Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 21, 2020
Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor

PONE-D-20-33064

Association between birth weight and risk of overweight at adulthood in Labrador dogs

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mugnier,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field, and they have requested some minor changes be made prior to acceptance.

If you could make these modifications and write a brief response to reviewers, that will greatly expedite review upon resubmission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 25 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

I wish you the best of luck with your revisions.

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This study was partially funded by Royal Canin SAS (Aimargues, France). AAL, JL

and JF participated in the analyses of the data and in the reviewing of the paper."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : Royal Canin.

3.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

3.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is about the association between birth weight and overweight in Labrador dogs.

The manuscript is well written, the statistical analysis seems appropriate to me as well as the conclusions, according to the results. However, the work has some limitations and needs some clarification.

1) Since the age of the included dogs ranged from 1 to 9 years of age, it is assumed that this is a retrospective study. Authors are asked to explain how puppies were raised under similar environmental conditions over such a long period of time

2) Body fat was estimated only by BCS. Despite the fact that BCS may correlate well with more accurate methods, this is a limitation of the study

3) Authors have mentioned other limitations of the study, including the number of dogs, the lack of information about their health status and lifestyle, and the fact that dogs belonged to a single breed

4) Potential correlation between low weight at birth and overweight in adulthood is nicely discussed but none of the mentioned hypotheses has been verified in the present study

5) In my opinion, Figure 1 may be deleted and BCS distribution of dogs may be reported in the text

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and the results and conclusions are interesting. The overall presentation is sound.

Please add % behind the numbers in parenthesis in Table 1 "Neonatal and adult characteristics of overweight and not-overweight Labradors"

Please change "racial predisposition" in line 166 into "breed predisposition"

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Journal requirements

• Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have added the corresponding initials in brackets after the email address of the corresponding author and we have modified the layout of the first page. Next, we checked the overall style of the manuscript but we regret that we did not identify other areas of non-compliance with the guidelines. Could you be more specific about the problems identified?

• Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: "This study was partially funded by Royal Canin SAS (Aimargues, France). AAL, JL

and JF participated in the analyses of the data and in the reviewing of the paper." Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have added the requested sentence at the Funding statement.

• Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : Royal Canin.

Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

We have provided this explanation and added the roles of authors affiliated to Royal Canin in Funding Statement.

Line 251 « This study was partially funded by Royal Canin SAS (Aimargues, France). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for AM. Moreover, AAL, JL and JF participated in the analyses of the data and in the reviewing of the paper. There was no additional external funding received for this study. »

Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

As noted earlier, there are no competing interests in this study. Royal Canin partially funded this study but that did not interfere with the full and objective publication of this research article.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Our commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies. So, we have added the requested sentence to the Competing Interests.

Line 246 « The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The commercial affiliation does not interfere with the complete and objective presentation of this study, nor does it alter their adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materiels. »

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have included the two updated sections in our cover letter. Thank you for proposing to make the changes online for us.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

• Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

We have moved our Ethics approval to the Methods section.

Line 116 : « Ethics approval

The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Royal Canin Committee for Animal Ethics and Welfare, reference 050917-39. »

Reviewer #1

This manuscript is about the association between birth weight and overweight in Labrador dogs.

The manuscript is well written, the statistical analysis seems appropriate to me as well as the conclusions, according to the results. However, the work has some limitations and needs some clarification.

• Since the age of the included dogs ranged from 1 to 9 years of age, it is assumed that this is a retrospective study. Authors are asked to explain how puppies were raised under similar environmental conditions over such a long period of time

We thank the reviewer for this question. All the puppies included were born in a professional breeding kennel with strict procedures in place, similar during the years under review (choice of food, frequency of weighing, cleaning of the environment…). This is why we wrote that « The study was conducted on Labradors raised under similar environmental conditions until two months of age which meant that the breed and breeding conditions were homogeneous. » (line 157). Even if, indeed, some environmental parameters such as hygrometry or temperature could not be controlled in the field and have probably varied over time.

• Body fat was estimated only by BCS. Despite the fact that BCS may correlate well with more accurate methods, this is a limitation of the study. Authors have mentioned other limitations of the study, including the number of dogs, the lack of information about their health status and lifestyle, and the fact that dogs belonged to a single breed

Thank you for this comment. We added the following sentence to clarify this limitation.

Line 164 « Nevertheless, despite this good correlation, further studies with an assessment of adiposity by quantitative measures should be conducted. »

• Potential correlation between low weight at birth and overweight in adulthood is nicely discussed but none of the mentioned hypotheses has been verified in the present study

That’s true. This study is a first step in the investigation of the relationship between low birth weight and overweight in adulthood. As we mentioned in the discussion « further studies are needed to explore and identify the precise mechanisms explaining the association between low birth weight and adult overweight in the canine species » (line 204).

• In my opinion, Figure 1 may be deleted and BCS distribution of dogs may be reported in the text

Thank you for this suggestion. We have chosen to converse the figure that provides a visual representation of the distribution of BCS in our population.

Reviewer #2

The manuscript is well written and the results and conclusions are interesting. The overall presentation is sound.

• Please add % behind the numbers in parenthesis in Table 1 "Neonatal and adult characteristics of overweight and not-overweight Labradors"

Thank you for this suggestion which clearly improves the readibility of the table. We have added %’s behind the figures in the table under consideration.

• Please change "racial predisposition" in line 166 into "breed predisposition"

Thank you for this suggestion. We modified this sentence.

Line 170 « In addition to breed predisposition, this may be explained by […] ».

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor

Association between birth weight and risk of overweight at adulthood in Labrador dogs

PONE-D-20-33064R1

Dear Dr. Mugnier,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

As you have addressed all the reviewer points, and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication

You should hear from the Editorial Office soon

It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you all the best for the future

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor

PONE-D-20-33064R1

Association between birth weight and risk of overweight at adulthood in Labrador dogs

Dear Dr. Mugnier:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .