Impacts of Dietary Selenium Nanoparticles from Spirulina platensis on Growth Performance, Physio-Biochemical Components and Alleviating Effect against Cadmium Toxicity in Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors has revised all the issues. No further comments. 

Author Response

 

R1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised all the issues. No further comments. 

Response: Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors have made changes to the manuscript but several of these have not had the intended effect. Some of the changes have introduced additional imprecise and confusing statements, and others have resulted in there being mistakes in the revised text and tables that were not present in the previous version of the manuscript.

The authors have not fully addressed the points raised in the critique of the original submission.

A few examples where there are problems in the presentation are given below:

In the simple summary the authors write pacific, when Pacific is correct, and they also refer to prawn tissues, when they should write shrimp.

In the Introduction there is still some incorrect use of sources, including source [1]. Source [5] is work on tilapia, not shrimp.

On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent. There are several cases in which the common name is not given, and there are others in which the name given is not the currently accepted one.

In the footnotes to table 1, the information about GE is now incorrect (whereas previously the presentation was inconsistent).

Section 2.10: The authors refer to ‘adult shrimp’ and ‘full mature animals’; how did the authors know that the shrimp were mature adults? The following wording is included in this section ‘Dead prawns were recorded. When shrimp didn’t respond…’

 

The comments made on the technical presentation of the original submission still apply:

Make sure that all works cited in the text are used correctly, and that the presentation is consistent and correct. For example, there are several mistakes, including incorrect or incomplete publication information, in the reference list.

Define and explain all acronyms and abbreviations on first mention in the text, make sure that the presentation is correct and be consistent in the way that they are used.

On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent.

Make sure that symbols, sub- and super-scripts, upper- and lower-case are presented correctly, and that there is correct and consistent use of italics, brackets, and punctuation etc.

Many of the figures are poor, with spelling mistakes on axis labels and incomplete legends.

The authors do not have complete command of English and the manuscript requires linguistic changes and correction.

 

The English needs quite substantial correction and improvement 

Author Response

R2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

 (  )   Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The authors have made changes to the manuscript but several of these have not had the intended effect. Some of the changes have introduced additional imprecise and confusing statements, and others have resulted in there being mistakes in the revised text and tables that were not present in the previous version of the manuscript.
• The authors have not fully addressed the points raised in the critique of the original submission.
• A few examples where there are problems in the presentation are given below:

1. In the simple summary the authors write pacific, when Pacific is correct, and they also refer to prawn tissues, when they should write shrimp.

Done

2. In the Introduction there is still some incorrect use of sources, including source [1]. Source [5] is work on tilapia, not shrimp.

References changes

3. On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent. There are several cases in which the common name is not given, and there are others in which the name given is not the currently accepted one.

Done

4. In the footnotes to table 1, the information about GE is now incorrect (whereas previously the presentation was inconsistent).

Done

5. Section 2.10: The authors refer to ‘adult shrimp’ and ‘full mature animals’; how did the authors know that the shrimp were mature adults? The following wording is included in this section ‘Dead prawns were recorded. When shrimp didn’t respond…’

Done

 

The comments made on the technical presentation of the original submission still apply:

6. Make sure that all works cited in the text are used correctly, and that the presentation is consistent and correct. For example, there are several mistakes, including incorrect or incomplete publication information, in the reference list.

Done

7. Define and explain all acronyms and abbreviations on first mention in the text, make sure that the presentation is correct and be consistent in the way that they are used.

Done

8. On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent.

Done

9. Make sure that symbols, sub- and super-scripts, upper- and lower-case are presented correctly, and that there is correct and consistent use of italics, brackets, and punctuation etc.

Done

10. Many of the figures are poor, with spelling mistakes on axis labels and incomplete legends.

Done

11. The authors do not have complete command of English and the manuscript requires linguistic changes and correction.

Done

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs quite substantial correction and improvement 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have made substantial efforts to revise the manuscript. In addition, all the comments were responded appropriately. The quality of the manuscript improved a lot compared with the initial version. It can be accepted for publication now.

Author Response

R3

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

 (  ) Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial efforts to revise the manuscript. In addition, all the comments were responded to appropriately. The quality of the manuscript improved a lot compared with the initial version. It can be accepted for publication now.

