Influence of perch provision during rearing on activity and musculoskeletal health of pullets

Mallory G. Anderson; Alexa M. Johnson; Cerano Harrison; Jeryl Jones; Ahmed Ali

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307114

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 23, 2024
13 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor PONE-D-24-03112Influence of perch provision during rearing on activity and musculoskeletal health of pulletsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ali, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 27 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, Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/2/265 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119579305?via%3Dihub https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2023.1258935/full In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Having reviewed the previous work of these authors (10.3390/ani14020265), I find my comments to be similar in some respects. Initially, I must address a concern regarding the originality of some images in this manuscript. Specifically, Figure 1 appears identical to Figure 1 from 10.3390/ani14020265, Figure 2 to Figure 1 in 10.2460/ajvr.23.05.0109, and Figure 3 to Figure 2 in 10.3390/ani14020265. This could potentially raise copyright issues, and I request the editorial board to address this concern. Furthermore, there's a discrepancy between the funding information within the manuscript, listing three funders, and the Financial Disclosure section stating, “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” This also requires clarification. General comments: Large sections of the methodology are verbatim copies of previous work (10.3390/ani14020265). The manuscript lacks a clearly defined aim and research hypothesis. It should include definitions for "musculoskeletal health metrics" and "novel biomarkers of bone mineralization” (after reviewing the manuscript, it's completely unclear to me what these are). These definitions should be incorporated into the introduction. My previous general comments also apply to this study: Including bone weight and its relative proportion to total body weight could offer valuable insights into the skeletal effects of perch access. Similarly, reporting muscle weight as relative muscle weight would enhance understanding of muscle development among different groups. These are crucial for determining whether perch inclusion indeed had a quantitative effect on musculoskeletal development. Refer to the discussion at L380 – without correlating muscle mass to total body weight, the statement remains inconclusive. Given the availability of CT scans, presenting cross-section images of the tibiotarsal bone mid-diaphysis could visually illustrate potential changes in medullary bone formation among the hen groups (see discussion, L425). The study would benefit from recognizing certain limitations, such as not analyzing the wing bone. Perch activity likely affects the bones of the chest, shoulder girdle, and wings, as indicated by changes in pectoral muscle mass. See discussion sections L371-373 and L374-376 for examples. Specific comments: Is there a specific rationale, related to birds' development stages or changes in feeding/housing regimes, for selecting these particular time points (5, 11, and 17 weeks of age)? Please provide clarification. In the first paragraph, please seek more recent references concerning osteoporosis in laying hens. Citing excellent but over twenty-year-old studies suggests that this problem has been known for a quarter-century, yet, despite hundreds of research papers, it remains unresolved. Changes in housing conditions, alternative animal keeping methods, consumer knowledge, dietary recommendations, and legal guidelines have significantly improved animal welfare. Please find more recent works addressing the frequency of bone fracture cases in laying hens. L116 omitted reference L160 As previously, please specify the average duration of a CT scan for a single bird. If 60 birds were scanned with an average scan time of 10 minutes, this implies 10 hours of continuous measurements. Was the CT analysis conducted in a single day? L200 and L209 Clarification is needed. L200 indicates that only tibiae were frozen, while L209 suggests that whole legs were frozen. L221 I reiterate my previous comment: In a three-point bending test, the maximal bending moment equals FL/4, where F is the breaking strength and L is the span width. Since the span width was consistent across samples (4 cm), the maximum bending moment is merely the breaking strength F multiplied by 0.01 m. Including bending moment results does not introduce new data. Additionally, the correct unit for bending moment is Nm, not N/m, leading to confusion about what was actually calculated. Therefore, bending moment should be removed from the manuscript. L236 and L345 Consider using the term "bone formation markers" for clarity L258 After further investigation, I found another article by one of the authors (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2023.1258935/full) where the smoothing equations turned out to be not one, but two. Which is correct? Necessary revisions should be made accordingly. The current manuscript's equation appears incorrect, as it results in μ regardless of whether (Ai-mi) is greater or smaller than t (the same applies to the work published in Animals; despite the authors' assurances, the equation is essentially identical in all cases). Table 1 – change “f “ (frequency) to “n” (number of daily activities) L398-400 please remove, as such conclusions cannot be drawn without a direct comparison with white-feathered pullets since only brown-feathered strains of hens were studied. L425 As no medullary bone measurements were performed, the assumption is speculative. The references are not formatted according to the journal's requirements. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r001
Revision 1
