You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Antonio Gallo1,*,
  • Martina Mosconi1 and
  • Erminio Trevisi1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Ruiguo Wang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 
This is the review results of manuscript dairy-1697379. The paper entitled: “The effect of Fusarium produced mycotoxin in ruminants, an upgrade based on recent published bibliography” intended to summarize the recent findings described in literature regarding Fusarium mycotoxins toxic effects in ruminants. The subject is of a major interest, the review is clear and reach the proposed aim. In addition, the conclusion highlights knowledge gaps, and areas where future investigations are needed. 
The first part of the article draws up an inventory of knowledge on general toxicology of Fusarium toxins, this chapter is well-structured and present concisely the state of knowledge for the three major Fusarium toxins: DON, ZEA and FBs, until recent years. Then the second part of the article focus as indicated in the title on recent data (since 2015) on effects of the aforementioned toxins on immune, reproductive and performance functions of ruminants, with results coming from in vitro or in vivo trials.
Before to conclude, the review opens on the occurrence of mycotoxins in silage, as main constituent of the animal’s ration, this is important to address this topic. However, the review could be enriched by adding data/information on mycotoxins present in silage and contamination levels before to develop the novel area of research proposed that is the use of 
selected inoculants to reduce the mycotoxin levels in silage. 
Here are some specific comments to improve the manuscript:
Lines 172-173: immunotoxicity instead of immunotoxin? Please consider here to develop a little bit more the effects of ZEN on immune system.
Lines 201-204: please consider rephrasing this sentence;
Lines 243-254: please consider adding references; 
Lines 265-266: please consider adding references;
Lines 381-388: please add guidance values for ZEA like it is done for DON and FB.
Lines 446-447: please add reference. 
Lines 542-546: please clarify what was your intention with this sentence, if the objective was to discuss adsorbent feed additive, the review will be improved by addressing the adsorption mechanism generally, without focusing only on activated carbon. 
Lines 560 and 569 to 574: organoclays are not a biological method, the biological method is either the adsorption either the biotransformation, here organoclays are part of the adsorption method and should be included in the corresponding paragraph. 
Lines 593 to 597: could you please explain why in this paragraph focusing on Fumonisin, there’s this sentence concerning Aflatoxins? 
Lines 788 to 809: is there recent data on ZEA and FB1 effect on oxidative stress? 
Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting work with great cognitive and practical importance. The study is an overview of the latest scientific literature in the field of Fusarium produced mycotoxin in ruminants and is a valuable compendium extending our knowledge, among others about the effect of mycotoxicosis on nutrient digestibility and rumen function. For a special distinction deserves a professional way of presenting literature data in tables, for exceptionally valuable, I consider the effects of Fusarium-Toxins on livestock reproductive function - in vivo studies in cattle (table 3).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This work processed an extensive review on the effect of DON, ZEN and FBs in ruminants. The subject is interesting and innovative. But the present manuscript has certain limitations.

 

  1. It is noted that the manuscript needs carefully revision in the structure and logic, so that the goals and conclusion of this article are clear to reader. But now, I no longer believethe paper was well organized, and the chapters of this paper were particularly For example:

（1）The title name of “ Effects of Fusarium-toxins on livestock”was unclear, and this section did not correspond to the section of “4. Effect of Fusarium toxins on reproductive system” and “5. Effect of Fusarium toxins on oxidative stress, immunity and gut health”. please modified this title or the content.

(2) The “occurrence and source of exposure” part should focus on the DON, ZEN and FBs contamination in ruminant feed and ingredients, such as, the TMR, by products of cereal, silage, forage, and so on. At the same time, I suggest the authors should look into the exposure levels of the mycotoxins for ruminants, as reported in the literature.

(3) The section “6. Occurence of mycotoxin in silage” did not need to be listed separately. It is suggested that this section be combined into the section of “Occurrence and sources of exposure ”.

(4) The writing styles on the sections of Worldwide legislation for DON, ZEN, and FBs were inconsistent, and the legislation for DON and FBs were not fully summarized. For example, there were only EU legislation for DON in the present manuscript.

(5) The sections of effects of Fusarium toxins on oxidative stress and immunity were written in a hazy manner. The reader is unable to get information on effects of certain mycotoxins on ruminants.

(6) The disposition fates of the mycotoxins generally contain the ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) processes, which were considered as the basis of the toxicity. Moreover, a comprehensive toxicokinetics results for a certain substance, should include its major metabolites. As a result, I suggest the authors combine the sections “Absorption, distribution and excretion“ and “Metabolism” into a single section titled “absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion”. In addition, I also recommend that the authors add several discussion in this section, as the current discussion is too simple. For example, the information of the half-life, conversion rates for some key metabolites, tissue distribution, potential target organs, et al. should be taken account.

 

  1. The writers simply reported the findings of a large body of literature without providing clear conclusions. It is well known, for example, that ruminants are relatively resistant to Fusarium toxins. So, based on this paper, I'd like to know if there has been any recent proof to confirm that DON, ZEN, and FBs could harm ruminants in the current pollution situation, as well as the potential mechanism for their toxicity.

 

  1. There is insufficient literature for certain essential conclusions. For example, the authors concluded that chronic exposure to Fusarium toxins could result in poor milk quality and cheesability (lines 978-981). But there was only one literature supported this opinion, which was published in 2007.

 

  1. The authors mentioned that “The highest detoxification during the processing of the grain is obtained with extrusion and amounted to 95% [118]” (Lines 527-528). This is an interesting issue for readers. Because it is known that the detoxification of DON is a big challenge for feed industry.  However, the writers provided no more material or commentary, and the citedliterature ( 118) was also a review article.

 

  1. For statements that were not common knowledge but contained crucial data information from specific studies, such as but not limited to lines101-104, 441-445, 425-426, 551-582, please indicate the cited literature.

 

  1. It is puzzling that why the authors discussed the aflatoxins on the Lines 593-597.

 

  1. I believe it is unnecessary to review the in vitro studies for other toxins (Line 676-680).

 

  1. The text contained various grammatical problems, such as lines 756-758.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript has been significantly improved.

There is a tiny hint that the most current regulation (in Table 1) ought to be cited. I understand that it can be challenging for authors to find such knowledge through published literature in other nations. So, it is not a big issue. To my knowledge, China revised the limits for mycotoxins in feeds in 2017. DON: 1 mg/kg (calves, lambs and lactating animals), 3 mg/kg (other ruminants); ZEN: 0.5 mg/kg (calves, lambs and lactating animals); FB1+FB2: 20 mg/kg (calves and lambs), 50 mg/kg (other ruminants). The cited literature is “General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China (AQSIQ), GB 13078-2017 Hygienical standard for feeds. 2017”, which is advised to replace the reference of 86 (Line 284, Table 1).