK/Sing (HK/SING)
 * Hong Kong (HK)
 * India (IND)
 * Indonesia (INDO)
 * Nadia (NA)
 * RIKEN WT (RW)
 * Singapore (SING)
 * SJA (SJA)
 * SJD (SJD)
 * SJD/C32 (SJD/C32)
 * Tuebingen (TU)
 * Tupfel long fin (TL)
 * Tupfel long fin nacre (TLN)
 * WIK (WIK)
 * WIK/AB (WIK/AB)

Hybrids
Hybrids between different Danio species may be fertile: for example, between D. rerio and D. nigrofasciatus.

Scientific research

D. rerio is a common and useful scientific model organism for studies of vertebrate development and gene function. Its use as a laboratory animal was pioneered by the American molecular biologist George Streisinger and his colleagues at the University of Oregon in the 1970s and 1980s; Streisinger's zebrafish clones were among the earliest successful vertebrate clones created. Its importance has been consolidated by successful large-scale forward genetic screens (commonly referred to as the Tübingen/Boston screens). The fish has a dedicated online database of genetic, genomic, and developmental information, the Zebrafish Information Network (ZFIN). The Zebrafish International Resource Center (ZIRC) is a genetic resource repository with 29,250 alleles available for distribution to the research community. D. rerio is also one of the few fish species to have been sent into space.

Research with D. rerio has yielded advances in the fields of developmental biology, oncology, toxicology, reproductive studies, teratology, genetics, neurobiology, environmental sciences, stem cell research, regenerative medicine,  muscular dystrophies and evolutionary theory.

Model characteristics
As a model biological system, the zebrafish possesses numerous advantages for scientists. Its genome has been fully sequenced, and it has well-understood, easily observable and testable developmental behaviors. Its embryonic development is very rapid, and its embryos are relatively large, robust, and transparent, and able to develop outside their mother. Furthermore, well-characterized mutant strains are readily available.

Other advantages include the species' nearly constant size during early development, which enables simple staining techniques to be used, and the fact that its two-celled embryo can be fused into a single cell to create a homozygous embryo. The zebrafish embryos are transparent and they develop outside of the uterus, which allows scientists to study the details of development starting from fertilization and continuing throughout development. The zebrafish is also demonstrably similar to mammalian models and humans in toxicity testing, and exhibits a diurnal sleep cycle with similarities to mammalian sleep behavior. However, zebrafish are not a universally ideal research model; there are a number of disadvantages to their scientific use, such as the absence of a standard diet and the presence of small but important differences between zebrafish and mammals in the roles of some genes related to human disorders.

Regeneration
Zebrafish have the ability to regenerate their heart and lateral line hair cells during their larval stages. The cardiac regenerative process likely involves signaling pathways such as Notch and Wnt; hemodynamic changes in the damaged heart are sensed by ventricular endothelial cells and their associated cardiac cilia by way of the mechanosensitive ion channel TRPV4, subsequently facilitating the Notch signaling pathway via KLF2 and activating various downstream effectors such as BMP-2 and HER2/neu. In 2011, the British Heart Foundation ran an advertising campaign publicising its intention to study the applicability of this ability to humans, stating that it aimed to raise £50 million in research funding.

Zebrafish have also been found to regenerate photoreceptor cells and retinal neurons following injury, which has been shown to be mediated by the dedifferentiation and proliferation of Müller glia. Researchers frequently amputate the dorsal and ventral tail fins and analyze their regrowth to test for mutations. It has been found that histone demethylation occurs at the site of the amputation, switching the zebrafish's cells to an "active", regenerative, stem cell-like state. In 2012, Australian scientists published a study revealing that zebrafish use a specialised protein, known as fibroblast growth factor, to ensure their spinal cords heal without glial scarring after injury. In addition, hair cells of the posterior lateral line have also been found to regenerate following damage or developmental disruption. Study of gene expression during regeneration has allowed for the identification of several important signaling pathways involved in the process, such as Wnt signaling and Fibroblast growth factor.

In probing disorders of the nervous system, including neurodegenerative diseases, movement disorders, psychiatric disorders and deafness, researchers are using the zebrafish to understand how the genetic defects underlying these conditions cause functional abnormalities in the human brain, spinal cord and sensory organs. Researchers have also studied the zebrafish to gain new insights into the complexities of human musculoskeletal diseases, such as muscular dystrophy. Another focus of zebrafish research is to understand how a gene called Hedgehog, a biological signal that underlies a number of human cancers, controls cell growth.