23 Apr 2024 Author Response Thank you to the editorial board and the reviewer for providing thoughtful comments to improve the integrity of this manuscript. We have attached our responses to the reviewer comments below. General comments: Large sections of the methodology are verbatim copies of previous work (10.3390/ani14020265). AU: Thank you so much for your guidance, we have revised the methodology section to ensure that it does not contain verbatim copies of our previous work. We have taken your guidance seriously and have made the necessary changes to rephrase the text while still accurately conveying the methodology employed in our study. The manuscript lacks a clearly defined aim and research hypothesis. It should include definitions for "musculoskeletal health metrics" and "novel biomarkers of bone mineralization” (after reviewing the manuscript, it's completely unclear to me what these are). These definitions should be incorporated into the introduction. Thank you for pointing this out. The aim of the study is provided in L26-28, as well as in L99-103. We added specific musculoskeletal health metrics within the objective for clarification. The hypothesis can be found in L97-98. My previous general comments also apply to this study: Including bone weight and its relative proportion to total body weight could offer valuable insights into the skeletal effects of perch access. Similarly, reporting muscle weight as relative muscle weight would enhance understanding of muscle development among different groups. These are crucial for determining whether perch inclusion indeed had a quantitative effect on musculoskeletal development. Refer to the discussion at L380 – without correlating muscle mass to total body weight, the statement remains inconclusive. AU: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestion, which we have taken into careful consideration. In response, we have revised the muscle deposition section of our study, presenting the data as relative muscle weight in relation to body weight, as per your recommendation. Regarding the bone aspect, our intention was not to report bone weight; rather, we aimed to emphasize bone area and mineral density in our analysis. Given the availability of CT scans, presenting cross-section images of the tibiotarsal bone mid-diaphysis could visually illustrate potential changes in medullary bone formation among the hen groups (see discussion, L425). AU: thank you so much for such an excellent idea; we tried to include some images; however, since we use the multiplanar reformatting (MPR) feature of Horos to make these measurements, capturing the images was very challenging, and quality was truly impacted which make it difficult to incorporate in the manuscript and publish them. The study would benefit from recognizing certain limitations, such as not analyzing the wing bone. Perch activity likely affects the bones of the chest, shoulder girdle, and wings, as indicated by changes in pectoral muscle mass. See discussion sections L371-373 and L374-376 for examples. This is a great point. Thank you for recognizing this limitation, which has been included within the relevant discussion areas (L404-406). Specific comments: Is there a specific rationale, related to birds' development stages or changes in feeding/housing regimes, for selecting these particular time points (5, 11, and 17 weeks of age)? Please provide clarification. AU: We endeavored to align our study with the developmental stages corresponding to changes in dietary supplementation. Specifically, we designated week 5 as the conclusion of the starter diets phase, week 11 as the conclusion of the grower diet phase, and week 17 as the conclusion of the pre-lay diet phase, in accordance with the Hy-Line International Standard Management Guidelines. In the first paragraph, please seek more recent references concerning osteoporosis in laying hens. Citing excellent but over twenty-year-old studies suggests that this problem has been known for a quarter-century, yet, despite hundreds of research papers, it remains unresolved. Changes in housing conditions, alternative animal keeping methods, consumer knowledge, dietary recommendations, and legal guidelines have significantly improved animal welfare. Please find more recent works addressing the frequency of bone fracture cases in laying hens. Thank you for pointing this out. We have found and included more recent relevant references within this paragraph. L116 omitted reference This reference has been amended. L160 As previously, please specify the average duration of a CT scan for a single bird. If 60 birds were scanned with an average scan time of 10 minutes, this implies 10 hours of continuous measurements. Was the CT analysis conducted in a single day? AU: CT scanning was conducted for all the hens on the same day, images were acquired and analysis was conducted afterward. L200 and L209 Clarification is needed. L200 indicates that only tibiae were frozen, while L209 suggests that whole legs were frozen. Thank you for catching this error, clarification has been provided in L225-227. L221 I reiterate my previous comment: In a three-point bending test, the maximal bending moment equals FL/4, where F is the breaking strength and L is the span width. Since the span width was consistent across samples (4 cm), the maximum bending moment is merely the breaking strength F multiplied by 0.01 m. Including bending moment results does not introduce new data. Additionally, the correct unit for bending moment is Nm, not N/m, leading to confusion about what was actually calculated. Therefore, bending moment should be removed from the manuscript. Thank you for pointing this out. Maximum bending moment has been removed from the relevant areas within the results and discussion. L236 and L345 Consider using the term "bone formation markers" for clarity Thank you for this suggestion, it has been applied within the manuscript. L258 After further investigation, I found another article by one of the authors (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2023.1258935/full) where the smoothing equations turned out to be not