Response: Thank you for your revision.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript describes the survival and growth performance of shrimps upon feeding with biogenic SeNPs (produced by the extract of Spirulina plantesis biomass). Furthermore the use of SeNPs on the negative impacts of Cd toxicity was studied.

In general the manuscript is well written, materials and methods section is presented clearly and the conclusions are supported by the results. Therefore, I will recommend acceptance after minor revisions. Please see the comments below.

The title is too long and should be shorten.

In several parts of the manuscript for instance “[58] declared that selenium metabolize and converted into selenocysteine in order to be integrated into seleno-proteins which help in GPx synthesis” the cited literature is given by the corresponding number of the reference list. It would be better that the names of the authors should appear like “Zoidis, et al., [58] declared that selenium metabolize and converted into selenocysteine in order to be integrated into seleno-proteins which help in GPx synthesis”.

The names of the organisms should be written in italic. Please check the manuscript and correct where is necessary.

Please check all manuscript for missing space between two consecutive words or for more than one spaces.

English language needs some improvement

Author Response

R4

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 (    )Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes the survival and growth performance of shrimps upon feeding with biogenic SeNPs (produced by the extract of Spirulina plantesis biomass). Furthermore, the use of SeNPs on the negative impacts of Cd toxicity was studied.

In general, the manuscript is well written, the materials and methods section are presented clearly and the conclusions are supported by the results. Therefore, I will recommend acceptance after minor revisions. Please see the comments below.

• The title is too long and should be shortened.

Done

• In several parts of the manuscript for instance “[58] declared that selenium metabolizes and converted into selenocysteine in order to be integrated into seleno-proteins which help in GPx synthesis” the cited literature is given by the corresponding number of the reference list. It would be better if the names of the authors should appear like “Zoidis, et al., [58] declared that selenium metabolize and converted into selenocysteine in order to be integrated into seleno-proteins which help in GPx synthesis”.

Done

• The names of the organisms should be written in italic. Please check the manuscript and correct where is necessary.

Done

• Please check all manuscript for missing space between two consecutive words or for more than one spaces.

Done

• English language needs some improvement.

Done

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Although the authors have corrected some of the mistakes pointed out in the previous version of the manuscript, they have not corrected all.

For example:

In the Introduction there is still some incorrect use of sources, including source [1].

In the footnotes to table 1, the information about GE conversion factors is incorrect.

On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent. There are several cases in which the common name is not given, and there are others in which the name given is not the currently accepted one.

 

Comments made about the technical presentation in previous versions still apply:

Make sure that all works cited in the text are used correctly, and that the presentation is consistent and correct. For example, there are several mistakes, including incorrect or incomplete publication information, in the reference list.

Define and explain all acronyms and abbreviations on first mention in the text, make sure that the presentation is correct and be consistent in the way that they are used.

On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent.

Make sure that symbols, sub- and super-scripts, upper- and lower-case are presented correctly, and that there is correct and consistent use of italics, brackets, and punctuation etc.

Many of the figures are poor, with spelling mistakes on axis labels and incomplete legends.

The authors do not have complete command of English and the manuscript requires linguistic changes and correction.

 

Corrections and improvements needed

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigated the effects of dietary selenium nanoparticles levels on the growth performance, antioxidant activity, digestive enzymes activities, and Cd stress in Pacific white shrimp. The results obtained could facilitate the development of functional feed additives for shrimps. However, there are some critical concerns that should be addressed by the authors.

1. Materials and methods: 1) The authors stated that “Despite its potential benefits, there is growing concern about its toxicity at high concentrations” and “Determine the higher inclusion level of Se-NPs recommended for optimal growth”. However, no high Se dose was tested in the present study considering the growth performance data. 2) Dietary Se levels should be measured and provided. 3) The unit of the proximate composition data is incorrect in Table 1.  

2. Data analysis: 1) One-way ANOVA and mean separation is not an appropriate analysis for a quantitative independent variable such as graded levels of selenium. A more appropriate analysis is to analyze all the responses using polynomial orthogonal contrasts so you can indicate whether there are significant linear, quadratic or cubic responses. 2) Data presented in Table 5, 6 and 7 should be analyzed by two-way ANOVA taking into consideration the effects of dietary treatment, sampling time or Cd stress, and their interaction. 3) The F and P values should be provided in Table 2 and 3.