Background genetics
Inbred strains and traditional outbred stocks have not been developed for laboratory zebrafish, and the genetic variability of wild-type lines among institutions may contribute to the replication crisis in biomedical research. Genetic differences in wild-type lines among populations maintained at different research institutions have been demonstrated using both Single-nucleotide polymorphisms and microsatellite analysis.

Gene expression
Due to their fast and short life cycles and relatively large clutch sizes, D. rerio or zebrafish are a useful model for genetic studies. A common reverse genetics technique is to reduce gene expression or modify splicing using Morpholino antisense technology. Morpholino oligonucleotides (MO) are stable, synthetic macromolecules that contain the same bases as DNA or RNA; by binding to complementary RNA sequences, they can reduce the expression of specific genes or block other processes from occurring on RNA. MO can be injected into one cell of an embryo after the 32-cell stage, reducing gene expression in only cells descended from that cell. However, cells in the early embryo (less than 32 cells) are permeable to large molecules, allowing diffusion between cells. Guidelines for using Morpholinos in zebrafish describe appropriate control strategies. Morpholinos are commonly microinjected in 500pL directly into 1–2 cell stage zebrafish embryos. The morpholino is able to integrate into most cells of the embryo.

A known problem with gene knockdowns is that, because the genome underwent a duplication after the divergence of ray-finned fishes and lobe-finned fishes, it is not always easy to silence the activity of one of the two gene paralogs reliably due to complementation by the other paralog. Despite the complications of the zebrafish genome, a number of commercially available global platforms exist for analysis of both gene expression by microarrays and promoter regulation using ChIP-on-chip.

Genome sequencing
The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute started the zebrafish genome sequencing project in 2001, and the full genome sequence of the Tuebingen reference strain is publicly available at  the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)'s Zebrafish Genome Page. The zebrafish reference genome sequence is annotated as part of the Ensembl project, and is maintained by the Genome Reference Consortium.

In 2009, researchers at the Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology in Delhi, India, announced the sequencing of the genome of a wild zebrafish strain, containing an estimated 1.7 billion genetic letters. The genome of the wild zebrafish was sequenced at 39-fold coverage. Comparative analysis with the zebrafish reference genome revealed over 5 million single nucleotide variations and over 1.6 million insertion deletion variations. The zebrafish reference genome sequence of 1.4GB and over 26,000 protein coding genes was published by Kerstin Howe et al. in 2013.

Mitochondrial DNA
In October 2001, researchers from the University of Oklahoma published D. rerio's complete mitochondrial DNA sequence. Its length is 16,596 base pairs. This is within 100 base pairs of other related species of fish, and it is notably only 18 pairs longer than the goldfish (Carassius auratus) and 21 longer than the carp (Cyprinus carpio). Its gene order and content are identical to the common vertebrate form of mitochondrial DNA. It contains 13 protein-coding genes and a noncoding control region containing the origin of replication for the heavy strand. In between a grouping of five tRNA genes, a sequence resembling vertebrate origin of light strand replication is found. It is difficult to draw evolutionary conclusions because it is difficult to determine whether base pair changes have adaptive significance via comparisons with other vertebrates' nucleotide sequences.

Developmental genetics
T-boxes and homeoboxes are vital in Danio similarly to other vertebrates. The Bruce et al. team are known for this area, and in Bruce et al. 2003 & Bruce et al. 2005 uncover the role of two of these elements in oocytes of this species. By interfering via a dominant nonfunctional allele and a morpholino they find the T-box transcription activator Eomesodermin and its target mtx2 – a transcription factor – are vital to epiboly. (In Bruce et al. 2003 they failed to support the possibility that Eomesodermin behaves like Vegt. Neither they nor anyone else has been able to locate any mutation which – in the mother – will prevent initiation of the mesoderm or endoderm development processes in this species.)

Pigmentation genes
In 1999, the nacre mutation was identified in the zebrafish ortholog of the mammalian MITF transcription factor. Mutations in human MITF result in eye defects and loss of pigment, a type of Waardenburg Syndrome. In December 2005, a study of the golden strain identified the gene responsible for its unusual pigmentation as SLC24A5, a solute carrier that appeared to be required for melanin production, and confirmed its function with a Morpholino knockdown. The orthologous gene was then characterized in humans and a one base pair difference was found to strongly segregate fair-skinned Europeans and dark-skinned Africans. Zebrafish with the nacre mutation have since been bred with fish with a roy orbison (roy) mutation to make Casper strain fish that have no melanophores or iridophores, and are transparent into adulthood. These fish are characterized by uniformly pigmented eyes and translucent skin.

