Review Reports
by
- Chengfang Gao 1,†,
- Shikun Sun 1,† and
- Lei Sang 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Rishav Kumar Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important topic in animal nutrition, meat quality and rabbit production, and the study is generally well designed, clearly structured, and methodologically comprehensive. The authors are to be commended for the breadth of parameters evaluated, including growth performance, meat quality, antioxidant status, and intestinal morphology, which collectively provide a valuable dataset. However, several aspects require clarification and refinement to strengthen the scientific rigor and transparency of the study. These include the need for clearer justification of the statistical approach, more detailed reporting of key methodological procedures (e.g., definition of the experimental unit, clarification of the total number of experimental observations effectively used in each analysis, random selection criteria and representativeness of the subset of animals used for detailed biochemical and tissue analyses (n = 8 per group), sample allocation procedures, and analytical conditions), as well as improved consistency in the interpretation of results, particularly regarding mechanistic inferences that extend beyond the experimental evidence. Additionally, minor corrections in tables and methodological descriptions would further improve clarity and reproducibility. Overall, the manuscript has strong potential, but would benefit from minor revision to enhance methodological transparency and interpretative balance. The detailed comments and suggestions for the authors are provided in the attached document for further consideration.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
View the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The manuscript states that replicate was included as a random effect, but the experimental design and statistical model are not sufficiently described. Please clarify the experimental unit used for analysis (individual rabbit or cage/group).
- Mortality rate was analyzed using t-test, although there were more than two treatment groups. Consider using chi-square analysis or generalized linear models instead.
- Some sections report n = 8, while Figure 1 states n = 6. Please verify and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.
- Several mechanistic explanations regarding GH/IGF-1 signaling, mitochondrial electron transport, and Nrf2 activation are speculative because these pathways were not directly measured.
- Please moderate the wording and indicate these mechanisms as potential explanations rather than confirmed pathways.
- The Discussion is informative but somewhat repetitive and overly detailed in several sections, particularly Sections 4.3 and 4.4. Consider condensing repetitive explanations to improve readability.
- Please clarify whether rabbits were male, female, or mixed-sex.
- Provide the purity/source information for CoQ10 supplementation.
- Explain why 60 mg/kg appeared optimal while higher doses reduced effectiveness.
- Table formatting should be improved for readability.
- The statement on antioxidant enzyme “dose-dependent responses” should be used cautiously because responses were not always linear.
- The conclusion section could be shortened slightly to avoid repeating earlier discussion points.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. I have answered each question point by point and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript, which are highlighted in blue. I look forward to your reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aims to investigate the effects of dietary coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation on growth performance, slaughter performance, meat quality, antioxidant capacity, serum profiles, and intestinal morphology in Minxinan black rabbits. It is an interesting article that can add to the field. However, there are some suggestions and comments to improve it.
L.32: Mention the rabbit strain/line.
L.34-35: “Results indicated that CoQ10 supplementation exerted significant dose-dependent effects across multiple parameters”: What did you mean?
L.36: Clarify the marketing age.
L.52: “meat rabbits”: You can better replace it with “broiler rabbits”.
L.58: How did you write that? Rabbits don’t have a high FCR.
L.59: Reference 2 can be replaced with another recent one like: https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2025.48.6.481
As a general comment, follow the author guidelines in writing the reference numbers.
L.63: Correct literature, you can keep it.
L.64-67: Needs better organization.
L.66: The literature mentioned weren’t suitable/correct for this statement! Why use cattle references, for example, when you have available references on rabbits? Add related recent ones instead, such as: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152271
L.82-83: “poultry and livestock”: You mean “poultry and fish”. Carefully revise the mentioned references.
L.83: I suggest completing this paragraph by mentioning the effects of using CoQ10 on rabbits (applications). You can refer, for example, to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2019.106403
L.84-85: Why did you ignore important related literature, such as:
https://doi.org/10.21608/ejvs.2024.325174.2399
L.84-99: It can be written better.
L.107: I guess the weaning weight was lower than standard! Is there any reason?
L.109-110: How many replicates for each group?
L.110: “fed twice daily”: When exactly?
L.246: “Statistical analysis” section is long, but makes sense.
Tables: Table 1 (for example) is better to be P-value analyzed as G, group; L, linear; and Q, quadratic.
As a suggestion, some figures can be replaced with tables for better understanding, like Fig. 1.
L.627: Expand.
L.641-643: Needs clarification.
L.647-650: What is this?!! Did you use an AI tool/app for writing your paper without editing it?
L.654-658: Which level? You should mention that.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. I have answered each question point by point and made corresponding revisions in the manuscript, which are highlighted in blue. I look forward to your reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood improvement has been performed. But there are still some minor revisions that need to be addressed.
Keywords: You need to add a key word referring to "meat quality" (like version 1).
Introduction: Just justify (organize) the paragraphs for better readability.
Ref. 42 and 43 were on pork, not rabbits. If you can replace them with others on rabbits, it will be accurate.
Author Response
Thanks to the meticulous observation of the reviewers, we have added "meat quality" to the keywords, and have changed references 42 and 43 to those related to rabbits.