Effects of Oligosaccharide Fermentation on Canine Gut Microbiota and Fermentation Metabolites in an In Vitro Fecal Fermentation Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to congratulate the Authors very carefully prepared manuscript. But could you explain what is so special in underlining that the donor breed dog were Border Collies? It does not matter at all or rather: may be misleading even.
In MDPI fermentation a following text was recently published: Kim, H.S.; Titgemeyer, E.C.; Aldrich, C.G. Evaluation of Fermentability of Whole Soybeans and Soybean Oligosaccharides by a Canine In Vitro Fermentation Model. Fermentation 2023, 9, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9050414. This text should be a benchmark for the current manuscript but unfortunately it is not.
I would strongly suggest that the data on nutrient composition of the dogs diet should be added to the text.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
The Authors checked the digestive effects and microbiome changes in the canine feces inoculum with the addition of chosen oligosaccharides. The subject is moderately relevant and most likely not particularly interesting for readers, especially considering excellent paper recently published in MDPI fermentation, namely: Kim, H.S.; Titgemeyer, E.C.; Aldrich, C.G. Evaluation of Fermentability of Whole Soybeans and Soybean Oligosaccharides by a Canine In Vitro Fermentation Model. Fermentation 2023, 9, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9050414. This text could be a benchmark for the current manuscript but unfortunately there is nothing special about it.
2. How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Using canine feces inoculum in in vitro digestive studies is quite common in the current scientific literature. So the final conclusion is: nothing new. It is worth noticing, that the Authors try to convince us that using dogs of border Collie breed as donors offers some unique qualities to the experiment. But it does not.
3. Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
However, it was a pleasure to read the text. For me it is an example of carefully prepared scientific writing.
4. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
I think that all the conclusions proposed by the Authors are generally valid and address the aim of the study. But again I doubt that it shall be of a great interest for potential readers.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind help with our paper (Manuscript ID: fermentation-2510710).
We appreciate your valuable comments, which are very useful and insightful for improving the manuscript. We have carefully considered all of these comments in the revised version. The following are the details for our point-by-point response to these comments. These comments are reproduced, and our responses are given directly afterward in red font. We sincerely hope that you are pleased with the changes we have made and that you approve of this revised version.
BEST REGARDS
Yours Sincerely,
Zhengping Wang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting and timely study investigating the microbiome responses to different prebiotic oligosaccharides. The study is well described and positioned and the microbiome analyses are correctly performed using standard methods.
My main concerns which could be addressed in a statement of limitations of the study is as follows:
1. The in vitro colonic model used for fermentation involved the use of one breed of dog. Future studies could look across breeds.
2. The three dogs used for the study are all healthy. Dogs with health conditions may respond differently. This could be a topic for a future study.
3. The researchers made the decision to combine the material from the three dogs into a composite with three replicates. This composite approach is suboptimal if you consider the microbes in feces representing part of a stable interacting community. By combining them into composites, there will be species interactions as a result of this disruption occurring irrespective of the prebiotic treatment.
4. Further, due to the composite approach, this study does not address individual variation within the Border Collie in response to the prebiotic intervention.
Finally one additional thought I had is that if you considered the composite to be a healthy balanced state (which is isn't because it is a composite), then the prebiotics are disrupting the bacterial composition.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper (Manuscript ID: fermentation-2510710).
We appreciate your valuable comments, which are very useful and insightful for improving the manuscript. We have carefully considered all of these comments in the revised version. Followings are the details for our point-by-point response to these comments. These comments are reproduced, and our responses are given directly afterward in red font. We sincerely hope that you are satisfied with our response and revision, and that you approve of this revised version.
BEST REGARDS
Yours Sincerely,
Zhengping Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