Transgenesis
Transgenesis is a popular approach to study the function of genes in zebrafish. Construction of transgenic zebrafish is rather easy by a method using the Tol2 transposon system. Tol2 element which encodes a gene for a fully functional transposase capable of catalyzing transposition in the zebrafish germ lineage. Tol2 is the only natural DNA transposable element in vertebrates from which an autonomous member has been identified. Examples include the artificial interaction produced between LEF1 and Catenin beta-1/β-catenin/CTNNB1. Dorsky et al. 2002 investigated the developmental role of Wnt by transgenically expressing a Lef1/β-catenin reporter.

There are well-established protocols for editing zebrafish genes using CRISPR-Cas9 and this tool has been used to generate genetically modified models.

Transparent adult bodies
In 2008, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital developed a new strain of zebrafish, named Casper, whose adult bodies had transparent skin. This allows for detailed visualization of cellular activity, circulation, metastasis and many other phenomena. In 2019 researchers published a crossing of a prkdc-/- and a IL2rga-/- strain that produced transparent, immunodeficient offspring, lacking natural killer cells as well as B- and T-cells. This strain can be adapted to 37 C warm water and the absence of an immune system makes the use of patient derived xenografts possible. In January 2013, Japanese scientists genetically modified a transparent zebrafish specimen to produce a visible glow during periods of intense brain activity.

In January 2007, Chinese researchers at Fudan University genetically modified zebrafish to detect oestrogen pollution in lakes and rivers, which is linked to male infertility. The researchers cloned oestrogen-sensitive genes and injected them into the fertile eggs of zebrafish. The modified fish turned green if placed into water that was polluted by oestrogen.

RNA splicing
In 2015, researchers at Brown University discovered that 10% of zebrafish genes do not need to rely on the U2AF2 protein to initiate RNA splicing. These genes have the DNA base pairs AC and TG as repeated sequences at the ends of each intron. On the 3'ss (3' splicing site), the base pairs adenine and cytosine alternate and repeat, and on the 5'ss (5' splicing site), their complements thymine and guanine alternate and repeat as well. They found that there was less reliance on U2AF2 protein than in humans, in which the protein is required for the splicing process to occur. The pattern of repeating base pairs around introns that alters RNA secondary structure was found in other teleosts, but not in tetrapods. This indicates that an evolutionary change in tetrapods may have led to humans relying on the U2AF2 protein for RNA splicing while these genes in zebrafish undergo splicing regardless of the presence of the protein.

Orthology
D. rerio has three transferrins, all of which cluster closely with other vertebrates.

Inbreeding depression
When close relatives mate, progeny may exhibit the detrimental effects of inbreeding depression. Inbreeding depression is predominantly caused by the homozygous expression of recessive deleterious alleles. For zebrafish, inbreeding depression might be expected to be more severe in stressful environments, including those caused by anthropogenic pollution. Exposure of zebrafish to environmental stress induced by the chemical clotrimazole, an imidazole fungicide used in agriculture and in veterinary and human medicine, amplified the effects of inbreeding on key reproductive traits. Embryo viability was significantly reduced in inbred exposed fish and there was a tendency for inbred males to sire fewer offspring.

Aquaculture research
Zebrafish are common models for research into fish farming, including pathogens  and parasites  causing yield loss or spreading to adjacent wild populations.

This usefulness is less than it might be due to Danio's taxonomic distance from the most common aquaculture species. Because the most common are salmonids and cod in the Protacanthopterygii and sea bass, sea bream, tilapia, and flatfish, in the Percomorpha, zebrafish results may not be perfectly applicable. Various other models Goldfish (Carassius auratus), Medaka (Oryzias latipes), Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes), Swordtail (Xiphophorus hellerii)  are less used normally but would be closer to particular target species.

The only exception are the Carp (including Grass Carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella) and Milkfish (Chanos chanos) which are quite close, both being in the Cyprinidae. However it should also be noted that Danio consistently proves to be a useful model for mammals in many cases and there is dramatically more genetic distance between them than between Danio and any farmed fish.

Neurochemistry
In a glucocorticoid receptor-defective mutant with reduced exploratory behavior, fluoxetine rescued the normal exploratory behavior. This demonstrates relationships between glucocorticoids, fluoxetine, and exploration in this fish.

DNA repair
Zebrafish have been used as a model for studying DNA repair pathways. Embryos of externally fertilized fish species, such as zebrafish during their development, are directly exposed to environmental conditions such as pollutants and reactive oxygen species that may cause damage to their DNA. To cope with such DNA damages, a variety of different DNA repair pathways are expressed during development. Zebrafish have, in recent years, proven to be a useful model for assessing environmental pollutants that might cause DNA damage.

Drug discovery and development

The zebrafish and zebrafish larva is a suitable model organism for drug discovery and development. As a vertebrate with 70% genetic homology with humans, it can be predictive of human health and disease, while its small size and fast development facilitates experiments on a larger and quicker scale than with more traditional in vivo studies, including the development of higher-throughput, automated investigative tools. As demonstrated through ongoing research programmes, the zebrafish model enables researchers not only to identify genes that might underlie human disease, but also to develop novel therapeutic agents in drug discovery programmes. Zebrafish embryos have proven to be a rapid, cost-efficient, and reliable teratology assay model.

Drug screens
Drug screens in zebrafish can be used to identify novel classes of compounds with biological effects, or to repurpose existing drugs for novel uses; an example of the latter would be a screen which found that a commonly used statin (rosuvastatin) can suppress the growth of prostate cancer. To date, 65 small-molecule screens have been carried out and at least one has led to clinical trials. Within these screens, many technical challenges remain to be resolved, including differing rates of drug absorption resulting in levels of internal exposure that cannot be extrapolated from the water concentration, and high levels of natural variation between individual animals.

Toxico- or pharmacokinetics
To understand drug effects, the internal drug exposure is essential, as this drives the pharmacological effect. Translating experimental results from zebrafish to higher vertebrates (like humans) requires concentration-effect relationships, which can be derived from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Because of its small size, however, it is very challenging to quantify the internal drug exposure. Traditionally multiple blood samples would be drawn to characterize the drug concentration profile over time, but this technique remains to be developed. To date, only a single pharmacokinetic model for paracetamol has been developed in zebrafish larvae.

Computational data analysis
Using smart data analysis methods, pathophysiological and pharmacological processes can be understood and subsequently translated to higher vertebrates, including humans. An example is the use of systems pharmacology, which is the integration of systems biology and pharmacometrics. Systems biology characterizes (part of) an organism by a mathematical description of all relevant processes. These can be for example different signal transduction pathways that upon a specific signal lead to a certain response. By quantifying these processes, their behaviour in healthy and diseased situation can be understood and predicted. Pharmacometrics uses data from preclinical experiments and clinical trials to characterize the pharmacological processes that are underlying the relation between the drug dose and its response or clinical outcome. These can be for example the drug absorption in or clearance from the body, or its interaction with the target to achieve a certain effect. By quantifying these processes, their behaviour after different doses or in different patients can be understood and predicted to new doses or patients. By integrating these two fields, systems pharmacology has the potential to improve the understanding of the interaction of the drug with the biological system by mathematical quantification and subsequent prediction to new situations, like new drugs or new organisms or patients. Using these computational methods, the previously mentioned analysis of paracetamol internal exposure in zebrafish larvae showed reasonable correlation between paracetamol clearance in zebrafish with that of higher vertebrates, including humans.

Cancer
Zebrafish have been used to make several transgenic models of cancer, including melanoma, leukemia, pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. Zebrafish expressing mutated forms of either the BRAF or NRAS oncogenes develop melanoma when placed onto a p53 deficient background. Histologically, these tumors strongly resemble the human disease, are fully transplantable, and exhibit large-scale genomic alterations. The BRAF melanoma model was utilized as a platform for two screens published in March 2011 in the journal Nature. In one study, the model was used as a tool to understand the functional importance of genes known to be amplified and overexpressed in human melanoma. One gene, SETDB1, markedly accelerated tumor formation in the zebrafish system, demonstrating its importance as a new melanoma oncogene. This was particularly significant because SETDB1 is known to be involved in the epigenetic regulation that is increasingly appreciated to be central to tumor cell biology.

In another study, an effort was made to therapeutically target the genetic program present in the tumor's origin neural crest cell using a chemical screening approach. This revealed that an inhibition of the DHODH protein (by a small molecule called leflunomide) prevented development of the neural crest stem cells which ultimately give rise to melanoma via interference with the process of transcriptional elongation. Because this approach would aim to target the "identity" of the melanoma cell rather than a single genetic mutation, leflunomide may have utility in treating human melanoma.

