Differences in Microbial Community Composition between Uterine Horns Ipsilateral and Contralateral to the Corpus Luteum in Beef Cows on Day 15 of the Estrous Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- The title in my opinion the word between should be among 

2- Line 110 Cows were harvested? clarify and do you take samples from all animals? 

3-Line 143 between or among? 

4-What about the impact of such microorganisms of the fertility 

5- conclusion should be more clear please  

 

 

The Quality of the English Language looks good just minor revision is needs 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments from the reviewers. Edits were made based on their comments. The authors are confident that the manuscript is now stronger after incorporating these edits. Herein you will find the response to the reviewer and attached you will find the edited version of the manuscript.

 

1- The title in my opinion the word between should be among 

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment but we are convinced that the word between is more appropriate here.

2- Line 110 Cows were harvested? clarify and do you take samples from all animals? 

All cows were harvested. Edits were made to manuscript for clarification. Please see line 108.

3-Line 143 between or among? 

The same comment for item 1 applies here.

4-What about the impact of such microorganisms of the fertility 

It is unclear what exact microorganisms is the reviewer referring to. The impact of the uterine microbiome on bovine fertility is still poorly understood. Herein we try to contribute to the body of literature by characterizing differences in uterine microbiome among different locations of the uterus that are key for pregnancy establishment and, consequently, fertility.

5- conclusion should be more clear please  

Are there any specific issues or specific parts of the conclusion paragraph that require edits? Please provide a detailed explanation if edits are required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the Authors:

 

The manuscript entitled “Differences in Microbial Community Composition Between Uterine Horns Ipsilateral and Contralateral to the Corpus Luteum in Beef Cows on Day 15 of the Estrous Cycle” explores variability of microbial community composition of uterine environment of beef cattle during the luteal phase of the estrus cycle. The manuscript is well structured, results clearly presented and commented. The quality of English is high. However, I have just few concerns about the M&M which I reported as follows:

 

Abstract

Cow were euthanized? In line 232 of discussion, Authors stated that isolation of uteri from carcass and following sampling in aseptic condition represents a better method than Foley-catheter flushing, for example, in order to avoid contamination due to resident vaginal-cervical flora. Besides this consideration, which could be overcome through a proper instrument and operator techniques, euthanasia of beef cattle maybe would not be ethically acceptable to the objective of this study.

 

M&M

Line 74: Authors should improve the description of animals used in this study by a clinical point of view. They state cows were non-pregnant, but other information should be included. Were they heifers/primiparous/multiparous. Age? How were they selected for the experiment (should other animals of the same breed/age/farm origin)? Exclusion criteria. Were they checked by a Veterinarian in order to exclude abnormal gynecological findings/other conditions which could interfere, or even help to clarify, with the outcome of the experiment?

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments from the reviewers. Edits were made based on their comments. The authors are confident that the manuscript is now stronger after incorporating these edits. Herein you will find the response to the reviewer and attached you will find the edited version of the manuscript.

 

The manuscript entitled “Differences in Microbial Community Composition Between Uterine Horns Ipsilateral and Contralateral to the Corpus Luteum in Beef Cows on Day 15 of the Estrous Cycle” explores variability of microbial community composition of uterine environment of beef cattle during the luteal phase of the estrus cycle. The manuscript is well structured, results clearly presented and commented. The quality of English is high. However, I have just few concerns about the M&M which I reported as follows:

 

Abstract

Cow were euthanized? In line 232 of discussion, Authors stated that isolation of uteri from carcass and following sampling in aseptic condition represents a better method than Foley-catheter flushing, for example, in order to avoid contamination due to resident vaginal-cervical flora. Besides this consideration, which could be overcome through a proper instrument and operator techniques, euthanasia of beef cattle maybe would not be ethically acceptable to the objective of this study.

The authors appreciate and agree with the reviewer’s comment. We agree that performing euthanasia is not an ideal approach for studying reproductive biology. In the context of collecting uterine samples from cattle, samples can also be collected using the same approach from the present study; however, collecting the samples through laparotomy with adequate pain mitigation strategies in place. This would also avoid the inevitable contamination that occurs when samples are collected transcervically, while also eliminating the need for euthanasia.

 M&M

Line 74: Authors should improve the description of animals used in this study by a clinical point of view. They state cows were non-pregnant, but other information should be included. Were they heifers/primiparous/multiparous. Age? How were they selected for the experiment (should other animals of the same breed/age/farm origin)? Exclusion criteria. Were they checked by a Veterinarian in order to exclude abnormal gynecological findings/other conditions which could interfere, or even help to clarify, with the outcome of the experiment?

The authors appreciate and, once again, agree with the reviewer’s comment. Edits were made to the manuscript on lines 74 to 79 to clarify the concerns that were brought up by the reviewer.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the authors for improving and enhancing there manuscript 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors improved the quality of the manuscript.