Different Animal Metabolism Markers for Artemia Nauplii in Crude Protein Digestibility Assay for Lophiosilurus alexandri Larvae
YASMEEN GUL
Hong Ji
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deal with the '' different animal metabolism markers for Artemis nauplii in crude protein digestibility assay for Lophiosilurus Alexandra Larvae". In my opinion this manuscript has significant importance of digestible markers so must be accepted after minor english revision.
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestion dear reviewer. The manuscript was again revised for the English language as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present manuscript tried to develop a methodology for marking Artemia with different markers and evaluating their passage rate and digestibility in Lophiosilurus alexandri larvae of different ages. The design is good and the trail was well conducted. The obtained results are helpful to the related studies. On the other hand, it is suggested to provide more information about the study.
1. How many samples, artemia, larvae, fecal, were collected and applied for the analysis? Please provide the data.
2. According to Table2, different markers has deferent concentration, so were the concentration the average result of different duration? On the other hand, along with the duration, the concentration of markers increased, were the concentration data the average of three markers?
3. Table3, the data showed here are concentration or time? For the time, 0,10,20,30 or 0,30,60,90 (Line 280, 90min was mentioned)? Please describe the methodology more in details in the M&M part.
4. Line 201, the studied materials were called markers, but in Tables, they were called indicators, any difference?
Author Response
The present manuscript tried to develop a methodology for marking Artemia with different markers and evaluating their passage rate and digestibility in Lophiosilurus alexandri larvae of different ages. The design is good and the trail was well conducted. The obtained results are helpful to the related studies. On the other hand, it is suggested to provide more information about the study.
R: Thanks for the suggestion dear reviewer. We try to accept all suggestions and doubts presented.
- How many samples, artemia, larvae, fecal, were collected and applied for the analysis? Please provide the data.
R:
In this image we can see the number of repetitions, we have the rows with the 4 treatments, each one having 6 incubators, that is, in each treatment we had 6 repetitions. With that we had 6 repetitions for artemia, larvae and feces.
- According to Table2, different markers has deferent concentration, so were the concentration the average result of different duration? On the other hand, along with the duration, the concentration of markers increased, were the concentration data the average of three markers?
R: Yes, table 2 shows the results of the concentrations of the three markers found in Artemia, with the factors being the marker and the period of exposure, results presented as average concentration of the markers regardless of the period of exposure and average results of the concentration of the period of exposure regardless of marker.
- Table3, the data showed here are concentration or time? For the time, 0,10,20,30 or 0,30,60,90 (Line 280, 90min was mentioned)? Please describe the methodology more in details in the M&M part.
R: The time studied was up to 90 minutes, but the transit time of the indicators in the artemia was 30 minutes, after that time we did not detect the markers in the artemia, so we chose to make the table with up to 30 minutes because after that the concentration was 0.
- Line 201, the studied materials were called markers, but in Tables, they were called indicators, any difference?
R: Thank you for sending your query. There are no differences between the names of markers and indicators. We default to all text as bullets.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Major observation:
The paper is nicely written and the design is appropriate. However, in the results section the kinetic model described in MM chapter are not presented. Moreover, the authors should explain why adopted mathematical models used for ruminants and what releved in the prezent study.
Minor observation:
The references are introduced, in many cases, inappropriate (instead of ”According to [5].......” the sentence could came first and the reference at the end such as ”Artemia is considered.......[5].” The same situation is repeted (lines 145, 158, 166, 230, 241, 341, 384, 387, 391, 397, 404, 408).
Line 98- erase ”was aplied because it”
Line 112- erase ”keep”
Line 128 - add ”sampling” before ”times”
Line 153- use ”materials” instead of ”digest”
Line 270 - unbold ”Table 2” .
In table 2, 3 and 5 use superscript for letter showing statistical significance.
Line 273 - split ”testresult”
Space before Line 275
Line 317-318. Rephrase the sentence.
Line 336- erase or replace ”offered”
Line 341-343. Rephrase the sentence.
Line 386 - explain DAH befor using it.
Author Response
Major observation:
The paper is nicely written and the design is appropriate. However, in the results section the kinetic model described in MM chapter are not presented. Moreover, the authors should explain why adopted mathematical models used for ruminants and what releved in the prezent study.
R: There are different mathematical models, but for larvae and live food a study of transit kinetics has not yet been presented. We chose this mathematical model to conduct this first study with larvae and live foods based on its success in both ruminant and non-ruminant studies. He is the one that best adapts to all animal categories evaluated to date. Therefore, this model was used in a larger number of experiments.
Minor observation:
The references are introduced, in many cases, inappropriate (instead of ”According to [5].......” the sentence could came first and the reference at the end such as ”Artemia is considered.......[5].” The same situation is repeted (lines 145, 158, 166, 230, 241, 341, 384, 387, 391, 397, 404, 408).
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text.
Line 98- erase ”was aplied because it”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text.
Line 112- erase ”keep”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text.
Line 128 - add ”sampling” before ”times”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 153- use ”materials” instead of ”digest”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 270 - unbold ”Table 2” .
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
In table 2, 3 and 5 use superscript for letter showing statistical significance.
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 273 - split ”testresult”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Space before Line 275
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 317-318. Rephrase the sentence.
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 336- erase or replace ”offered”
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 341-343. Rephrase the sentence.
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
Line 386 - explain DAH befor using it.
R: Thanks for the suggestions. Changes were made directly to the text
