¹H-NMR-Based Plasma Metabolomic Profiling of Crossbred Beef Cattle with Divergent RFI Phenotype

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

A conclusion is missing

Introduction

What is the hypothesis of the study? Present the hypothesis clearly

Result and discussion

Line 189= Delete the name Ponnampalam et al., 2022, it must be the reference [38]

It is necessary to improve the way the figures are positioned in the text.

Line 202-216 = I understand and agree with the authors. However, what is missing is to use the values from the analysis (logistic regression) and apply it in the biological context, which will make the discussion even better.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. These are really insightful and has made this piece a better one. All comments and suggestions have been duely attended to. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript evaluated the plasma metabolome of crossbred cattle with divergent feed efficiency. The study is very interesting, and the results obtained are of great interest to the literature. Some studies involving omics sciences have already been conducted in beef cattle; however, there are still gaps in our knowledge regarding the metabolism of feed efficiency in beef cattle.

Certainly, it's a good practice to include keywords that complement the title and enhance the searchability of the manuscript. This can help improve the visibility and discoverability of the research. So, try not to use the same words from the title.

L26: Define ROC

In the introduction, I would suggest that the authors add more updated references of omics studies related to feed efficiency in cattle. I believe it would better substantiate the study, potentially even reducing the part discussing the NMR technique itself.

In section 2.1, I suggest including a table with the phenotypic data (DMI, ADG, RFI, BW) of the two groups of animals (high and low RFI).

L104: Actually, the technique has the potential to measure many more metabolites.

L125: Define AUC

L142-145: This sentence should have been in the previous section.

L206-218: This sentence should have been in the previous section.

In the discussion, the authors should add more updated references of omics studies related to feed efficiency in cattle.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. These are really insightful and has made this piece a better one. All comments and suggestions have been duely attended to. One again, we thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript  ^‘H-NMR-Based Plasma Metabolomic Profiling of Crossbred Beef Cattle with Divergent RFI Phenotype’ is a well written article. The article provided interesting information on  the use of metabolomics to  understand metabolic changes,  and whether this may be involved in feed efficiency difference in crossbred steers. 

 In this reviewer’s opinion, however, prior to publication  various comments should be addressed. 

Line 78: What was the ‘breed’ background of the crossbred steers (ie Charolais  vs Angus  ve Hereford  etc). The breed selection could effect the RFI values -  as certain breeds are more efficient in feed conversion than others. As such the data may not be applicable  across all beef cattle breed. This comment should be addressed in the discussion

Line 78: Why were only  steers examined in the experiment  (ie  not heifers) as  sex differences can potentially affect RFI. As such is the data only representative of male (castrated) beef cattle. This distinction should be discussed and how it may affect data interpretation across various aspects of the  beef cattle industry.

Line 97: Why were serum samples not harvested at the beginning and perhaps midpoint of the experiment. This could provide a not only a baseline of individual animal metabolic profiles but provide additional data on temporal changes of metabolites throughout the trial.  This could provide interesting information intra -animal variations during the experiment. Perhaps this could be briefly addressed (speculated) as to whether any potential variations would affect the data interpretation.

Line172: The authors inferred that changes in tyrosine level maybe beneficial and improve overall animal health by enhancing immune function and protecting from infectious disease. Was there any indication of ill health or disease (ie rumen acidosis, foot rot) in the steers prior to the experiment. Were the steers assessed by a veterinarian prior to, during, and at the completion completion of the experiment. A statement should be added to indicate that there was no indication of disease throughout the experiment.

Minor point - Line 189: Incorrect formatting of references – (Ponnampalam et 189 al., 2022)

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. These are really insightful and has made this piece a better one. All comments and suggestions have been duely attended to. One again, we thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no comments

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments were adequately addressed by the authors.  In my opinion, this manuscript  is ready for publication