Microbiota of healthy dogs demonstrate a significant decrease in richness and changes in specific bacterial groups in response to supplementation with resistant starch, but not psyllium or methylcellulose, in a randomized cross-over trial
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Microbiota of healthy dogs demonstrate significant changes in specific bacterial groups in response to supplementation with resistant starch (but not psyllium or methylcellulose) in this randomized cross-over trial.
Article activity feed
-
-
All editor and reviewer comments have been sufficiently addressed.
-
-
Reviewer comments have been sufficiently addressed. However, the submitted revision includes comments and tracked changes made in the original document. Please reformat to exclude comments and tracked changes from the document and resubmit. The table describing details of dogs included in the study can remain as a supplemental table. Please replace Figure S1 with a higher-quality image, as the current version is somewhat blurry.
-
-
The reviewers have highlighted minor concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. Please provide more detail in the Methods section and ensure that software is consistently cited and its version and parameters included.
-
Comments to Author
L102-103: It would be better if the author could add a supplementary table containing age, breed, body condition score, gender, parity, housing, feed type, etc. L106, 109: Please indicate the number of dogs. Overall, it is not clear how many dogs received each treatment and study design. How much feed was provided per dog? How was the fecal sample stored by the owner? L111: Figure 1 can be better represented using any of the following illustrations: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1753-0407.12412 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26284684/ L158: Are "metastats" still in service or recommended?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
…
Comments to Author
L102-103: It would be better if the author could add a supplementary table containing age, breed, body condition score, gender, parity, housing, feed type, etc. L106, 109: Please indicate the number of dogs. Overall, it is not clear how many dogs received each treatment and study design. How much feed was provided per dog? How was the fecal sample stored by the owner? L111: Figure 1 can be better represented using any of the following illustrations: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1753-0407.12412 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26284684/ L158: Are "metastats" still in service or recommended?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
The manuscript describes useful new information. I have some comments. The title is not clear as it not accurately describes the findings - not all tested fibers induced changes. I would recommend to be more descriptive in the title (and avoid conclusions), and then in the manuscript describe the findings. For bacterial taxa - what are the numbers mean? It's difficult to follow, are they percentages or fractions? So for example, is 0.00024 for Psychrobacter 0.00024%, or is it 0.024%. Expressing the data in % would be easier to read. Same in the tables - please change to % and also add the ranges for them to get a better understanding on data distribution and changes due to fiber. * Please add a paragraph about limitations of 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Recent studies have highlight the concern about …
Comments to Author
The manuscript describes useful new information. I have some comments. The title is not clear as it not accurately describes the findings - not all tested fibers induced changes. I would recommend to be more descriptive in the title (and avoid conclusions), and then in the manuscript describe the findings. For bacterial taxa - what are the numbers mean? It's difficult to follow, are they percentages or fractions? So for example, is 0.00024 for Psychrobacter 0.00024%, or is it 0.024%. Expressing the data in % would be easier to read. Same in the tables - please change to % and also add the ranges for them to get a better understanding on data distribution and changes due to fiber. * Please add a paragraph about limitations of 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Recent studies have highlight the concern about analyzing compositional data and the lack of reproducibility due to batch effects and bioinformatics. You should add that in future studies validation of the used pipelines is recommended to make results comparable. See PMID: 29187837 and PMID: 38114587
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-