A Combined Differential Proteome and Transcriptome Profiling of Fast- and Slow-Twitch Skeletal Muscle in Pigs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

Lines 16-18: I believe the previous findings should not be mentioned in the abstract; please remove them.

Line 75 : the reference (mach et al,,,,,,,)year is not included or the number as the journal required ?

Line 111: please add the six ……..

Line 210: the detection primers,,,,,,,, the paragraph should be rephrased in corrected language

The figures should be modified to be larger and readable

More discussion is needed

Line 431 , in conclusion language errors or typing errors

Number of samples used may affect the results (low number)

The language should be corrected

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reports the results of a proteomic study focused on pig muscles. Many parts need to be substantially revised and improved and re-addressed properly. The manuscript needs major revisions in many parts.

English needs to be improved in many parts

The title: it does not reflect the content of the work

This is not a genetic study therefore it does not provide any information on the genetic basis of skeletal muscle fibers in pigs - and then what does it mean ... basis of skeletal muscle fibers ...?

This is wrong concept is also reported in the conclusions - this part should be substantially re-evaluated and redifined

Abstract: It should be improved substantially. For example, the following first sentence:

"The difference of skeletal muscle fiber types is the main cause affecting the pork quality." is not true - it could be eventually:

"Skeletal muscle fiber types can contribute in part to affect pork quality parameters."

This concept should be adjusted in the introduction and in all other parts of the text

Introduction: Sentences are too long. Introduction should be also revised substantially in the content. Several sentences are not correct or are misleading

lines 44-50: these sentences do not make any sense and are irrelevant in this context- please eliminate - eliminate these elements also from the discussion

lines 51-52 - this sentence is not correct

lines 52-54: this sentence does not make any sense

Line 72: house?

Line 82: genetic basis ? No, this is a wrong concept

Line 85-86: wrong concept, please see above

M&M

The histological characterization of the sampled muscle is missed - therefore there is a substantial problem here - the fiber types are not defined, the assumption on the different fiber types is based on the two muscles that are used for sampling 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved