Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessReview

Peer-Review Record

Managing Gut Microbiota through In Ovo Nutrition Influences Early-Life Programming in Broiler Chickens

Animals 2021, 11(12), 3491; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123491

by Abdelrazeq M. Shehata^1,2,*

, Vinod K. Paswan¹, Youssef A. Attia^3,*

, Abdel-Moneim Eid Abdel-Moneim⁴

, Mohammed Sh. Abougabal², Mohamed Sharaf^5,6

, Reda Elmazoudy^7,8

, Wejdan T. Alghafari⁹

, Mohamed A. Osman^7,8, Mayada R. Farag¹⁰ and Mahmoud Alagawany^11,*

Reviewer 1:

Samuel N. Mwangi

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Animals 2021, 11(12), 3491; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123491

Submission received: 5 November 2021 / Revised: 1 December 2021 / Accepted: 2 December 2021 / Published: 7 December 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feed Intervention in Livestock Nutrition: Effects on Gut Microbial Ecology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provided a review on "Managing Gut Microbiota through in ovo Nutrition Influences Early-Life Programing in Broiler Chickens. I think that the paper is well prepared. However there are some minor grammatical errors that should be addressed.

Comment 1: Ln 42. Delete "affecting"

Comment 2: Ln 74: Reference provided in different format.

Comment 3: Ln 108: correct to ......"and a means to jump start development".

Comment 4: Ln 136: correct to read...."eggs are formed in an internal...."

Comment 5: Ln 150: The reference is provided in different format that the rest.

Comment 6: Ln 156: Replace "were" with "Had"

Comment 7: Ln 195: Specify which category/class of genes were influenced by the bacterial community in the referenced paper.

Comment 8: Ln 258: replace "newborn chicks" with "newly hatched chicks".

Comment 9: Ln 269: delete "of which".

Comment 10: Ln 329: Reference format is different from the rest.

Comment 11: Ln 408-410: Rewrite this segment its not very clear.

Comment 12: Ln 539: delete "growing recognition of"

Comment 13: Ln 570: delete " have been found"

Comment 14: Change font on figure 3 to make it more legible

Author Response

Academic Editor Comments: Dear authors, although I decided to continue to peer-review the manuscript, I suggest you to look into Figure 3, readability is poor and should be amended

Response

Thanks a lot for this comment, we improved the figure as suggested.

Reviewer 1#

Comment 1: Ln 42. Delete "affecting"

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested.

Comment 2: Ln 74: Reference provided in different format.

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 77.

Comment 3: Ln 108: correct to ......"and a means to jump start development".

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 111, 112.

Comment 4: Ln 136: correct to read...."eggs are formed in an internal...."

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 139.

Comment 5: Ln 150: The reference is provided in different format that the rest.

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 153.

Comment 6: Ln 156: Replace "were" with "Had"

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 159

Comment 7: Ln 195: Specify which category/class of genes were influenced by the bacterial community in the referenced paper.

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 198, 199.

Comment 8: Ln 258: replace "newborn chicks" with "newly hatched chicks".

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 279.

Comment 9: Ln 269: delete "of which".

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested.

Comment 10: Ln 329: Reference format is different from the rest.

Response

Thanks for this comment, done as suggested Ln 350.

Comment 11: Ln 408-410: Rewrite this segment its not very clear.

Response

Thanks for this observation, we rewrote it as suggested Ln 430-433.

Comment 12: Ln 539: delete "growing recognition of"

Response

Thanks for this comment, we deleted it as suggested.

Comment 13: Ln 570: delete " have been found"

Response

Thanks for this comment, we deleted it as suggested

Comment 14: Change font on figure 3 to make it more legible

Response

Thanks for this observation, done as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript provided an overview on the effects of in ovo feeding on gut development during the early life in broiler chickens. This review article expanded our knowledge on the early nutrition programming and well-summarized the recent findings. Please, find my comments below

I would suggest to add a couple of tables to summarized the recent findings
In Fig. 3 adjust the font to be easily read.

Author Response

I would suggest to add a couple of tables to summarized the recent findings

Response

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have added two tables as suggested.

In Fig. 3 adjust the font to be easily read.

Response

We improved the figure as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Corresponding Author,

Please, find comments and suggestions listed line-by-line below. Next, clearly and in detail respond to all reviewer's queries and doubts.

Title - the Reviewer does not understand the term „early-life programming”, it should be more specific/detailed.

L8 - [email protected] - please, change to organization mail.
L14 - [email protected] - as above, please, do not use the private mail addresses.
L23 - [email protected] - as above
L25 - [email protected] - as above
L28 - [email protected] - as above
L29 - please correct edit errors.

Simple summary
L36 - ‚selected’ instead of „some of”

Abstract
L38 - „is home” please, do not use a colloquial speech
L48-50 - it is not true due to the fact that there is possible to apply the special system of feeding and watering birds directly after hatching. In various companies the name of technology differs,s however, in this case, it is a „HatchCare”, nevertheless, the results are the same. See the example below,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=yIzEeGM_2QU&feature=emb_logo
L51 - microbiota instead of microflora, please, change the whole manuscript in this case.
L56 - from the reviewer's point of view, first the Authors should explain the „early-life programming” after that the term can be used in the manuscript. The best place for this will be „introduction”. Please, di not use this term in the abstract section.
L57 - selected instead of „some of”
Comment 1 - the abstract section is definitely too long. Please, find the information about the number of words in the Guidance for Authors.