3.  Results: 1) The Se accumulation in typical tissues and or organs should be investigated after the 56 d feeding trial; 2) The GPx activity and the GSH (or GSSG) was recommended to be measured, since “Se acts as a cofactor of glutathione peroxidase (GPx) enzymes” (as the authors stated in the introduction section). 3) The unit of some parameters is not correct. For instance, the activities of digestive enzymes (Table 4) should be expressed as the unit of U/mg tissue protein. The MDA and TAC should be expressed as the unit of n(μ)mol/mg tissue protein.

4.  Please justify the analysis of Cd accumulation only in muscle and hepatopancrease (Table 6). Why not investigate this in other tissues like intestine?

5.   Conclusion: The authors stated that “Based on Cd accumulation and histological investigation of tissues, SP-SeNPs at 0.5 mg/kg could be used in L. vannamei aquaculture”. Why not consider the growth data? The weight gain increased significantly with increasing dietary Se levels. Therefore, a higher dose of Se may meet the optimal growth of this species.

Reviewer 2 Report

The auothors hav investigated the role of synthesized selenium nanoparticles from Spirulina platensis extract on pacific whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei growth performance, as well as, the potential role in alleviating the negative impacts cadmium toxicity. The topic is interesting. The following revision could improve the quality of the paper.

1) Absrtact, please check the form, it seems some of addtional 'space' in the sentence. 

2) background, please add some of the recent refernces about the selenium functions, such as: Selenium deficiency-induced multiple tissue damage with dysregulation of immune and redox homeostasis in broiler chicks under heat stress. Sci China Life Sci. 2023;  Selenium-Enriched Cardamine violifolia Increases Selenium and Decreases Cholesterol Concentrations in Liver and Pectoral Muscle of Broilers. J Nutr. 2022.

3) Figure 2, please check the words in the figure, which were not in the right form.

4) Table 1, please unfiy the effective numbers fo the values, Some of them have too many effective numbers, such as "459.467".

5) The P vaule should be written in italic. Please check throughout the paper.

6) Table 3, what is the unite for the Ash and Moisture?

7) Pleas unify the way of writting. Table 2, Weight Gain (g), Weight Gain % etc.

8) Please check the replicates for all the analysis and added these infortmation the the figue lengend and footnotes.

9) please check and make sure the referneces followed the journal style.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Studies that examine the effects of feed additives on growth and production of farmed shrimp, and the ability of the additives to protect against oxidative damage and the toxic effects of pollutants would seem to be more appropriate for a journal covering aquaculture, or with a focus on aquatic biosciences and environmental science.

It is, therefore, difficult to see why the authors opted to submit their manuscript to Catalysts, rather than a journal that would be obviously more relevant.

There are some problems with the way in which the authors have organized and presented their material, and with the way they have structured the manuscript.

For example, the authors provide insufficient information about their study design, sampling, and experimental protocols to enable readers to see how the work was carried out, some of the reporting is confusing, and some of the information given seems to be incorrect.

This means that there are several weaknesses in the presentation that have resulted in a text that is imprecise and unclear and a manuscript that has deficiencies.

There are some shortcomings with the technical presentation.

Make sure that all works cited in the text are used correctly, and that the presentation is consistent and correct. For example, there are several mistakes, including incorrect or incomplete publication information, in the reference list.

Define and explain all acronyms and abbreviations on first mention in the text, make sure that the presentation is correct and be consistent in the way that they are used.

On first mention of a species in the text give both the common (trivial) and formal names, and make sure that the presentation is correct and consistent.

Make sure that symbols, sub- and super-scripts, upper- and lower-case are presented correctly, and that there is correct and consistent use of italics, brackets, and punctuation etc.

Many of the figures are poor, with spelling mistakes on axis labels and incomplete legends.

The authors do not have complete command of English and the manuscript requires linguistic changes and correction.

 

The title is cryptic, imprecise, and misleading, and the English structure is incorrect. For example, there is no mention that the study involved the examination of treatment effects on growth, nor is the Cd-toxicity test mentioned. What ‘biochemical components’ were assessed?    

 

The Abstract contains several imprecise and confusing statements, and the information given is selective, and incomplete. Some of the information given seems to be incorrect. For example, it is stated that there were 450 shrimp used in the trial, and that there were 4 treatment groups used in triplicate (12 ‘rearing units’ holding shrimp). This would give 450/12 = 37.5 shrimp in each rearing unit, which is a most strange claim to make.

