PONE-D-23-43596A novel methionine nanoparticle in broiler chickens: Bioavailability and requirementsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mehri,

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 18 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,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 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

**********

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: Comments to the Authors

I have conducted a thorough examination of the manuscript, and it is evident that substantial revisions are needed. Below are some of my comments:

Comment #1. Line 23, 24. "p < 0.05" should be italicized. Pleasse check the whole manscript.

Comment #2. Abstract. In conclusion, it would be beneficial to include information regarding the optimal dose of methionine supplementation. Please consider adding this detail.

Comment #3: Keywords. It would be beneficial to enrich the study by including important keywords related to the research. Consider incorporating specific terms such as the name of the animal involved and the substance used.

Comment #4. Introduction. Consider emphasizing the research problem and the novelty more towards the end of the introduction for better clarity. Please rewrite it clearly with mention the specific parameters to achieve the aim.

Comment #5: Line 145. Preparation of Methionine Nanoparticles. It would be beneficial to provide references for the methodology used in the preparation of methionine nanoparticles. This helps readers and researchers to access additional information, ensuring transparency and credibility in the study.

Comment #6: Line 207 and 208. Inconsistent Figure References. Please use either the abbreviation 'Fig.' or the full name 'Figure' consistently for references such as 'Fig. 1a' and 'Figure 2b' to maintain uniformity throughout the document. Please check the entire manuscript.

Comment #7: Results. In the section spanning from Line 206 to 212, it would be beneficial to include a descriptive title for the description of this result. A clear and concise title will provide readers with a preview of the content, aiding in the overall organization and comprehension of the manuscript.

Comment #8: Results. In Line 213, the term "Analysis of variance" is used as a title. Please consider if this title accurately reflects the specific content and findings presented in this section. If possible, provide a more specific and descriptive title that aligns with the nature of the results discussed, ensuring clarity for readers.

Comment #9: Line 247, 255, 262, 269, 276, etc. Inconsistency in Reference Format. The citation 'Aviagen (2022)' appears multiple times throughout the manuscript. Please clarify whether 'Aviagen (2022)' is a report, a publication, or another type of reference.

Comment #10: Conclusion. It is recommended to place the 'Conclusion' section under a separate heading for improved organization and readability. This would enhance the structure of the manuscript and make it easier for readers to navigate and comprehend the key findings and implications.

Comment #11: Tables. The manuscript makes references to several tables, but they appear to be missing. Please ensure that the tables mentioned in the text are included in the manuscript.

Comment #12: Figures. It is observed that all the figures in the manuscript are without captions. Please check it.

Comment #13. I have noticed a few minor errors and spelling mistakes scattered throughout the manuscript. To enhance the linguistic quality of the manuscript, I would recommend considering professional language revision.

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to participate in reviewing this interesting research manuscript. The study reported a patented formulation of DL methionine into nanoparticles and investigated the positive effect of DL methionine supplementation on broiler performance. The study also statistically compared the performance parameters in response to DL methionine forms “powder and nanoparticles” supplementation using well-designed statistical models. However, I believe that the manuscript needs a major revision to reduce the redundancy and fulfill the following comments.

- The standard performance parameters (body weight and FCR) should be mentioned at least to know how far the results are, when compared to the standard.

- I admire your statistical proficiency. Therefore, I would recommend adding a power analysis for the used sample size.

- Figures’ captions should be provided. The caption should include detailed information about the figure that can be stand-alone to understand the figure without reading the manuscript.

- Where are the Tables (1 – 3), I could not find them in the manuscript?!!

- Line (L) 19: “….to create 11 experimental diets including a basal diet and…” it is confusing. Please add a comma “,” before “including”

- L 43: Reference [3] seems irrelevant to the reported information. Please cite a more relevant reference.

- L 145 – 153: What was the source of lipid used in the methionine nanoparticle formation?

- L 234: Remove “FCR BMY”.

- L (322 – 343): “Nanotechnology has been increasingly ……..” Redundant information and unnecessary details should be omitted. It is already explained in the introduction. Please remove the whole paragraph L (322 – 343).

- Five statistical models were used to analyze FCR, TMY, and MDA (Fig 4, 6, and 7), while only three statistical models were used to analyze BWG and BMY (Fig 3 and 5). I believe that you should be consistent. Please explain if you have a rationale for not being consistent.

- Where is the “Conclusion”?! I guess that it is the last paragraph. Either you call the “Discussion” section (Discussion and conclusion), or you add the section title “Conclusion” before the last paragraph.

- Fig. 8 has not been mentioned in the manuscript. Either you discuss the figure or remove it.

- The supplementary data also has not been mentioned in the manuscript. Further, the “CSV” tables contain values with column titles “Met, BRST, and THIGH”. Should the reader guess?!!!

**********

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: Yes: Ahmed F A Ghareeb

**********

[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: Comments to Authors PONE-D-23-43596.doc

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-43596_Review.docx

A novel methionine nanoparticle in broiler chickens: Bioavailability and requirements

PONE-D-23-43596R1

Dear Dr. Mehri,

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,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

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: 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?

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

**********

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 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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: After thorough review and consideration, I recommend accepting this new version of the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #2: As far as I concerned, the author response fulfilled the comments.

I do not have further comments or concerns.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********