All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for responding to all comments and for revising the manuscript. Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The topic of the manuscript is appropriate for the Journal. Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
Materials and methods section don't needs any changes. Literature well referenced & relevant.
No comments
No comments
no comment
good improvements
no comment
nice improvements, no further remarks to the paper
The study is well presented, and reflected the novelty. I feel that the manuscript is dealing with a good topic but lacks in the quality of preparation. The main problem found in the manuscript is related to the some aspects of the methodology and technical corrections. Please describe the subject of age differences clearly in MS and inform why these parameters (SAA, plasma glucose, serum insulin, TG and NEFA concentrations) are not measured for winter months. It is necessary to improve the manuscript by examining the questions that need to be clarified in a way. Please be aware of the manuscript should be presented according to guidelines for authors of PeerJ. For your guidance, you can check the reviewers' comments. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
The manuscript is well written in all its parts and literature is well covered and referenced.
The topic of the manuscript is appropriate for the Journal and the information is of significant interest to the Journal\'s readers.
Some clarifications that should be added to the material and methods should be added to the manuscript as described in the general comments for the author
The data is well presented and reflected the novelty
The conclusions are appropriately stated and connected with the research question.
The title accurately reflects the major findings of the work, however, I suggest to add “geldings to Shetland ponies and Warmblood horses.
It is useful for the authors to mention the reason for the selection of only geldings animals in their study.
Line 92-93: have age differences between the ponies and the horses been considered when comparing the results between two groups?
Line 119-121: Serum amyloid A (SAA), plasma glucose, serum insulin, serum triglycerides (TG) and serum non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) concentrations were analyzed only in t0 (October 2015), t2 (October 2016) and t5 (December 2017). Have these parameters been considered in winter only?
Line 114: Did the authors used a 14-gauge-catheter for blood sampling from ponies?
Line 155-169: Could the authors clarify why they used surgical method rather than classical liver biopsy?
Could the surgical operation influnce animal appetite, weight gain and the results of studied blood parameters?
Line 231: Did the animals suffer from additional health problems due to excess nutrition such as colic?
Were there any observations regarding the consumption of drinking water during the study? kindly focus on these observations.
Line 237-238: Could the administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 20 days before sample collection in one animal have any impact on studied liver parameters?
Line 417-418: When discussing the results it is important to consider the time of sample collection (t0,2, 5). Also the impact of season on the results should be discussed.
no comment
line 109: please explain basal state more clearly (e.g. basal serum levels etc.)
line 125-143: please explain more clearly at what timepoint which blood parameter was measured
Results: Pain scores from the LPS challenge are not given in the text or tables
line 252: basal insulin? levels during CGIT??
No comments, nice article with interesting results and discussion
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.