PONE-D-24-45645Effects of supplementing a polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract through drinking water on egg production and quality of laying hensPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karunaratne,

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 Jan 03 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.

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,

Agung Irawan

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.  Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interest ssection:

“Mathew Flavel, a co-author of this manuscript is attached to the company that supplies the polyphenol product. However, he did not involve with manuscript writing, data analysis and interpretation.”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company

a.        Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 & 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The objective of the manuscript was to evaluate whether the inclusion of a polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract (PRSE) in drinking water could improve egg production and the quality of commercial layers. This manuscript has been well written, the materials and methods used have met statistical standards. The writing of the results has described the results of the data obtained. In the discussion section, it is necessary to sharpen the scientific mechanism of polyphenols in relation to egg production and egg quality. In the discussion it is stated that the source of polyphenols greatly affects egg production and egg quality, what are the key things that cause polyphenols from sugarcane extract to have no impact on egg production and egg quality. Compare the polyphenol content given in this study with the polyphenol content from other reference sources that have a significant impact on egg production and egg quality in laying hens. How is the difference in polyphenol activity from different sources? Is the source of polyphenols related to the binding of polyphenols to other compounds?, so that it affects the performance of polyphenols when consumed by laying hens. Is there a difference in the mechanism of action of polyphenols on laying hens when given through drinking water and through supplementation in feed? This manuscript has not written a conclusion section, so a conclusion section needs to be added.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and identified several areas for improvement to enhance the clarity and quality of the study. Overall, the introduction could benefit from a more cohesive structure, providing clearer background information on the poultry industry and the context of polyphenols and sugarcane. Additionally, further explanation is needed regarding the mechanisms through which PRSE affects the various variables analyzed, including the reduction in yolk color and its impact on antioxidant capacity. The results would be better presented in graphical form to facilitate comprehension, and additional details regarding the treatment duration and environmental conditions would help contextualize the findings. I also suggest further clarification of the rationale behind the chosen PRSE dose, as well as consideration of higher doses based on previous studies.

Reviewer #3: Comments: PONE-D-24-45645

1. The study on the inclusion of polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract (PRSE) in the drinking water of Shaver Brown hens provides valuable insights into its potential benefits and limitations. While the study highlights that PRSE supplementation did not significantly impact overall egg production metrics such as hen-day egg production, hen-housed egg production, egg weight, egg mass, or feed conversion ratio, it is important to delve deeper into the nuances of these findings. The trend towards significance in egg weight at week 45 suggests that there may be subtle benefits that could become more pronounced with further research or different dosages.

2. The significant reduction in yolk color during week 45 raises questions about the consistency of PRSE’s effects over time. This transient change indicates that while PRSE may influence certain egg quality parameters, these effects might not be sustained throughout the study period. It would be beneficial to explore the underlying mechanisms that cause these temporary changes and whether adjustments in dosage or duration of supplementation could lead to more consistent results.

3. The study also notes that yolk height, thick albumen height, and Haugh units were unaffected by PRSE treatment, while thin albumen height showed a trend towards reduction at weeks 47 and 49. These findings suggest that PRSE’s impact on egg quality is complex and may vary across different parameters. Further investigation into how PRSE interacts with the physiological processes involved in egg formation could provide a clearer picture of its potential benefits.

4. One of the most promising findings is the significant increase in antioxidant capacity in the PRSE group at week 45, as revealed by the DPPH assay. This indicates that PRSE has the potential to enhance the antioxidant status of hens, which could contribute to improved health and productivity. However, the temporary nature of this effect suggests that continuous or optimized supplementation strategies may be necessary to maintain these benefits.

5. It’s important to detail how water consumption was monitored during the study to ensure accurate dosing of PRSE.

6. The manuscript should elaborate on the potential mechanisms through which polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract (PRSE) influences egg production and quality.

7. Discussing the rationale behind the chosen dose of 0.05% PRSE and exploring the potential for dose optimization could add depth to the study.

8. Providing practical recommendations for poultry farmers based on the study findings would be valuable.

9. Overall, the study provides a foundation for understanding the effects of PRSE on commercial layers, but it also highlights the need for further research. Future studies should focus on optimizing the dosage and duration of PRSE supplementation, exploring its long-term effects, and elucidating the mechanisms behind its impact on egg quality and antioxidant capacity. By addressing these areas, researchers can better determine the practical applications of PRSE in poultry nutrition and its potential to enhance the productivity and health of commercial layers.

**********

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: Yes:  Cecep Hidayat (The National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia)

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Aan Andri Yano

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Ahmed A.A. Abdel-Wareth

**********

[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: PONE-D-24-45645_corrected.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for PLoS ONE.docx

PONE-D-24-45645R1Effects of supplementing a polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract through drinking water on egg production and quality of laying hensPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karunaratne,

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 Jan 22 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.

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,

Agung Irawan

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

According to authors' statement, Mathew Flavel should not have been listed as co-author as he/she did not involve in the manuscript preparation and writing and did not intellectually contribute to the manuscript. Please review the authorship requirement of the journal for more details. 

Please provide justification and/or rebuttal to the reviewer's comments for the revision. 

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: In my opinion, this revised manuscript meets the following requirements:

1. The study presents the results of original research.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyzes are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

5. The article is presented in an intelligent fashion and is written in standard English.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

The revised manuscript provides a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract (PRSE) supplementation on egg production, quality, and antioxidant capacity in laying hens. The authors have addressed most of the reviewers’ comments, including improving the introduction with relevant background on the poultry industry and the context of PRSE, justifying the chosen dosage, and elaborating on mechanisms influencing egg quality and antioxidant effects. The statistical analysis is rigorous, and the conclusions are well-supported by the data. However, there are areas that could benefit from further refinement, such as providing detailed environmental data (e.g., temperature and humidity), adding graphical representations to enhance the presentation of trends, and deepening the discussion on the mechanistic basis of PRSE’s effects on yolk color and antioxidant capacity. These improvements would further strengthen the manuscript's clarity and impact. Overall, the study is technically sound and provides valuable insights, with only minor revisions needed for enhanced readability and completeness.

Reviewer #3: (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: Yes:  Dr. Cecep Hidayat, National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Aan Andri Yano

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Ahmed A.A. Abdel-Wareth

**********

[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: Review for revised manuscript.docx

Effects of supplementing a polyphenol-rich sugarcane extract through drinking water on egg production and quality of laying hens

PONE-D-24-45645R2

Dear Dr. Karunaratne,

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,

Agung Irawan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: