Evaluation of Growing Turkey Blood Biochemistry Panel Measured Using the VetScan VS2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The objectives of this paper were to determine the effect of time post sampling on turkey blood chemistry analysis, to compare analyte parameters of the VS2 to the Cobas c501 benchtop lab analyzer and to generate blood chemistry reference intervals for growing turkeys. The evaluation of blood chemistry and electrolyte values in poultry medicine is increasing and there is a dearth of information in the literature pertaining to blood chemistry in avian species. The work presented in this paper is of value to poultry veterinarians and nutritionists endeavoring to incorporate these tools into their practice and appears to be the first paper to examine turkey blood parameters. I am grateful for the opportunity to review this paper.
The title “Evaluation of Growing Turkey Blood Biochemistry Panel Measured the VetScan VS2” is worded oddly. Is it missing a word? For instance: “Evaluation of Growing Turkey Blood Biochemistry Panel Measured using the VetScan VS2”
This article appears to combine work from 2 turkey projects – one to evaluate the impact of time on analytes and to compare analyte parameters of the VS2 and Cobas c501 and the other to generate reference intervals based on data collected over a 3-year period, from 5 different turkey flocks. The second portion of this article, the generation of reference values, is where some additional clarification may be helpful. Were the 5 independent turkey flocks also housed at the TAU? Were they always the same breed of turkey or were different breeds used? Was the nutrition program relatively similar or were there key differences worth noting?
In section 2.1 of Methods, second paragraph,
Were needles pre-flushed with lithium heparin as well, given that the analytes in question included sodium, and presumably that is why lithium heparin tubes were specifically used, rather than sodium heparin?
In section 2.2 of Methods – Generation of blood biochemistry reference intervals:
The first sentence indicates 330 blood samples were collected over a 3-year period from 5 independent turkey flocks.
In section 3.3 Impact of Turkey age on blood analyte values:
Presumably the samples analyzed were of the original 330 samples described in the methods, section 2.2. However only 120 samples were analyzed from the brooder period and 118 samples analyzed from the grower period, totaling 238 samples. A total of 3 brooding and 1 growing sample were excluded because of quality check failures. Is there an explanation for why the other 92 samples were not included or analyzed?
Does there need to be an explanation as to why a minimum of 10 samples were collected a day for up to 10 days, over the course of several days? Perhaps this is to manage time constraints given that if a single VS2 machine was in use and each sample takes approximately 15 minutes to generate a result, sampling 10 birds could require approximately 2.5 hours of time?
Table 1 Is titled “Descriptive statistics for the biochemical analytes measured by the i-STAT with CG8+ cartridges…”
This appears to be a type-o or copy and paste error and should likely read ‘Descriptive statistics for the biochemical analytes measured by the VS2 with Avian/Reptile Profile Plus cartridge…”
In 4. Discussion:
First paragraph, second last sentence “This may be especially important for turkey veterinarians…”
Could be broadened to poultry veterinarians as brooding temperatures (for turkeys, chickens, quail etc.) would be higher than ‘room temperature’ and not ideal for storing samples at prior to testing.
In 4. Discussion, page 8,
The sentence “On the other hand, the lower limit of the calculated reference interval was higher in the turkeys, both brooder (2.50 mg/dL) and growing (3.38 mg/dL) periods, than the reported in adult backyard hens (2)”
The (2) reference is to a paper on ionized calcium. Perhaps the authors meant to reference the paper listed 3rd in the references section?
There is inconsistency in indicating the manufacturer and location for products/devices used. For example, 2ml Lithium Heparin tubes (BD Biosciences, Franklin Lakes NJ) is listed.
Vetscan VS2 (Zoetis, Parsippany, NJ) is not listed.
The references should be modified to meet the format requested by the journal; in order of appearance, and in square brackets.
Author Response
Thank you for the helpful revision. Below are our answers to your questions and comments. The attached document has our responses to all and each of your questions. We hope you find our responses satisfactory.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have evaluated the manuscript and after critically evaluating I am of the opinion that this manuscript is a suitable and potential catch for this journal.
The idea is very well conceptualized, as the utilization of modern-day technology for precise and accurate information about serum chemistry is the need of the hour and could be more helpful even for medical sciences. In Galliformes, Turkey is the most popular bird after chicken and its utilization as a broiler is very common in America and European countries. In that regard, the authors selected a very unique subject with novelty. First of all, comparative evaluation of Vetscan (VS2) and benchtop analyzer (Cobas c501) for serum chemistry of Turkey blood and then evaluating age-related changes in blood biochemical profile make this manuscript attractive.
The manuscript is very well written with abstract highlighting all the basic aspects of VS2 and Cobas c501 with general information about the results of these two machines followed by the concluding remarks. The introduction section is also well elaborated with the structure of general to specific where the last paragraph conclusively describes the needs of the project. The materials and methods section is well defined, all the techniques are briefly described for the readers followed by a statistical analysis elaborating how statistical tools have been efficiently utilized. The results and discussion section is very well written, all the results describe efficiently and supported by graphs. These results are ideally justified by the discussion.
The authors concluded that VS2 can be used as an additional diagnostic tool in poultry medicine and management. The design and portability of the machine make it ideal for field applications. Furthermore, Turkey’s blood biochemical values were stable over a 60-minute time interval.
After critically evaluating this manuscript, I will give a high recommendation of this manuscript and this will be a good catch for this journal as this manuscript has great potential for citations.
Author Response
Thank you for the positive feedback and kind comments. We hope that you enjoy the revised manuscript, even more than our original submission.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study reported the evaluation of growing turkey blood biochemistry panel measured the VetScan VS2, this study showed very interesting about turkey blood biochemistry using VS2. Some revisions are required.
ABSTRACT
Why evaluate possible time-dependent changes in biochemical blood analyses over 60 min only? How many birds in each replicate were used?
This study offers reassurance of the validity of the use of portable analyzers in the field for turkey veterinarians. Did you compare the obtained results with references??
INTRODUCTION
Additional paragraphs must improve the introduction section regarding why such parameters were measured and compare the results with references or other standard analysis methods?
Please check the cited number, why did you start with (13), a lot of cited references numbering is missing!!!!
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Do you collect blood samples from the brachial vein for fasted birds???
Please try to explain why all blood samples were analyzed within 1 hour of the collection?
In statistical analysis what were the experimental units for the different parameters?
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What are the underline mechanisms that induced differences in blood biochemistry?. You didn't explain the obtained results with normal physiological ranges?
Author Response
We are grateful for the thorough review and helpful comments. The attached document has our responses to all and each of your questions. We hope you find our responses satisfactory.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
