Preliminary Study on the Impact of Ruminal Ciliate Inoculation in Fauna-Free Conditions on the Ruminal Fermentation and Ciliate–Prokaryote Association In Vitro
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe objective of the study was to investigate how the inoculation of various ruminal ciliate groups into a fauna-free environment affects in vitro fermentation parameters and ruminal microbiota composition. This research work is of great significance, and the manuscript is also well written. However, the following contents need to be modified.
Abstract:
Line 15: Give the full name of QIIME2.
Introduction:
Line 28-39: The first and second paragraphs should be combined into one paragraph.
Line 78: “aims to” should be “aimed to”.
Materials and Methods:
Line 89: Give the full name of IACUC.
Line 115-116: Give the full name of SP medium and M medium, respectively.
Line 210: Adding author name after “method described by”.
Line 215: Adding author name after “as reported by”.
Results:
In Table 2, what’s the meaning of “dDM”?
Line 439-440: “with the lowest abundance observed in the CON, ENTO, and EPI groups”, this statement is inaccurate.
Conclusions:
Line 527-529: “Despite no changes in fermentation parameters such as NDFD, ADFD, and NH3-N (contrary to our hypothesis), likely due to insufficient ciliate cell counts.” This sentence is incomplete.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is good in the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The objective of the study was to investigate how the inoculation of various ruminal ciliate groups into a fauna-free environment affects in vitro fermentation parameters and ruminal microbiota composition. This research work is of great significance, and the manuscript is also well written. However, the following contents need to be modified.
- Thank you very much for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing feedback, and we have carefully addressed all your questions and concerns in this revised version.
Please find our responses to your comments below, and we hope the changes made in the manuscript satisfactorily address your suggestions.
Abstract:
Comment 1: Line 15, Give the full name of QIIME2.
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge that the full name of QIIME 2 was not provided in the manuscript. As per your suggestion, we have added an explanation of the abbreviation in the Materials and Methods section (Page 5, Section 2.5., Line 217).
Introduction:
Comment 2: Line 28-39, The first and second paragraphs should be combined into one paragraph.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your recommendation to combine the two paragraphs into one, and the necessary changes have been made (Page 1, Introduction, Line 28-38).
Comment 3: Line 78, “aims to” should be “aimed to”.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the grammatical error. We have corrected the sentence as suggested (Page 2, Introduction, Line 77).
Materials and Methods:
Comment 4: Line 89, Give the full name of IACUC.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge that the full name of IACUC and the name of our institution were not properly stated. The necessary revisions have been made (Page 2, Materials and Methods, Line 88-89).
Comment 5: Line 115-116, Give the full name of SP medium and M medium, respectively.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We also wished to provide the full names of SP and M media as per your recommendation. However, after reviewing the original works of Dehority and related literature, we could not find any mention of their full names. This limitation prevents us from providing the requested information (Dehority, 1998). We regret this situation and kindly ask for your understanding.
- Reference: Dehority, B.A. Generation times of Epidinium caudatum and Entodinium caudatum, determined in vitro by transferring at various time intervals. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 1189-1196, doi:10.2527/1998.7641189x.
Comment 6: Line 210, Adding author name after “method described by”.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the omission of the author’s name in this section and have made the necessary corrections (Page 5, Section 2.5., Line 210).
Comment 7: Line 215, Adding author name after “as reported by”.
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the omission of the author’s name in this section and have made the necessary corrections (Page 5, Section 2.5., Line 215).
Results:
Comment 8: In Table 2, what’s the meaning of “dDM”?
Response 8: Thank you for your detailed comment. We recognize that the explanation for the abbreviations in the table footer was insufficient. We have added definitions for all fermentation parameter abbreviations in the table footer (Page 7, Table 2, Line 305-308).
Comment 9: Line 439-440, “with the lowest abundance observed in the CON, ENTO, and EPI groups”, this statement is inaccurate.
Response 9: Thank you for your detailed comment. We agree with your observation and acknowledge that the statement may confuse readers. We have revised the description to improve accuracy (Page 13, Section 3.5., Line 440-441).
Conclusions:
Comment 10: Line 527-529, “Despite no changes in fermentation parameters such as NDFD, ADFD, and NH3-N (contrary to our hypothesis), likely due to insufficient ciliate cell counts.” This sentence is incomplete.
Response 10: Thank you for your detailed response. We acknowledge that the expression in this sentence was incomplete and could confuse readers. We have revised the sentence to clearly explain both the limitations and strengths of our study (Page 15, Conclusions, Line 528-531).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have reviewed the manuscript submitted by Kim et al. (fermentation-3395704). The study aims to investigate the influence of ciliated protozoan inoculation on fermentation parameters and ruminal microbiota composition in vitro.
To the best of my knowledge, the manuscript addresses a relevant topic within the study of ruminal fermentation in vitro and approaches it innovatively. Therefore, in my opinion, the contribution of the manuscript to scientific literature in this field could be relevant. On the other hand, the manuscript is adequately structured, well-written, scientifically robust, and of considerable scientific soundness. I have not been able to identify any relevant criticisms. I believe the manuscript deserves to be published in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your kind words and decision to accept our work without revisions are truly encouraging and deeply appreciated.
It is an honor to know that our research met your expectations, and we are grateful for your thoughtful evaluation and recognition of its value.
Thank you once again for your support and for contributing to the advancement of our work.