This information contradicts that given in the M & Ms.

In section 2.4 the authors state that they used 300 shrimp, and that they were initially distributed to 30 hapas, with 10 shrimp per hapa.

Later, in section 2.6, the authors state that there were four treatment groups, each being used in a triplicate design (i.e. seemingly indicating that 12 hapas of shrimp were used for the trial). The authors state that there were 30 shrimp in each hapa, which would give 12 x 30 = 360 shrimp in total. This differs both from the number given in the Abstract, and in section 2.4.

 

There are several additional weaknesses and shortcomings with the Abstract, including the omission of information and imprecise and incomplete presentation.

For example, what was nutrient composition of the feed and what was the feeding regime?

What was the sampling regime, and which tissues were sampled for each type of analysis?

The failure of the authors to provide sufficient information about their sampling and analyses means that the presentation of the findings is not very informative. An additional shortcoming is the lack of numerical information given about the responses of the shrimp to the different treatments.

 

Although the Introduction has some background information the way the material is presented has created several problems. There are some abrupt transitions and sudden changes of direction that disrupt the flow of the text and there are choices of wording and phraseology that give rise to incorrect, imprecise, or ambiguous statements.

The authors used shrimp (a crustacean) in their study but refer to ‘fish’ in the second paragraph, and they also give the impression that Penaeus vannamei is a ‘fish’.

Note: Why have the authors used the formal name Penaeus vannamei for the Pacific whiteleg shrimp here, and Litopenaeus vannamei elsewhere?

There are problems relating to the use of sources. For example, in the first paragraph there is incorrect or dubious citation of sources [1-4]. The authors will need to run a thorough check to make sure that they are using sources correctly, that the presentation is correct and consistent, and that complete and correct publication information is given in the reference list.

Re-structuring and re-writing of the Introduction will be required to correct the mistakes and improve the presentation.

 

The amount of information given about the M & Ms is variable, with a few protocols being described in sufficient detail, but insufficient information being given about others. There are some problems with the structure of the M & Ms because information is not given sequentially, parts of the text are imprecise or unclear, and there seems to be incorrect information given in some sub-sections.

In section 2.1 the authors mention ‘dried extracts’, but in section 2.2 they refer to ‘extract solution’. How was the ‘extract solution’ prepared from the ‘dried extract’ and what was the solvent?

There seems to be a lack of concordance between the information given in sections 2.4 and 2.6. The seeming contradictions have already been mentioned in the critique of the Abstract.

How was initial sorting and weighing carried out and were the shrimp weighed at 2-week intervals to get the information needed to adjust feeding rates?

Some information is given about the feeds in section 2.5 and table 1, but there are problems with the presentation. How were the feeds analyzed for proximate chemical (nutrient) composition? In footnote 3 to table 1 the authors give their conversion factors as kJ/g, but in the table the GE values are presented as kcal/100g.

The information given about the final sampling in section 2.7 is imprecise and confusing. For example, what do the authors mean by ‘three samples were used to measure..’; does this refer to the weighing of 3 shrimp from each hapa?

All shrimp in each hapa must have been counted to enable calculation of survival.

Section 2.8: When the authors refer to ‘Three shrimp per group…’ do they mean that 3 shrimp were sampled from each hapa, or 3 shrimp from each ‘treatment’ (e.g. 1 shrimp from each hapa)?

Give brief details about all the methods used for the analysis of chemical composition.

Section 2.9: How many shrimp, from each hapa, and treatment, were used for taking the samples of muscle and digestive tract?

Have the authors made a careless mistake when they write that the supernatants were stored at 80 C; did they mean to write -80 C?

When the authors refer to [45] for the protein analysis, do they mean [48]?

Section 2.10: The ‘shrimp’ become ‘prawns’ in this section.

How was ‘maturity’ assessed?

The presentation given in sections 2.10-2.13 is imprecise, incomplete and confusing.

 

Given the problems with the way in which the authors present the work, including the incomplete and imprecise information about the M & Ms, it would be premature to provide detailed comments about the Results and Discussion sections of the manuscript.

 

Quite substantial correction and linguistic improvement required