Dear Dr. Lourenço da Silva,

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.

The manuscript addresses an important welfare-related condition in broiler chickens and is generally well-written. Both reviewers found the topic relevant and the methodology acceptable. However, clarification is needed on the feeding regimes, the term “hypercaloric diet,” and citation issues. Missing supplementary files should be made available. Expanding the discussion on practical applications and potential histological support is recommended. I recommend major revision before acceptance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2025 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.

• 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,

Arda Yildirim, 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. 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.

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure/Table/etc. which you refer to in your text on page 25.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. The reviewers found your study to be original and relevant, with potential value for both poultry science and broader animal welfare discussions. However, they also raised important points regarding the need for additional microscopic or molecular support, clarification of certain terms and procedures, and improved accessibility of supplementary materials. In light of these comments, a major revision is required before a final decision can be made. We encourage you to carefully address all reviewer suggestions to enhance the clarity and scientific rigor of your manuscript. Best regards, Arda Yıldırım

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, three different strains of broiler chicken were compared in terms of gait, posture and myopathies in the M. latissimus dorsi. The manuscript is very well written, the contents can well be understood also by readers not that much familiar with poultry science. The contents are of high relevance demonstrating that high and disproportionate growth is at the costs of animal welfare. Research on myopathies in broiler chickens is largely focused on the pectoralis muscle as the most important muscle in terms of the meat product and its high share of total muscle mass. However, other muscles balancing the body posture must also be considered, and the non-invasive photogrammetric method described herein provides a valuable tool for assessing and predicting imbalances in the musculo-skeletal system.

Since PlosOne is targeting a broad scientific community, some poulty commons should be explained to non-expert readers: (1) the different times on the different diets (starter, grower, and finisher) were assumingly related to the growth velocity of the strains. However, it would be interesting to get to know whether the age at shifting to the next day was based on reaching a certain body weight and how the time of changing the diets might be related to some portion of the adult weight the animals would theoretically reach. (2) Some conclusions or suggestion would be helpful on how to implement the findings about genetic strains into chicken meat production systems aiming to improve health and welfare of the birds. A hypercaloric diet was mentioned in Line 366, but this might need some discussion in terms of feed efficiency. What losses and what gains would be encountered if using slower growing strains? Would a change in feeding or in final slaughter weight help? Is the posture assessment potentially applicable under field conditions?

Line 33: Correct typo in “Five bids/pen”.

Line 366: some explanation about the term “hypercaloric diet” should be provided (how much over needs, why used…).

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study that investigates dorsal cranial myopathy (DCM) through the lens of musculoskeletal biomechanical balance and gait analysis.

Major Comments:

The study would be significantly strengthened by the inclusion of microscopic findings or molecular/biomarker data to support the macroscopic observations. As it stands, the conclusions are based solely on gross morphological assessments, which limits the depth of pathological characterization.

I was unable to access the supplementary materials submitted with the manuscript. Please ensure that these documents are available and accessible for review.

Minor Comments:

Line 188 – (P.374): It is unclear what this reference (P.374) pertains to. Please clarify or correct the citation.

**********

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.

Fast growth rate is associated with musculoskeletal biomechanical imbalance and dorsal cranial myopathy in broiler chickens

PONE-D-25-26158R1

Dear Dr. Lourenço da Silva,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Arda Yildirim, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revised submission. The revisions have satisfactorily addressed the majority of the reviewers' comments and concerns. I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is now recommended for acceptance and publication. Regards, Arda Yıldırım

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The open questions were adequately addressed, thank you. Otherwise, I have no further comments to add.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********