Cardiovascular disease
In cardiovascular research, the zebrafish has been used to model human myocardial infarction model. The zebrafish heart completely regenerates after about 2 months of injury without any scar formation. The Alpha-1 adrenergic signalling mechanism involved in this process was identified in a 2023 study. Zebrafish is also used as a model for blood clotting, blood vessel development, and congenital heart and kidney disease.

Immune system
In programmes of research into acute inflammation, a major underpinning process in many diseases, researchers have established a zebrafish model of inflammation, and its resolution. This approach allows detailed study of the genetic controls of inflammation and the possibility of identifying potential new drugs.

Zebrafish has been extensively used as a model organism to study vertebrate innate immunity. The innate immune system is capable of phagocytic activity by 28 to 30 h postfertilization (hpf) while adaptive immunity is not functionally mature until at least 4 weeks postfertilization.

Infectious diseases
As the immune system is relatively conserved between zebrafish and humans, many human infectious diseases can be modeled in zebrafish. The transparent early life stages are well suited for in vivo imaging and genetic dissection of host-pathogen interactions. Zebrafish models for a wide range of bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens have already been established; for example, the zebrafish model for tuberculosis provides fundamental insights into the mechanisms of pathogenesis of mycobacteria. Furthermore, robotic technology has been developed for high-throughput antimicrobial drug screening using zebrafish infection models.

Repairing retinal damage
Another notable characteristic of the zebrafish is that it possesses four types of cone cell, with ultraviolet-sensitive cells supplementing the red, green and blue cone cell subtypes found in humans. Zebrafish can thus observe a very wide spectrum of colours. The species is also studied to better understand the development of the retina; in particular, how the cone cells of the retina become arranged into the so-called 'cone mosaic'. Zebrafish, in addition to certain other teleost fish, are particularly noted for having extreme precision of cone cell arrangement.

This study of the zebrafish's retinal characteristics has also extrapolated into medical enquiry. In 2007, researchers at University College London grew a type of zebrafish adult stem cell found in the eyes of fish and mammals that develops into neurons in the retina. These could be injected into the eye to treat diseases that damage retinal neurons—nearly every disease of the eye, including macular degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetes-related blindness. The researchers studied Müller glial cells in the eyes of humans aged from 18 months to 91 years, and were able to develop them into all types of retinal neurons. They were also able to grow them easily in the lab. The stem cells successfully migrated into diseased rats' retinas, and took on the characteristics of the surrounding neurons. The team stated that they intended to develop the same approach in humans.

Muscular dystrophies
Muscular dystrophies (MD) are a heterogeneous group of genetic disorders that cause muscle weakness, abnormal contractions and muscle wasting, often leading to premature death. Zebrafish is widely used as model organism to study muscular dystrophies. For example, the sapje (sap) mutant is the zebrafish orthologue of human Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The Machuca-Tzili and co-workers applied zebrafish to determine the role of alternative splicing factor, MBNL, in myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) pathogenesis. More recently, Todd et al. described a new zebrafish model designed to explore the impact of CUG repeat expression during early development in DM1 disease. Zebrafish is also an excellent animal model to study congenital muscular dystrophies including CMD Type 1 A (CMD 1A) caused by mutation in the human laminin α2 (LAMA2) gene. The zebrafish, because of its advantages discussed above, and in particular the ability of zebrafish embryos to absorb chemicals, has become a model of choice in screening and testing new drugs against muscular dystrophies.

Bone physiology and pathology
Zebrafish have been used as model organisms for bone metabolism, tissue turnover, and resorbing activity. These processes are largely evolutionary conserved. They have been used to study osteogenesis (bone formation), evaluating differentiation, matrix deposition activity, and cross-talk of skeletal cells, to create and isolate mutants modeling human bone diseases, and test new chemical compounds for the ability to revert bone defects. The larvae can be used to follow new (de novo) osteoblast formation during bone development. They start mineralising bone elements as early as 4 days post fertilisation. Recently, adult zebrafish are being used to study complex age related bone diseases such as osteoporosis and osteogenesis imperfecta. The (elasmoid) scales of zebrafish function as a protective external layer and are little bony plates made by osteoblasts. These exoskeletal structures are formed by bone matrix depositing osteoblasts and are remodeled by osteoclasts. The scales also act as the main calcium storage of the fish. They can be cultured ex-vivo (kept alive outside of the organism) in a multi-well plate, which allows manipulation with drugs and even screening for new drugs that could change bone metabolism (between osteoblasts and osteoclasts).