one, but two. Which is correct? Necessary revisions should be made accordingly. The current manuscript's equation appears incorrect, as it results in μ regardless of whether (Ai-mi) is greater or smaller than t (the same applies to the work published in Animals; despite the authors' assurances, the equation is essentially identical in all cases). AU: Thank you sincerely for your valuable comments. You are indeed correct; there are two equations in our submission. Unfortunately, during the formatting process, these equations were inadvertently merged together in the version you received. We have since rectified this issue and separated them accordingly. It's important to note that we are employing the same approach previously developed in our lab to assess activity. Specifically, we are examining significant shifts in vertical activity, indicative of vertical displacement, within this study. Table 1 – change “f “ (frequency) to “n” (number of daily activities) This has been edited within Table 1. L398-400 please remove, as such conclusions cannot be drawn without a direct comparison with white-feathered pullets since only brown-feathered strains of hens were studied. This sentence has been omitted. L425 As no medullary bone measurements were performed, the assumption is speculative. AU: Thank you very much for your valuable insights; we wholeheartedly agree. While the medullary bone measurements were not incorporated, we did observe an increase in the density and thickness of the cortical bone. This observation still underscores and emphasizes the impact of the intervention. The references are not formatted according to the journal's requirements. Thank you for catching this mistake, the references have been updated to meet the journal requirements. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r002
20 May 2024 Decision Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor PONE-D-24-03112R1Influence of perch provision during rearing on activity and musculoskeletal health of pulletsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ali, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 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, Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: Thank you to the authors for the revisions, which have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript and clarified most of the doubts or comments raised during the review. However, I still have reservations about the claim that Bone Alkaline Phosphatase (BALP/BLP) and Procollagen Type 1 N-Terminal Propeptide (P1NP) are "novel markers of bone formation." These are standard markers of bone turnover (in this case, osteolysis) that have been used for several years in both human and veterinary medicine. Commercial ELISA kits for poultry have been available from many suppliers for years, making it difficult to regard these markers as "novel." Also, in the case of laying hens (at various ages), not just broilers, the use of ELISA tests to measure levels of BALP and P1NP in blood serum as markers of osteolysis has been repeatedly employed, as evidenced by numerous publications in the last 10 years. For example, I used these markers in my own research on laying hens five years ago, and even at that time, I did not consider them "novel markers" but rather as a well-established, reliable analytical method in the study of bone metabolism in laying hens. In the form currently presented by the authors in the revision, I see no reason to call these assays"novel." ****** 7. 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r003
Revision 2
13 Jun 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Thank you to the authors for the revisions, which have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript and clarified most of the doubts or comments raised during the review. However, I still have reservations about the claim that Bone Alkaline Phosphatase (BALP/BLP) and Procollagen Type 1 N-Terminal Propeptide (P1NP) are "novel markers of bone formation." These are standard markers of bone turnover (in this case, osteolysis) that have been used for several years in both human and veterinary medicine. Commercial ELISA kits for poultry have been available from many suppliers for years, making it difficult to regard these markers as "novel." Also, in the case of laying hens (at various ages), not just broilers, the use of ELISA tests to measure levels of BALP and P1NP in blood serum as markers of osteolysis has been repeatedly employed, as evidenced by numerous publications in the last 10 years. For example, I used these markers in my own research on laying hens five years ago, and even at that time, I did not consider them "novel markers" but rather as a well-established, reliable analytical method in the study of bone metabolism in laying hens. In the form currently presented by the authors in the revision, I see no reason to call these assays"novel." AU: Thank you for this comment and we would agree. We have updated the manuscript throughout to reflect this. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Author Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r004
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor Influence of perch provision during rearing on activity and musculoskeletal health of pullets PONE-D-24-03112R2 Dear Dr. Ahmed Ali, 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, Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 4. 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: (No Response) ****** 5. 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: (No Response) ****** 6. 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: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r005
Formally Accepted
4 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ewa Tomaszewska, Editor PONE-D-24-03112R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ali, 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 Professor Ewa Tomaszewska Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307114.r006

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 .