Next Article in Journal
Physiological and Transcriptomic Analyses of Escherichia coli Serotype O157:H7 in Response to Rhamnolipid Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
The Association between Gut Microbiota and Depression in the Japanese Population
Previous Article in Journal
The Probiotic Bacillus subtilis MB40 Improves Immunity in a Porcine Model of Listeriosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gut Microbiota and Respiratory Infections: Insights from Mendelian Randomization
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Infant Saliva Microbiome Activity Modulates Nutritional Impacts on Neurodevelopment

Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 2111; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082111
by Terrah Keck-Kester and Steven D. Hicks *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 2111; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082111
Submission received: 29 June 2023 / Revised: 12 August 2023 / Accepted: 16 August 2023 / Published: 18 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gut Microbiota: Health, Clinical & Beyonds)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This cohort study validated the relationship between infant saliva microbiome activity and neurodevelopment, which is an interesting topic. Here I have a concern. As for the detection or analyze in neurodevelopment capacity, the author only valued the time in 18 month, why only chosen this time point ? even longer time for evaluation of the neurodevelopment capacity might be needed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the Authors report the impact of nutrition and microbiome on child neurodevelopment. Interestingly, Authors showed that oral microbial diversity at six months was able to influence the impact of infant fish consumption on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 months. The study is very interesting, well written and well conducted. 

However, I have some minor concerns:

- I would suggest to better clarify inclusion and exclusion criteria. Maybe it would be useful to make a numbered list;

- It would be useful to rearrange  Table 1 in order to have everything reported, such as males number, public health insurance, etc.. It is more exhaustive include such informations in table, rather than in the text;

- The graph in Figure 1 is very difficult to understand. I would suggest to show it differently, in order to understand all the different microbes;

- In Matherial and Methods and Results sections, it is stated that total participants were 142, while in the abstract is reported 221. Please unify this discrepancy.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop