Towards the Identification of a Suitable Commercial Diet for Carpione (Salmo carpio, Linnaeus 1758): A Multidisciplinary Study on Fish Performances, Animal Welfare and Quality Traits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the Ms is correctly organized and reads very well. The topic of investigation is interesting and provides useful information for futures studies on the subject. The Introduction is well organized and provides a good state-of-the art and identifies the research questions to be addressed in the investigation. The methods provide a combination of more "traditional" approaches with up-to-date genomic tools. The Results are adequately described and properly developed in the Discussion. The Conclusions might be a bit more developed by addressing objective suggestions for future studies.

A very minor suggestion is to include in the list of key-words the Genus name of the target-species in full, i.e., Salmo instead of S.

I consider that the Ms might be accepted for publication in its present layout with the minor correction mentioned above

Author Response

• Reviewer 1

R: A very minor suggestion is to include in the list of key-words the Genus name of the target-species in full, i.e., Salmo instead of S.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. Line 46, the key-word “S. carpio” was replaced with “salmonids” to improve the scientific interest towards the MS

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

The manuscript is interesting but I need to ask some issues:

1) How did you manage to perform a two-way ANOVA if the control does not have two levels? In my opinion, it is impossible for technical reasons as the program should return an error due to the lack of two variants of the  factor "level" in the control. But you may have worked it out somehow. Please explain.
2) I wonder why you call L-21 methionine and DL-Methionine "methionine sources". In my opinion, these are not sources, but various chemical forms of methionine.
You have determined the hematological parameters using the hematology analyzer (URIT-3000 Vet Plus, Orvostechnika Ltd., Budapest. Are you sure that this equipment is suitable for working with blood of chicks?

 

In my opinion minor language correction of the manuscript is needed.

Author Response

Mant thanks for the comments but we think that the comments provided refer to another paper and not to the present one.

More specifically:

• Reviewer 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R: How did you manage to perform a two-way ANOVA if the control does not have two levels? In my opinion, it is impossible for technical reasons as the program should return an error due to the lack of two variants of the factor "level" in the control. But you may have worked it out somehow. Please explain.

A: Not applicable to the MS. The authors used one-way Anova to analyze the data.

 

R: I wonder why you call L-21 methionine and DL-Methionine "methionine sources". In my opinion, these are not sources, but various chemical forms of methionine. You have determined the hematological parameters using the hematology analyzer (URIT-3000 Vet Plus, Orvostechnika Ltd., Budapest. Are you sure that this equipment is suitable for working with blood of chicks?

A: Not applicable to the MS.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I found this study focused on a well-treated topic in these last years but was conducted on a species in which the relevant knowledge is not well developed. The study shows good quality and quantity of analysis, well-conducted, that lead to some key results well discussed.

It presents just some minor revision that I summarize as follow.

Title

Why "Towards the identification of.."? If you reached a result at the end of your study (as well as this contribution), it should be in my opinion just "Identification of..".

Please format the scientific name of the model species as (Salmo carpio, Linnaeus 1758), this suggestion is also valid for all the other sections, for the first time mentioning the species.

There is an unnecessary dot at the end of the title.

Simple Summary and Abstract

A short sentence on the achievements of the study was missed at the end of the simple summary. Please add it. 

Double check the simple summary indentation. 

Keywords

The scientific name of the species was already reported in the title, I suggest substituting it with a related one, such as "salmonid fish" or "salmonids", to enhance your manuscript soundness.

Introduction

Lines 92-98: The gold standard should be considered a single technique and not a group by definition. So, it cannot be both histology and gene expression analysis. To avoid slipping into a convoluted discourse, my advice is to expose the three types of analysis you use (including the chemical ones) avoiding a hierarchical scale, but rather considering them as a whole to give more support to your data.

Materials and Methods

Table 1: the percentage of each component of the four experimental diets must be added as essential information to the table. It is not sufficient in my opinion to integrate it just in "descending order based on their amount".