Diabetes
Zebrafish pancreas development is very homologous to mammals, such as mice. The signaling mechanisms and way the pancreas functions are very similar. The pancreas has an endocrine compartment, which contains a variety of cells. Pancreatic PP cells that produce polypeptides, and β-cells that produce insulin are two examples of those such cells. This structure of the pancreas, along with the glucose homeostasis system, are helpful in studying diseases, such as diabetes, that are related to the pancreas. Models for pancreas function, such as fluorescent staining of proteins, are useful in determining the processes of glucose homeostasis and the development of the pancreas. Glucose tolerance tests have been developed using zebrafish, and can now be used to test for glucose intolerance or diabetes in humans. The function of insulin are also being tested in zebrafish, which will further contribute to human medicine. The majority of work done surrounding knowledge on glucose homeostasis has come from work on zebrafish transferred to humans.

Obesity
Zebrafish have been used as a model system to study obesity, with research into both genetic obesity and over-nutrition induced obesity. Obese zebrafish, similar to obese mammals, show dysregulation of lipid controlling metabolic pathways, which leads to weight gain without normal lipid metabolism. Also like mammals, zebrafish store excess lipids in visceral, intramuscular, and subcutaneous adipose deposits. These reasons and others make zebrafish good models for studying obesity in humans and other species. Genetic obesity is usually studied in transgenic or mutated zebrafish with obesogenic genes. As an example, transgenic zebrafish with overexpressed AgRP, an endogenous melanocortin antagonist, showed increased body weight and adipose deposition during growth. Though zebrafish genes may not be the exact same as human genes, these tests could provide important insight into possible genetic causes and treatments for human genetic obesity. Diet-induced obesity zebrafish models are useful, as diet can be modified from a very early age. High fat diets and general overfeeding diets both show rapid increases in adipose deposition, increased BMI, hepatosteatosis, and hypertriglyceridemia. However, the normal fat, overfed specimens are still metabolically healthy, while high-fat diet specimens are not. Understanding differences between types of feeding-induced obesity could prove useful in human treatment of obesity and related health conditions.

Environmental toxicology
Zebrafish have been used as a model system in environmental toxicology studies.

Epilepsy
Zebrafish have been used as a model system to study epilepsy. Mammalian seizures can be recapitulated molecularly, behaviorally, and electrophysiologically, using a fraction of the resources required for experiments in mammals.

title: Zebrafish


text:
Balance

Balance may refer to:

Common meanings

 * Balance (ability) in biomechanics
 * Balance (accounting)
 * Balance or weighing scale
 * Balance, as in equality (mathematics) or equilibrium

Film

 * Balance (1983 film), a Bulgarian film
 * Balance (1989 film), a short animated film
 * La Balance, a 1982 French film

Television

 * Balance: Television for Living Well, a Canadian television talk show
 * "The Balance" (Roswell), an episode of the television series Roswell
 * "The Balance", an episode of the animated series Justice League

Performers

 * Balance (band), a 1980s pop-rock group

Albums

 * Balance (Akrobatik album), 2003
 * Balance (Kim-Lian album), 2004
 * Balance (Leo Kottke album), 1978
 * Balance (Joe Morris album), 2014
 * Balance (Swollen Members album), 1999
 * Balance (Ty Tabor album), 2008
 * Balance (Melly Goeslaw album), 2013
 * Balance (Van Halen album), 1995
 * Balance (Armin van Buuren album), 2019
 * The Balance, a 2019 album by Catfish and the Bottlemen

Songs

 * "Balance", a song by Axium from The Story Thus Far
 * "Balance", a song by Band-Maid from Unleash
 * "Balance", a song by Ed Sheeran from - (Deluxe vinyl edition)
 * "The Balance", a Moody Blues song on the 1970 album A Question of Balance

Other

 * Balance (game design), the concept and the practice of tuning relationships between a game's component systems
 * Balance (installation), a 2013 glazed ceramic installation by Tim Ryan
 * Balance (puzzle), a mathematical puzzle
 * "Balance", a poem by Patti Smith from the book kodak

Government and law

 * BALANCE Act (Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act), a proposed US federal legislation
 * Balance (apportionment), a criterion for fair allocation of seats among parties or states
 * Census balance, a census-designated geography in the United States

Other uses

 * Balance (advertisement), a 1989 award-winning television advertisement for the Lexus LS 400
 * Balance (metaphysics), a desirable point between two or more opposite forces
 * Balance (stereo), the amount of signal from each channel reproduced in a stereo audio recording
 * The Balance, a personal finance website owned by Dotdash

title: Balance