Biohydrogenation Pathway of α-Linolenic Acid in Rumen of Dairy Cow In Vitro
, Liya Guo 4,†, Meiqing Chen 1,2, Xufang Wu 1,2, Wenhao Tang 1,2, Nan Zheng 1,2, Shengguo Zhao 1,2, Yangdong Zhang 1,2,* and Jiaqi Wang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled ‘T9,c12,c15-C18:3: an Intermediate of α-Linolenic Acid Shifted Rumen Biohydrogenation Pathway?’ is within the scope of the Journal. It presents some new information and interesting data about the possible existence of FA biohydrogenation new pathway with the participation of t9,c12,c15-C18:3 as an intermediate. Despite this, in my opinion the manuscript needs some major improvements before it can be published in the Journal. The English of the manuscript needs to be improved by a specialist (line by line).
Below I present some specific comments that should be considered by authors.
Specific comments:
The lack of lines number made the paper review a bit difficult. When something (in my opinion) needs to be changed, I referred to the sections or subsections. I hope that this is understandable for authors.
- Title: I suggest to change the title. For me is to strong.
- Please check and unify the name of acid ‘t9,c12,c15-C18:3’ vs. ‘t9,c2,c15-C18:3’ throughout the manuscript. For me it should be ‘t9,c12, c15-C18:3’.
- It should be ‘PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids)’ instead of ‘UPFA’. Please correct (Introduction section).
- It should be ‘previous study?’ instead of ‘pervious’ throughout the whole manuscript.
- ‘biohydrogenation’ instead of ‘biohydrogen’ (Introduction section).
- Why did you extract fatty acids in plasma and milk? You have only ruminal fluid. Please check carefully (Materials and Methods section).
- Please delete ‘3.’ from the end of sentence (2.3. Statistical Analysis subsection).
- should be ‘t9t12t15-C18:3’ instead of ‘t9t12t5-C18:3’. Please check.
- ‘Few studies reported that t9c12c15-C18:3 was in rumen fluid.’ Please add references.
- Please add space ‘at 1 hour’ (Results and Discussion section).
- ‘The change of C18:2 t9c12 showed the same trend as …’ – as what?
- Please put attention to cite the references properly according to the Journal guidelines (refer to Ferlay et al., 2017) (Results and Discussion section).
- should be ‘Figure 2’ (Results and Discussion section).
-‘As shown in figure 2, with the concentration decrease …’ of what acid? Please add.
- It should be ‘might be also a product of t9c12-C18:2 biohydrogenation’ instead of ‘ might also biohydrogenation product of t9c12-C18:2’.
- Please use only initials in the Author Contributions.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the positive, constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of flaxseed supplementation in diet of dairy cow on the volatile organic compounds of raw milk by HS-GC–IMS”.
The comments were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance to our research. We studied the reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revisions based on these comments.
The main corrections and our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:
Reviewer1. The manuscript entitled ‘T9,c12,c15-C18:3: an Intermediate of α-Linolenic Acid Shifted Rumen Biohydrogenation Pathway?’ is within the scope of the Journal. It presents some new information and interesting data about the possible existence of FA biohydrogenation new pathway with the participation of t9,c12,c15-C18:3 as an intermediate. Despite this, in my opinion the manuscript needs some major improvements before it can be published in the Journal. The English of the manuscript needs to be improved by a specialist (line by line).
[Response]
We have improved the English by a specialist.
Below I present some specific comments that should be considered by authors.
The lack of lines number made the paper review a bit difficult. When something (in my opinion) needs to be changed, I referred to the sections or subsections. I hope that this is understandable for authors.
[Response]
We apologize for this mistake, and have added lines number in the revised manuscript.
- Title: I suggest to change the title. For me is to strong.
We have revised the title to “Biohydrogenation Pathway of α-Linolenic Acid in Rumen of Dairy Cow in vitro”
- Please check and unify the name of acid ‘t9,c12,c15-C18:3’ vs. ‘t9,c2,c15-C18:3’ throughout the manuscript. For me it should be ‘t9,c12, c15-C18:3’.
[Response]
We have revised ‘t9,c2,c15-C18:3’ to ‘t9,c12,c15-C18:3’, and this revision has been made in L17, L20.
- It should be ‘PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids)’ instead of ‘UPFA’. Please correct (Introduction section).
[Response]
We have revised ‘UPFA’ to ‘PUFA’, and this revision has been made in L40, L43.
- It should be ‘previous study?’ instead of ‘pervious’ throughout the whole manuscript.
[Response]
We have revised ‘pervious’ to ‘previous study’, and this revision has been made in L144, L156, L182.
- ‘biohydrogenation’ instead of ‘biohydrogen’ (Introduction section).
[Response]
We have revised ‘biohydrogen’ to ‘biohydrogenation’, and this revision has been made in L52.
- Why did you extract fatty acids in plasma and milk? You have only ruminal fluid. Please check carefully (Materials and Methods section).
[Response]
We apologize for this mistake, and have revised ‘plasma and milk’ to ‘ruminal fluid’ in L75.
- Please delete ‘3.’ from the end of sentence (2.3. Statistical Analysis subsection).
[Response]
We apologize for this mistake, and have delated ‘3.’ in L101.
- should be ‘t9t12t15-C18:3’ instead of ‘t9t12t5-C18:3’. Please check.
[Response]
We have revised ‘t9t12t5-C18:3’ to ‘t9,t12,t15-C18:3’, and this revision has been made in L112.
- ‘Few studies reported that t9c12c15-C18:3 was in rumen fluid.’ Please add references.
[Response]
As so far, we have not found relevant reports about t9c12c15-C18:3 in rumen fluid, but in order to ensure the scientific rigor. Thus, we write “Few studies reported that t9c12c15-C18:3 was in rumen fluid” in this article.
- Please add space ‘at 1 hour’ (Results and Discussion section).
[Response]
We have added space ‘at 1 hour’ in article.
- ‘The change of C18:2 t9c12 showed the same trend as …’ – as what?
[Response]
We have revised ‘C18:2 t9c12’ to ‘t9,c12-C18:2’, and this revision has been made in L128.
- Please put attention to cite the references properly according to the Journal guidelines (refer to Ferlay et al., 2017) (Results and Discussion section).
[Response]
We apologize for this mistake, and have removed ‘(refer to Ferlay et al., 2017)’ in L139.
- should be ‘Figure 2’ (Results and Discussion section).
[Response]
We have revised ‘figure 2’ to ‘Figure 2’, and this revision has been made in L152.
-‘As shown in figure 2, with the concentration decrease …’ of what acid? Please add.
[Response]
We apologize for this mistake, and have added ‘of ALA’ in article in L152.
- It should be ‘might be also a product of t9c12-C18:2 biohydrogenation’ instead of ‘might also biohydrogenation product of t9c12-C18:2’.
[Response]
We have revised ‘might also biohydrogenation product of t9c12-C18:2’ to ‘might be also a product of t9c12-C18:2 biohydrogenation’, and this revision has been made in L166.
- Please use only initials in the Author Contributions.
[Response]
We have revised in article, and showed in L194- L196.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The work is very important and warrants consideration for publication. It is a fact that a lot has been learnt about the fermentation pathways in the rumen over the years, particularly about CLA isomers formation. However, this study clearly shows that we are still finding new information and that can potentially result on impacts on animal/human physiology/health. Despite this, I feel that the manuscript still lacks clarity and needs minor revision to further clarify some specific points before it is accepted. These changes should improve the overall quality of the material and help it meet the high standards of this Journal.
Please find a PDF file with my comments to assist authors on this task.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the positive, constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of flaxseed supplementation in diet of dairy cow on the volatile organic compounds of raw milk by HS-GC–IMS”.
The comments were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance to our research. We studied the reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revisions based on these comments. Please find attached the revised version, which we would like to submit for your consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I am generally satisfied with changes made to the manuscript. However, I have some minor suggestions, which should be done before the manuscript can be published in Animals.
Below I present some of my minor comments.
L38-39: should be ‘can increase’;
L44-45: should be ‘cis-trans’ in italics;
L91,92,94: it would be better to add brackets when Authors mentioned about several isomers;
L10 (2.3. Statistical Analysis): should be ‘The results (…)’;
L11 (Results and Discussion): Few studies have reported that t9,c12,c15-C18:3 has 114 been found in rumen fluid and it has been reported in the processing of food [5].
In my opinion if there are no studies detecting t9,c12,c15-C18:3 in the rumen, the Authors should not write that they exist. I think that Authors should only refer to what really is and mention about detecting this acid in the processing of food, because it was discovered by Yang et al. (2014).
L15 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘cis double bond’ in italics;
L15 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘showed that ALA’;
L17 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘trans configurations’;
L18 (Conclusions): remove double ‘this’ from the manuscript;
L18 (Conclusions): should be ‘cis-trans’;
L18 (Conclusions): The cis-trans isomerization of ALA from c9,c12,c15 C18:3 isomerizes to 188 t9,c12,c15-C18:3 can happen in situ and the ortho-position c9,c12,c15-C18:3 isomerized to 189 t10,c12,c15-C18:3.
Please review wording (different English tenses in one sentence).
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the positive, constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of flaxseed supplementation in diet of dairy cow on the volatile organic compounds of raw milk by HS-GC–IMS”.
The comments were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance to our research. We studied the reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revisions based on these comments.
The main corrections and our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:
L38-39: should be ‘can increase’;
[Response]
We have revised ‘can increase’ to ‘can increase’, and this revision has been made in L37-L38.
L44-45: should be ‘cis-trans’ in italics;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L44.
L91,92,94: it would be better to add brackets when Authors mentioned about several isomers;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L90, L91, L93.
L10 (2.3. Statistical Analysis): should be ‘The results (…)’;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L102.
L11 (Results and Discussion): Few studies have reported that t9,c12,c15-C18:3 has 114 been found in rumen fluid and it has been reported in the processing of food [5].
In my opinion if there are no studies detecting t9,c12,c15-C18:3 in the rumen, the Authors should not write that they exist. I think that Authors should only refer to what really is and mention about detecting this acid in the processing of food, because it was discovered by Yang et al. (2014).
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L113-L114.
L15 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘cis double bond’ in italics;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L156.
L15 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘showed that ALA’;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L157.
L17 (Results and Discussion): should be ‘trans configurations’;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L173.
L18 (Conclusions): remove double ‘this’ from the manuscript;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L182.
L18 (Conclusions): should be ‘cis-trans’;
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L184.
L18 (Conclusions): The cis-trans isomerization of ALA from c9,c12,c15 C18:3 isomerizes to 188 t9,c12,c15-C18:3 can happen in situ and the ortho-position c9,c12,c15-C18:3 isomerized to 189 t10,c12,c15-C18:3.
Please review wording (different English tenses in one sentence).
[Response]
We have revised, and this revision has been made in L186.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
