Applications and Prospects of Metabolomics and Lipidomics Technologies in the Study of Livestock and Poultry Meat and Egg Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:The manuscript mentions multi-omics and artificial intelligence—both cutting-edge fields—but only in a superficial manner, describing these technologies without explaining how they are integrated into genomic, proteomic or metabolomic analyses. It is suggested that more practical case studies with more conclusive results be included. There is no critical analysis of the data or the reproducibility of the omics results.

The work is very well done, but consideration should be given to exploring certain aspects in greater depth.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review article foods-4206495

Applications and Prospects of Metabolomics and Lipidomics Technologies in the Study of Livestock and Poultry Meat and  Egg Quality

The article presented the research progress of metabolomics and lipidomics in the study of the quality of meat and egg quality.

This is an important and interesting topic. However, the paper requires a few revisions.

The topic does not mention AI; it might be worth adding this, especially since the article includes a section entitled ‘4. Multi-Omics Integration and the Application of Artificial Intelligence’. The ‘Outlook’ section also refers to the benefits of using artificial intelligence.

 

Line 49 „to a core economic trait”; line 139 “and improving the economic traits of livestock and poultry” and later in the text - please explain

Lines 55-62 needs revision; there is no clearly stated objective

Line 68 ‘potential spoilage biomarkers” – please explain

Please add a ‘Materials and Methods’ section to the article, including the criteria used to select the articles, the keywords used when searching the databases, the total number of studies, and the selection of studies used in the paper.

Lines 228-229 and 235 - ??

The text of the article contains no references to the information in the tables or the figures included. Please add these.

Lines 286 – 301 Please move this to another section or delete it; the content does not relate to the title of this section ‘3.5. Emerging Applications of Metabolomics and Lipidomics in Other Fields such as Traceability 284 and Disease Diagnosis ‘

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript reviews the research progress of metabolomics and lipidomics in the study of livestock and poultry meat and egg quality, focusing on their roles in elucidating the formation mechanisms of key quality traits such as the flavor, tenderness and nutritional value of meat and eggs. It is well-presented and covers all important aspects of the proposed topic. The manuscript needs come clarifications and improvements. Even do the authors included summaries of many studies, they should compare the results and conclusions across the studies, and highlight their limitations.

Comments for authors:

Page 2, line 76, formatting of the references is incorrect, the references should be numbered.

Pages 2-4, expand the section 2.3., it is to brief, add more detail discussion. Include examples of successful combined omics studies.

Page 4, lines 138-150, provide references,

Page 6, lines 228, lines 235, there is an error with the references, check please.

Figures 1 and 2, are not mentioned nor interpreted in the text, provide discussion.

Tables (1, 2, 3) are informative but they are missing synthesis, provide discussion.

Pages 10-11, Section 4.2, keep focus on applications relevant to food science and animal products.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reviews the applications of metabolomics and lipidomics in studying meat and egg quality in livestock and poultry; however, it presents several critical weaknesses that limit its scientific contribution in its current form.

First, the review lacks a clearly defined methodological framework, as the introduction (lines 31–54) does not explain the strategy used to identify and select the literature, such as databases consulted, keywords, inclusion criteria, or time range of the studies considered. Without this information, the review lacks transparency and reproducibility.

Furthermore, the section describing analytical technologies (Section 2, lines 73–99 and 101–124) remains largely descriptive and does not adequately outline the complete methodological workflow of metabolomics and lipidomics, including experimental design, sample preparation, data acquisition, bioinformatics processing, and statistical analysis.

More importantly, the sections that should represent the scientific core of the manuscript—particularly the applications in meat and egg quality (Sections 3.1 and 3.2, lines 151–189 and 191–216) primarily summarize individual studies without providing a critical synthesis or comparative discussion of findings across species or experimental systems. As a result, the text reads more like a list of references than an analytical review.

Similarly, the sections on nutritional regulation (Sections 3.3 and 3.4, lines 217–245 and 247–274) are weakly connected to omics-based evidence and even contain editorial errors such  which suggests insufficient manuscript preparation.

Additionally, the section discussing artificial intelligence and multi-omics integration (lines 319–384) appears conceptually disconnected from the rest of the review and lacks concrete examples specifically related to meat and egg quality research.

Finally, the conclusion (lines 386–422) remains overly general and fails to synthesize the key insights derived from the reviewed literature or identify the most robust biomarkers and methodological challenges in the field.

Overall, while the topic is relevant and the manuscript compiles a substantial amount of literature, the paper requires major revision, particularly to clarify the review methodology, strengthen the critical discussion of results, and improve the coherence and rigor of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided the necessary corrections and after formatting and layout it can be published