Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Environmental Salinity Affects Growth and Metabolism in Fingerling Meagre (Argyrosomus Regius)
Previous Article in Journal
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Fishes in 2018
Previous Article in Special Issue
Narrowing the Range of Environmental Salinities Where Juvenile Meagre (Argyrosomus regius) Can Be Cultured Based on an Osmoregulatory Pilot Study
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

The Inhibitory Effects and Positive Contributions of Live Foods on Protease Activities of Meagre, Argyrosomus regius (Asso 1801), Larvae In Vitro Assay

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Received: 5 November 2018 / Revised: 19 January 2019 / Accepted: 21 January 2019 / Published: 4 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversification of Aquaculture with New Fish Species)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written well but the major problem is English language. Grammatical/syntax mistakes are very common all over the manuscript.

Table 1: Why different temperatures were used?

Line 103: Described by.. Mention  the first author’s name. 

Write the importance of results in the discussion section.


Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you very much for your contribution. The manuscript was revised along with other review reports. Please see the attached file. 

Yours faithfully.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper contributes to a better understanding of the physiology of feeding the larvae of meagre. The study was conducted properly and the results are clearly shown.  I consider this paper deserves publication but revision of the text has to be done. Although I don’t consider myself qualified to judge the used language, some parts of the text are not easily legible, especially regarding the introduction. I advise to shorten the sentences.

p. 51-60. Rewrite this paragraph, it is difficult to follow the text and point of the presented results is not shown clearly.

p. 58 – otolithic- seams to be a write eror

p. 64-65 – “There are studies dealing with the production of meagre, Argyrosomus regius an important

species for the Mediterranean Basin [2734].”  Not necessary for this paper…

p. 256-265 Comparisons have been made for several types of fish, implicitly referring to some general attribute. If the authors point to such a conclusion it should be written in that way. It is also necessary to explain the bases for linking these data with the obtained results.



Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you very much for your contribution. The manuscript was revised along with other review reports. Please see the attached file. 

Yours faithfully.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

                

The study of Diken and collaborators provide a comprehensive description of the contribution of live foods on protease activities of meagre, Argyrosomus regius, using in vitro assay. The study is properly conducted, methods for assessing the activity of enzymes  are appropriate considering the objectives of the study, and its results are of relevance and interest for readers interested in fish larval digestive physiology, larval development and fish larviculture. Although I consider that this study deserves publication, since data are new and of interest, the manuscript requires a deep revision before being suitable for publication;  authors are encouraged to consider the following comments to improve the quality and readability of their study.

 

General comments

 

The manuscript needs some English revision

 

It is not clear the purpose of comparing two different dates of enzymatic measurements under different environmental conditions p.e. temperature of egg incubation, oxygen, feeding protocols, etc. if these are not well discussed in terms of differences of obtained results between both dates.

It is possible that differences could be related to physicochemical conditions and/or changes in eggs quality?

 

Abstract: this section needs further improvement in terms of organization.

 

p.17 the highest inhibitions of live foods were observed at 7 DAH. Define what was inhibited by live food.

 

Introduction

p. 29 …such as salmonids and African…

p. 54-55. Rewrite this paragraph, it is unclear.

p. 55 defines if recent studies mean 2001 and 2011?

p. 57 defines what kind of micronutrients are?

p. 58, it is unclear how participate the otolithic process of live food on larval intestine, explain, and be sure that these authors are appropriate in this statement.

p. 60, rewrite the paragraph… is negligible in many species at negligible levels.

 

 

Materials and Methods

p. 104 , using casein (10 mg/mL) as the substrate in 50 mM Tris–HCl buffer at pH 8.5.

p. 107 replace release by released

 

Table 1 replace incubition by incubation. It is very difficult to understand the different experimental dates, I recommend to improve the presentation, may be it is necessary to include two columns one for each date of experiment (2013 and 2014).

 

Fig 1 Information about water temperature during larval rearing needs to be included as well of larval size in SL if available or data on cumulative degree days instead of DAH only.

 

Discussion

Line 197 replace rotifer by rotifer

Line 207 please rewrite complete sentence.

Line 215. Rewrite the paragraph.

Lines 235-250 may be will be necessary to present the results of protease contribution/inhibition from different species in a table, to better understand.

Lines 261-265, please rewrite this sentence, is confusing.


Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you very much for your contribution. The manuscript was revised along with other review reports. Please see the attached file.

Yours faithfully.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The study of Diken and collaborators provide a comprehensive description of the contribution of live foods on protease activities of meagre, Argyrosomus regius, using in vitro assay. The study is properly conducted, methods for assessing the activity of enzymes  are appropriate considering the objectives of the study, and its results are of relevance and interest for readers interested in fish larval digestive physiology, larval development and fish larviculture. Although I consider that this study deserves publication, since data are new and of interest, the manuscript requires a deep english revision before being suitable for publication;  authors are encouraged to consider the following comments to improve the quality and readability of their study.

 

General comments

 

The manuscript needs some English revision

 

Materials and Methods

p. 108 replace tyrosine by released by tyrosine released

 

Table 1 replace Egg incubition by Egg incubation.

 

Fig 1 Information about water temperature during larval rearing needs to be included as well of larval size in SL if available or data on cumulative degree days instead of DAH only.

 

Discussion

Line 205-216. Please re-write the entire paragraph but be sure that some English spoken editor checks the final work.

 

Line 208, replace cystine by cysteine

 

Lines 271-274, please rewrite this sentence. Our results are supported by the research conducted on the contribution of rotifer …


Author Response

Dear Review,

The corrections you requested are made. Thank you very much for your help, support and attention. The corrected version of the manuscript has been added. Yours faithfully...

The following corrections have been made.

General comments

The manuscript needs some English revision

1. Materials and Methods

p. 108 replace tyrosine by released by tyrosine released

 2. Table 1 replace Egg incubition by Egg incubation.

 3. Fig 1 Information about water temperature during larval rearing needs to be included as well of larval size in SL if available or data on cumulative degree days instead of DAH only.

 Discussion

4. Line 205-216. Please re-write the entire paragraph but be sure that some English spoken editor checks the final work.

 5. Line 208, replace cystine by cysteine

 6. Lines 271-274, please rewrite this sentence. Our results are supported by the research conducted on the contribution of rotifer …


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop