Hyperpigmentation Inhibits Early Skeletal Muscle Development in Tengchong Snow Chicken Breed
, Jing Fu 1,†, Yang He 1, Zijian Li 1, Jiajia Kang 1, Changjie Hu 1, Xiannian Zi 1, Yong Liu 1, Jinbo Zhao 1, Tengfei Dou 1, Junjing Jia 1, Yong Duan 2, Kun Wang 1 and Changrong Ge 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper could be interesting, but many parts of it are unclear, thus it is very difficult to evaluate it.
The paper should give more details on the studied breed, its growth rate, the adult body weight, the percentage of birds with white meat. By the photos in figure 1, it seems that the adult body weight is similar to those of commercial hybrids, and black is heavier than white. Furthermore, it is unclear why muscle analyses on young birds were carried out, and many data are referred to hens. How do the birds with white meat are recognized?
Rows
2-3: you should add “chicken breed”
21: thirty hens: the number of birds and the age are inconsistent with data written in M&M. What do you mean?
83: small number. What does it mean? Percentage is better.
95: year of the document.
101: hens?
102: genotype instead of breed could be better.
107: only the diet is shown; furthermore, a diet for hens, not for chicks. Units not shown.
144: ten hens?
164: unclear.
170-176: some unclear sentences. More details for the traits are needed.
Figure 1: I do not understand why photos of hens are shown. Graphics show wrong title of X axis (in the other graphics, also!!). You should give a description of all the traits shown in figures and graphics, define breast muscle rate, as well as other traits, in M&M. Statistical significance is indicated only for some ages, and the description is inconsistent with the data of graphics. Furthermore, the model and the main factor(s) used for ANOVA are unclear: age and/or genotype? The number of samples is unclear.
Figure2 and 3: titles of the graphics and x and y axis are not readable.
207-230: which ANOVA, for your description of the results?
Figure 4: 1d photo (breast) is not shown. More details for the photos should be given.
Figure 5: more details for the photos should be given. Unclear. Indications for statistical significance (letters) show errors and are unclear.
In many parts of the text, the description of the results and the discussion seem to be inconsistent with the data shown in the figures.
Some errors in references.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There were no major concerns in the manuscript. The reviewer pointed out several comments and suggestions which may improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. Please provide more details for qPCR primer information. For example, the fragment size (pb) and Accession numbers etc. for all primer sequences listed in Table 2-2, it would be helpful to have the information presented in tabular form.
2. Figure 1A, B and C need to merge into one picture. Figures 2, 4, and 5 are the same as that. In addition, all figures need to be cited in detail. If not, it is difficult to match the statement and figures.
3. Image resolution needs to be improved. Particularly in bar diagrams. The font is too small to distinguish.
4. The layout of the manuscript is pretty bad. Please check and re-organize it carefully.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved, but it still shows many unclear points.
The word "hen" is shown in the text many times, thus the paper, which studied the effect of age, also, is unclear.
Slaughter procedure does not show all the passages for obtaining the samples and the data shown in the tables.
The comparison between data (means) shown in the tables and figures (and captions) is still unclear.
Some figures still need changes.
The date of the approval ID is not shown.
Author Response
Please see the attachment！
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
