Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep

Reza Talebi; Mohsen Mardi; Mehrshad Zeinalabedini; Mehrbano Kazemi Alamouti; Stéphane Fabre; Mohammad Reza Ghaffari

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301629

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 4, 2024
29 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor PONE-D-23-43880Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheepPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Talebi, 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. ============================== Dear Sir, Please attend the reviewer's suggestions to will publish the paper. Att Julio Souza ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D. 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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Please attend the reviewer's suggestions to will publish the paper. Att Julio Souza [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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: - Introduction is very long - The means with the same letter in each part of each (column not row) were not significantly different in Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level . - Others are within the attached manuscript Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-43880 Manuscript Title: Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep General Comment: The paper is well presented. Title: The title is adequate for the content, informative, concise, and clear Abstract: The abstract effectively summarises the manuscript. However, the authors are requested to add a conclusion following the results and objectives and to avoid subjective language. Introduction: The introduction provides good, generalised background information on the topic. Methodology: The study's methods were adequately described and appropriate for the research. The statistical models used in data analysis were correct, and the authors utilized the appropriate statistical package for the analysis. Results: The results are presented clearly and concisely. However, the interpretation of some results is incorrect in lines 377-378, 382-383, and 496-497. The Tables and Figures are well-organized. References: The references are appropriate, recent, adequate and cover the works sufficiently. However, the name of the journal is sometimes a full name and sometimes a short name. The authors requested to be consistent. The numbers below correspond to the line numbers where corrections need to be carried out: 377 – 378: “While females exhibited a slightly improved survival rate compared to males, the observed differences lacked statistical significance” This is incorrect; since there was no significant difference, that means the survival rate of females is similar to males. 382 – 383: Please note that the statement "Intriguingly, F2 crossbred lambs carrying the Booroola gene notably enhanced survivability in comparison to lambs carrying the MSTN gene" is incorrect. There is no significant difference in the survivability rate between lambs carrying the Booroola gene and those carrying the MSTN gene, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, kindly correct this information in both the results and the abstract (lines 34-35). 496 – 497: According to Table 7, it is not true that Moghani pure lambs born heavier than F2 crossbred lambs with the MSTN mutation in the homozygous variant genotype (A/A). There is no significant difference in birth weight between the two (both groups have the same superscript letter). Reviewer #3: The paper “Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep” presents the results of an ongoing project aimed at evaluating the introgression of Booroola/FecB gene and the 25 myostatin (MSTN) gene into purebred Moghani sheep in the second generation. The paper is weel-written and presents very interesting results. The introduction characterizes the purpose of the work very well. In the methodology as well results there are many unnecessary topics such as blood collection. In the Results and Discussion, there is no need to repeat the justification and objective of the work. Figures with photos should be improved, as some animals are not to scale. Figures should follow the sequence of text citation and adhere to journal norms. The conclusion is very well-grounded. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript_PLOS ONE 22-1-2024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301629.r001
Revision 1
18 Mar 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: - Introduction is very long Response: Thank you for the reviewer's comments. we have enhanced the introduction by eliminating surplus and generic information. Reviewer #1: - The means with the same letter in each part of each (column not row) were not significantly different in Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level . Response: we appreciate from the reviewer as kindly explained. We have corrected text based on the reviewer explanation (Lines 34-36, Lines 346-349, and Lines 352-354). Reviewer #1: - Others are within the attached manuscript Comment [A1]: Very long Response: we have refined the introduction in the revised version of the manuscript by removing excess and generic information. Comment [A2]: Rephrase Response: It has been done in revised version of manuscript (lines 67-71). Now it reads " The myostatin (MSTN g+6223G>A) gene located in OAR2 region plays a key role in double muscling across different sheep breeds [11]. These breeds encompass New Zealand Texel [12,13], Australian Texel [14], Belgian Texel [15,16], Norwegian White Sheep [17], and the commercially relevant Charollais sheep [18] " Comment [A3]: ?????????????? Response: these formula used for correcting the records based on the age of each lamb from birth to weaning and six month age. The formula more clarified in revised version of manuscript (Lines 194-210). Comment [A4]: Date.W3.BW Response: In the revised version of manuscript, we have provided clarity on the formula (located at Lines 194-210 in the revised version of the manuscript) by incorporating appropriate abbreviations for the recorded traits. Additionally, we have revised the abbreviations for each assessed trait throughout the entire manuscript. Comment [A5]: Sampling time Response: we would like to clarify that blood samples were obtained from lambs aged between two to three months after birth (Lines 212 in the revised version of the manuscript). Comment [A6]: details Response: Thank you for the question. The extraction of genomic DNA from whole blood samples adhered to the procedure outlined by Talebi et al. 2021, as detailed in our prior work. Additionally, the PCR program, RFLP genotyping, and primer information for both the BMPR1B mutation OAR6:g.29382188A>G and the MSTN mutation OAR2:g.118150665G>A were conducted following the methodologies specified in our prior work (Talebi et al. 2023). Talebi R, Seighalani R, Qanbari S. A handmade DNA extraction kit using laundry powder; insights on simplicity, cost-efficiency, rapidity, safety and the quality of purified DNA. Anim Biotechnol. 2021;32: 388–394. doi:10.1080/10495398.2019.1684933 Talebi R, Ghaffari MR, Fabre S, Mardi M, Kazemi Alamouti M. Comparison of the growth performance between pure Moghani sheep and crosses with Texel or Booroola sheep carrying major genes contributing to muscularity and prolificacy. Anim Biotechnol. 2023;34: 3495–3506. doi:10.1080/10495398.2023.2165933 Comment [A7]: ???????? Response: Thank you for the comment. We have corrected the statistical GLM model in revised version of manuscript (Line 225). Comment [A8]: delate Response: Table 1 offers a detailed and comprehensive depiction of coat color patterns, directly facilitating the interpretation of data, bolstering discussions, and significantly enhancing the scientific merit of our manuscript. Consequently, retaining it within the text provides greater informational value to the reader Comment [A9]: The significant differences. Where is Duncan test Response: The descriptive traits presented in Table 2 were analyzed using the chi-square test (X2). The focus of this analysis was to compare the survival rates among different descriptive traits, such as mating systems (in-breeding, outcrossing, paternal backcross, maternal backcross), sex (male and female) and… . The choice of the chi-square test was motivated by our objective to assess whether the observed survival rates significantly deviate from the expected rates within each descriptive trait category. For example, we anticipated equal survival rates across mating systems, sexes or .. but observed variations. The chi-square test was employed to compare observed and expected results, with the resulting p-value indicating the significance level at 5%. To conduct this analysis, we utilized the PROC FREQ procedure in SAS (lines 217-219 of revised version of manuscript), as it is well-suited for frequency tabulations and chi-square tests. Comment [A10]: row Response: It was corrected based on the reviewer’s comment. Comment [A11]: Why the authors used Duncan test? This are two groups Response: Thank you for your insightful question. In addressing the comparison between two groups (sex: male and female), we initially conducted analyses using both the Duncan test and the LSD (t-test). Upon careful examination, the results obtained from the Duncan test and LSD for the two levels of sex were found to be highly similar. In light of this consistency, we made a deliberate choice to present the results of the Duncan test in Table 4 for the sake of simplicity and ease of interpretation. It is important to note that, in scenarios involving two groups, the Duncan test tends to produce results analogous to the LSD. Comment [A12]: row Response: It was corrected based on the reviewer’s comment. Comment [A13]: row??????????????????? Response: It was corrected based on the reviewer’s comment. Comment [A14]: row or column Response: It was corrected based on the reviewer’s comment. Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-43880 Manuscript Title: Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep General Comment: The paper is well presented. Title: The title is adequate for the content, informative, concise, and clear Abstract: The abstract effectively summarises the manuscript. However, the authors are requested to add a conclusion following the results and objectives and to avoid subjective language. Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments on our manuscript. In response to the reviewer's valuable suggestion, we have included a conclusion after the results and objectives in the abstract of revised version of manuscript (Lines 41-45). Reviewer #2: Introduction: The introduction provides good, generalised background information on the topic. Methodology: The study's methods were adequately described and appropriate for the research. The statistical models used in data analysis were correct, and the authors utilized the appropriate statistical package for the analysis. Results: The results are presented clearly and concisely. However, the interpretation of some results is incorrect in lines 377-378, 382-383, and 496-497. The Tables and Figures are well-organized. References: The references are appropriate, recent, adequate and cover the works sufficiently. However, the name of the journal is sometimes a full name and sometimes a short name. The authors requested to be consistent. Response: We value the reviewer's attention to detail regarding the referencing style. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured that all journal names are appropriately abbreviated to match the referencing format of the PLOS ONE journal. Reviewer #2: The numbers below correspond to the line numbers where corrections need to be carried out: 377 – 378: “While females exhibited a slightly improved survival rate compared to males, the observed differences lacked statistical significance” This is incorrect; since there was no significant difference, that means the survival rate of females is similar to males. Response: Thank you for the reviewer's valuable comments. As suggested, we have made corrections in the revised version of the manuscript (lines 346-349). It now reads: Further, females displayed a slightly improved survival rate compared to males, the observed differences did not reach statistical significance (refer to Table 2, P > 0.05). Consequently, it can be inferred that the survival rates of females and males are similar. Reviewer #2: 382 – 383: Please note that the statement "Intriguingly, F2 crossbred lambs carrying the Booroola gene notably enhanced survivability in comparison to lambs carrying the MSTN gene" is incorrect. There is no significant difference in the survivability rate between lambs carrying the Booroola gene and those carrying the MSTN gene, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, kindly correct this information in both the results and the abstract (lines 34-35). Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful comments. In response to the feedback, we have made corrections in the revised version of the manuscript. It now states, "Intriguingly, F2 crossbred lambs carrying the Booroola gene had no significant difference in survivability compared to lambs carrying the MSTN gene, as indicated in Table 2." (Lines 352-354 in the revised version of the manuscript). Furthermore, this has been rectified in the abstract of the revised version. Now it reads "The F2 crossbred lambs carrying the Booroola gene did not show a statistically significant difference in survivability compared to those carrying the MSTN gene, implying the Booroola prolificacy gene had no significant impact on survival outcomes" (Lines 34-36). Reviewer #2: 496 – 497: According to Table 7, it is not true that Moghani pure lambs born heavier than F2 crossbred lambs with the MSTN mutation in the homozygous variant genotype (A/A). There is no significant difference in birth weight between the two (both groups have the same superscript letter). Response: We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful comments from the reviewer. In response, we have made corrections in the revised version of the manuscript (Lines 465-467). The revised statement now reads: it is noted that Moghani pure lambs exhibited a slightly higher birth weight than F2 crossbred lambs with the MSTN mutation in the homozygous variant genotype (A/A), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Reviewer #3: The paper “Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep” presents the results of an ongoing project aimed at evaluating the introgression of Booroola/FecB gene and the 25 myostatin (MSTN) gene into purebred Moghani sheep in the second generation. The paper is weel-written and presents very interesting results. The introduction characterizes the purpose of the work very well. In the methodology as well results there are many unnecessary topics such as blood collection. Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer's positive remarks on our manuscript. We acknowledge the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer regarding extraneous topics, such as blood collection. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have eliminated the "Blood sample collection" section and seamlessly integrated it into the "Extraction of DNA and genotyping through PCR-RFLP method" section. Reviewer #3: In the Results and Discussion, there is no need to repeat the justification and objective of the work. Response: It was done as kindly suggested by the reviewer. Reviewer #3: Figures with photos should be improved, as some animals are not to scale. Figures should follow the sequence of text citation and adhere to journal norms. The conclusion is very well-grounded. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In revised version of manuscript we addressed this issue by enhancing the visual representation to ensure accurate scaling of all animals. Additionally, we reorganized the figures to align seamlessly with the sequence of text citation and adhere to the prescribed journal norms. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301629.r002
20 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor Assessing the performance of Moghani crossbred lambs derived from different mating systems with Texel and Booroola sheep PONE-D-23-43880R1 Dear Dr. Talebi, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301629.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor PONE-D-23-43880R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Talebi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Julio Cesar de Souza Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301629.r004

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 .