Line 157: replace "plant" with "facility".

Line 164:166: you have to cite the experimental season in this case, to give an idea of the natural photoperiod to the readers. But a more accurate hours range during the experiment should be always provided.

Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.: please avoid the dot at the end of the subtitle.

Results

Please try to improve both the sharpness and size of the histological pictures, especially in Figure 3.

Line 414: "Liver." is unnecessary.

Double check the Table 8 problems of formatting.

Discussion

Lines 632-635: maybe it could be better to avoid this assumption without the proper basis that comes out of this study data, or better argue referring to them.

References

Please carefully double-check the references list about the scientific names and styles.

 

 

Best regards

 

Author Response

• Reviewer 3

 

•  

R: Why "Towards the identification of.."? If you reached a result at the end of your study (as well as this contribution), it should be in my opinion just "Identification of.."

A: Thank you for your suggestion. However, the authors consider more appropriate to use the original title form. Indeed, this was the first time that such an experiment and analytical approach was adopted to this species. It is not a final “identification”, which may be pretentious at the present.

 

 

R: Please format the scientific name of the model species as (Salmo carpio, Linnaeus 1758), this suggestion is also valid for all the other sections, for the first time mentioning the species.

A: Done, at the beginning of all the sections. Lines: 19, 30, 49.

 

R: There is an unnecessary dot at the end of the title.

A: Deleted.

 

 

• Simple Summary and Abstract.

 

R: A short sentence on the achievements of the study was missed at the end of the simple summary. Please add it.

A: Lines 28-29: a short sentence was added at the end of the simple summary.

 

R: Double check the simple summary indentation.

A: Done.

 

• Keywords

R: The scientific name of the species was already reported in the title, I suggest substituting it with a related one, such as "salmonid fish" or "salmonids", to enhance your manuscript soundness.

A: Line 45, replaced with “salmonids”.

 

• Introduction

R: Lines 92-98: The gold standard should be considered a single technique and not a group by definition. So, it cannot be both histology and gene expression analysis. To avoid slipping into a convoluted discourse, my advice is to expose the three types of analysis you use (including the chemical ones) avoiding a hierarchical scale, but rather considering them as a whole to give more support to your data.

A: Now line 102. Thank you for your useful suggestion, sentences were modified.

 

• Materials and Methods

R: Table 1: the percentage of each component of the four experimental diets must be added as essential information to the table. It is not sufficient in my opinion to integrate it just in "descending order based on their amount".

A: The authors well understand reviewer concern. However, unfortunately the detailed diet formulation can not been provided, due to company/business secrets, since diets are sold on the market.

 

R: Line 157: replace "plant" with "facility".

A: Now line 173. Done.

 

R: Line 164:166: you have to cite the experimental season in this case, to give an idea of the natural photoperiod to the readers. But a more accurate hours range during the experiment should be always provided.

A: Now lines 182-183. Months and photoperiod were added.  

 

R: Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.: please avoid the dot at the end of the subtitle.

A: Dots were removed.

 

• Results

R: Please try to improve both the sharpness and size of the histological pictures, especially in Figure 3.

A: The authors apologize for the quality of the figures in the MS. Figures in the main text often lose their original resolution and the size is adapted to the Animals template page’s indents. Original ones at 300 dpi and paginated according to the journal editorial office will be used for the final version.

 

R: Line 414: "Liver." is unnecessary.

A: Removed (now line 441), as well as “intestine” (line 404).

 

R: Double check the Table 8 problems of formatting.

A: Done.

 

• Discussion

R: Lines 632-635: maybe it could be better to avoid this assumption without the proper basis that comes out of this study data, or better argue referring to them.

A: Now lines 661-664: thank you for your suggestion. The sentence was modified to better address the concept.

 

• References

R: Please carefully double-check the references list about the scientific names and styles.

A: References list was checked, the main editing is track changed in review mode, while minors are not.