Comment 2 - What is a novelty of the current „review paper”? In the available literature, there is plenty of already published scientific articles about the in ovo modulation of the GIT microbiota, physiology, etc. for instance,
1) Rubio, L. A. (2019). Possibilities of early life programming in broiler chickens via intestinal microbiota modulation. Poultry Science, 98(2), 695-706.
2) Rojman Khomayezi & Deborah Adewole (2021) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: an overview of their delivery routes and effects on growth and health of broiler chickens, World's Poultry Science Journal, DOI: 10.1080/00439339.2022.1988804
3) Oladokun, S., & Adewole, D. I. (2020). In ovo delivery of bioactive substances: an alternative to the use of antibiotic growth promoters in poultry production—a review. Journal of Applied Poultry Research.
4) Leão, A. P. A., Alvarenga, R. R., & Zangeronimo, M. G. (2021). In ovo inoculation of probiotics for broiler chickens: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 115080.

Introduction
L70 - the GIT microbiota instead of the gastrointestinal microbiota
L74 - „(Abd El-Moneim et al. 2020; Abdel-Moneim et al. 2020) „ please, find the information about the citation editing requirements. Furthermore, add the full stop at the end of the sentence.
L77- „Unlike mammals, chicks were believed to hatch with a sterile GIT [13].” It is not true. It is well-documented that the GIT of the birds after they hatch is not sterile. Please, find an example below,
Meijerink, N., Kers, J. G., Velkers, F. C., van Haarlem, D. A., Lamot, D. M., de Oliveira, J. E., ... & Jansen, C. A. (2020). Early life inoculation with adult-derived microbiota accelerates maturation of intestinal microbiota and enhances NK cell activation in broiler chickens. Frontiers in veterinary science, 7, 965.
L78,81,85,91,..etc… - microbiota instead of microflora
L77-82 - from the reviewer's point of view the paragraph should be remodeled, due to the fact that the GIT microbiota populations of the birds at hatch are mainly based on the Enterococcus, Escherichia, and Clostridium. The Lactobacillus and other probiotic bacteria are in the minority. However, in general, the birds survive these conditions due to particularly the innate immune defense.
S. Lim, S. Cho, K. Caetano-Anolles, S.G. Jeong, M.H. Oh, B.Y. Park, H.J. Kim, S. Cho, S.H. Choi, S. Ryu
Developmental dynamic analysis of the excreted microbiome of chickens using next-generation sequencing
J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 25 (2015), pp. 262-268
L86 - please, add the full stop
L93 - feed instead of food; probiotic instead of „healthy”
L105 - „later on” - please, do not use the colloquial speech.
L114 - in the case of chicken the changes in the large intestine are too far… so the prebiotics should positively affect also small intestinal microbiota… however, the crop and gizzard microbiota may affect the bacteria populations in the hindgut. Thus, it is beneficial to affect the microbiota as soon as possible in the bird's gastrointestinal tract.
L124 - „acidifying the colon”, the colon only?
L172 - also the term „flora” is incorrect, please change to microbiota
L179 - „early life-life programming” please, correct.
Comment 3 - from the reviewer's point of view the quality of figure 1 is poor. The suggestion is to remove this figure or improve the quality, as well as the content substantially. Comparable to other already published figures the presented one is unacceptable.
L224 - „from crop to cecum” to ceca
L226 - „i.e., ceca” instead of „called the cecum”
L234 - „gastrointestinal” - GIT
L236 - „the most crucial interactions” in the reviewer's point of view one of the most important part of the GIT of birds is the crop which may affect the population in the further parts. However, the Authors omitted/avoided this GIT segment in the manuscript.
Kierończyk, B., Rawski, M., Długosz, J., Świątkiewicz, S., & Józefiak, D. (2016). Avian crop function–a review. Ann. Anim. Sci, 16(3), 653-678.
Classen, H. L., Apajalahti, J., Svihus, B., & Choct, M. (2016). The role of the crop in poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal, 72(3), 459-472.
L261,275 - „gastrointestinal system” GIT
L276-278 - „Previous research using germ-free hens showed that the weight and wall thickness of the small intestine and cecum were lower than those of normal chickens.” Please, add citations.
L302 - „driver” please, do not use a colloquial speech
Figure 2 - this figure does not add any novel information; thus, from the reviewer's point of view should be removed.
L346 - „native microbiota” it means commensal? Please, change
L441 - „firewall” please, do not use a colloquial speech
L476, 478, 480l481- in terms of „CD4+CD8−CD25+ and CD4+CD8+CD25+” please, use the upper index as in the original paper [112].
L550 - there is a necessity to add the upper indexes.
L552- „significantly improved b in all treatment groups” please, correct.
L555 - „Maiorano and his colleagues” -please, change as follow, Maiorano et al.
L563 - „didn't significantly impact” please, check the grammar
L592 - „Bi2tos” is it correct?
Figure 3 - the quality of the figure is absolutely poor, please, correct.
L649 - „Bifidobacterium” please, use italics
651, 666 - „and colleagues” - please, change to „et al.”
658 - „short-chain fatty acids (SCFA)” change to „SCFA”
665 - „Bifidobacteriaceae and Lactobacillae” facility without the italics
L672 - potentially pathogenic bacteria
L679 - „Clostridium” Please use italics
L680-685 - the sentence have to be removed due to the fact that the numerical changes cannot be taken into consideration (the result is non-significant).
L687, 690 - L. plantarum - please, use italics; inulin

Author Response

Dear Corresponding Author,

Please, find comments and suggestions listed line-by-line below. Next, clearly and in detail respond to all reviewer's queries and doubts.

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered your point below.

Title - the Reviewer does not understand the term „early-life programming”, it should be more specific/detailed.

Response

The term "early-life programming" refers to the way in which environmental factors, including nutrition, alter the course of fetal development, resulting in enduring modifications in the structure and function of biological systems. Recently, the concept of early-life programming has been well-introduced. Please review the following articles [1-4]. We explained this term in the section of Introduction.

L8 - [email protected] - please, change to organization mail.

Response