Next Article in Journal
Growth Performance and Fecal Microbiota of Dairy Calves Supplemented with Autochthonous Lactic Acid Bacteria as Probiotics in Mexican Western Family Dairy Farming
Next Article in Special Issue
Nociception in Chicken Embryos, Part III: Analysis of Movements before and after Application of a Noxious Stimulus
Previous Article in Journal
Treatments and Prognosis for Subchondral Cystic Lesions in the Distal Extremities in Thoroughbred Prospect Racehorses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nociception in Chicken Embryos, Part I: Analysis of Cardiovascular Responses to a Mechanical Noxious Stimulus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 18
10.3390/ani13182839
Review Report
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nociception in Chicken Embryos, Part II: Embryonal Development of Electroencephalic Neuronal Activity In Ovo as a Prerequisite for Nociception

Animals 2023, 13(18), 2839; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182839
by Sandra Kollmansperger 1,†, Malte Anders 1,2,†, Julia Werner 3, Anna M. Saller 3, Larissa Weiss 3, Stephanie C. Süß 3, Judith Reiser 3, Gerhard Schneider 1, Benjamin Schusser 4, Christine Baumgartner 3 and Thomas Fenzl 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Animals 2023, 13(18), 2839; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182839
Submission received: 23 July 2023 / Revised: 29 August 2023 / Accepted: 30 August 2023 / Published: 7 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anaesthesia and Pain Management in Large Animals)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Following Part 1 of this study on finding the nociception onset during embryonic development in chicken, aiming to increase knowledge in this regard and thus improve animal welfare protection, it is noticeable that this study is far better developed than Part I. The methodology is clear, and methods/techniques were very well presented. Authors portrayed a sound and a scientifically enjoyable study.

Nonetheless, I propose a more adept presentation of the statistical analyses. There appears to be a resemblance to those performed in Part 1, where the analysis shown lacks rigor and does not align with the overall quality of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment for our answers.

Please use Version 2 (updated).

Thank you very much for your precious support

Best regards

Thomas Fenzl

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors in the presented work touch on an important topic - the ability to feel pain by chicken embryos. Chicken embryos are a biological research model, so a thorough study of their nervous system is very important.

As for the article itself, I have a few comments:

In which ED were thermal and electrical stimulation performed?

Was histological analysis performed for phases earlier than ED13?

Section 4.6 - I would consider moving it to the methods section (2.6)

Verse 94 - typo in the word Germany

Can you tell if any of these stimuli caused pain? Are there any known EEG patterns for chickens that indicate pain?Did the obtained EEG reading post-stimulation feel pain to the embryos? Are there reading thresholds that would definitely suggest discomfort?

The conclusions should be more specify.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see attachment for our answers.

Please use Version 2 (updated).

Thank you very much for your precious support

Best regards

Thomas Fenzl

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop