Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a year
#
1
,*Abstract
Domestic dogs can maintain health on complete and well-balanced canine plant-based nutrition (K9PBN). Novel insight on health outcomes in dogs consuming K9PBN is of relevance to veterinary professionals and consumers given a growing interest in non-traditional dog foods with perceived health benefits, while considering potential safety concerns. We aimed to investigate nutritional equivalence by measuring clinical health outcomes in adult dogs fed K9PBN over twelve months compared to a meat-based diet at baseline. We enrolled fifteen clinically healthy adult dogs living in households in Los Angeles County, California in a prospective cohort study and evaluated clinical, hematological, and nutritional parameters in dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, including complete blood count (CBC), blood chemistry, cardiac biomarkers, plasma amino acids, and serum vitamin concentrations. The study found that clinically healthy, client-owned, adult dogs maintain health, based on physical exams, complete blood count, serum chemistry, plasma amino acids, serum vitamins, and cardiac biomarkers combined with client-reported observations, when fed commercial K9PBN over a twelve-month period. This study is the most comprehensive and longest known K9PBN investigation to date and provides clinically relevant evidence-based nutrition data and new knowledge on outcomes in clinically healthy dogs who thrive without consumption of animal-derived ingredients. These results also provide a valuable foundation for the future study of K9PBN as a potential nutritional intervention for clinically relevant pathologies in canine medicine. Lastly, it is of major relevance to One Health paradigms since ingredients produced independent of industrial food animal production are both more sustainable and help to circumvent ethical dilemmas for maintenance of health in domestic dogs.
Introduction
Health relies on species-appropriate nutrition that aligns with different life stage requirements to optimize immune function while resisting disease-promoting stressors and dangers [1] and also remaining cognizant that determinants of health span across five domains, including genetics, behaviors, environmental exposures, health care, and social circumstances [2]. In comparison to the carnivorous wolf (Canis lupus), the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) is an omnivore species based on phylogenetic context and key anatomical-physiological traits [3]. Evolutionary adaptations have resulted in a digestive system that enables dogs to maintain health on nutritionally complete omnivorous diets, including those free of animal ingredients—demonstrating dogs have nutrient, not ingredient, requirements [4]. Compared to the digestive capabilities of its ancestors, the domestic dog has developed adaptations in carbohydrate metabolism that enable more effective starch digestion [5]. This important adaptation also enabled dogs to continue their co-existence with early humans during the agricultural revolution. The result is reflected in modern dogs, where even canine endurance athletes are able to maintain a high level of performance without animal-derived products in their diet [6]. Increasing awareness of industrial food animal production’s central role in driving accelerated anthropogenic climate change, environmental degradation, disease patterns as well as social injustices, has impacted consumer behaviors and fueled a growing interest in products developed without animal-sourced ingredients [4, 7]. Changing societal trends have created an increasing demand for non-conventional dog foods, which has also triggered questions about the nutritional adequacy of such diets and their impact on cardiac and other health outcomes in canine consumers [8–13]. While short-term studies have supported the adequacy of K9PBN [4, 6, 14], the need for long-term studies has remained. Bridging this knowledge gap served as the rationale driving this study. The study aim was to assess nutritional equivalence by measuring long-term health outcomes through evaluation of clinical, hematological, and nutritional parameters in clinically healthy adult dogs fed a well-balanced, high-quality, commercial plant-based diet with pea protein as a main ingredient over twelve months as compared to commercial meat-based diets at baseline. For the purpose of this study, the term “meat-based” is defined as a product with animal-derived protein sources regardless of if the product contains plant-derived ingredients. The term “plant-based” is defined as a product with plant-derived protein sources without animal-derived protein sources. The term “high quality” refers to alignment with AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) nutrient profiles (adult maintenance). The overall hypothesis fueling the study is that parameters of clinical health are maintained within normal limits after a year of consuming K9PBN. We showed that clinically healthy, adult, dogs can maintain health over a longer period of time when using a complete K9PBN approach.
Materials and methods
Study design
A within-subject design with repeated measures was used for quarterly assessment of health status in fifteen adult dogs fed commercial K9PBN between January 2020 and January 2021. All dogs were fed different commercial meat-based diets for at least one year prior to enrollment, allowing individuals to serve as their own controls and strengthen the precision of the study. Clinically healthy canine participants were prospectively identified by emailing all students, staff, and faculty at Western University of Health Sciences (WesternU) in California. The study was approved by the WesternU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (R18IACUC014) with client consent obtained for all participating dogs prior to enrollment in the study. Incentives included a one-year supply of the study diet plus plant-based treats (V-Dog Kind Kibble and Wiggle Biscuits) and a gift card upon study completion. All dogs were examined at the WesternU Pet Health Center (PHC), and subject to quarterly physical examinations by a licensed veterinarian, including recording of body weight and body condition score (using a 9-point scale: underweight (1–3), ideal (4–5), overweight (6–9)) [15], and sample collection (blood, urine, feces) at 0, 6, and 12 months. The veterinarian evaluating the dogs was not blinded. While the study was designed to examine dogs every three months, we expected analyses of samples from the baseline, intermediate, and endpoint of the study would be adequate to fulfill the objectives. Additionally, we conducted monthly interviews with clients during which we also inquired if food and treat amounts were given as instructed (following the manufacturer’s feeding recommendations). Client telephone questionnaire (non-validated) included the following questions: 1) How is your dog’s appetite? Any food consumption changes?, 2) Any water consumption changes (frequency)? Any change in water intake volume?, 3) Any changes in your dog’s defecation pattern? Any changes in fecal consistency, number of bowel movements? Any sign of pain or difficulty defecating?, 4) Any changes in your dog’s urination pattern? Any changes in urine color or odor? Any sign of pain or difficulty urinating?, 5) Any changes in your dog’s body weight (note if scale versus visual)?, 6) Any changes in your dog’s physical appearance? Appearance of coat? Muscle mass?, 7) Any unusual changes in your dog’s behavior. Is your dog bright, alert, responsive?, 8) Any concerns you want to share with us about your dog in reference to this feeding trial?
Nutrient composition of the study diet
V-Dog Kind Kibble (V-Dog, San Francisco, CA) was selected because it is formulated to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles for adult maintenance, and it is the longest-standing manufacturer in the K9PBN category in the US market (since 2005). The nutrient composition of the K9PBN study diet (crude protein, amino acids, crude fat, omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, minerals, vitamins and others) and glyphosate (a widely used herbicide) levels was analyzed by Eurofins Scientific Inc. Nutrition Analysis Center (Des Moines, IA) and compared to AAFCO nutrient profiles for adult maintenance (dogs) [16, 17] and published literature on allowable daily intake (ADI) of glyphosate for humans [18]. The sample for nutrient composition analyses and the study diet fed to the dogs originated from a single batch.
Hematology, blood chemistry, and urinalysis
Blood was collected via cephalic, jugular, or lateral saphenous venipuncture for CBC and blood chemistry, and nutrient biomarker analyses. Venipuncture was performed in dogs at each time point to collect 8 ml of blood divided into 6 ml in red cap-yellow ring (serum clot activator) tubes, 1 ml purple (EDTA), and 1 ml green (lithium heparin) top tubes, which was used for chemistry, hematology, and nutrient biomarker analyses. Urine (2 ml) was collected (ultrasound-guided cystocentesis) into white top tubes (no additive) for urinalysis. A fresh fecal sample was collected from each dog by clients prior to each exam, and stored at -80°C for future analysis. In-house diagnostic evaluations were performed at the WesternU PHC using equipment from IDEXX Laboratories (Westbrook, ME), including a ProCyte Dx Hematology Analyzer (CBC), Catalyst One Chemistry Analyzer (serum chemistry and T4), and VetLab UA Analyzer & SediVue Dx (urinalysis). Batches of serum/plasma samples were also stored at -80°C for future analyses.
Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) analysis was performed by shipping serum sample aliquots to Texas A&M University (TAMU GI Lab, College Station, TX), which uses a high-sensitivity ADVIA Centaur cTnI assay from Siemens Healthineers (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA) that has been validated for use in dogs [19]. NT-proBNP analysis was performed using the Bionote in-clinic, fluorescence immunoassay diagnostic analyzer Vcheck V200 and a canine NT-proBNP assay (Bionote USA, Big Lake, MN), which has also been validated for clinical use [20].
Nutrient biomarker analyses
The nutrient biomarker analyses (plasma amino acids, serum L-carnitine, serum liposoluble vitamins, serum water-soluble vitamins) were completed by third-party laboratories at the University of California Davis (UCD, Amino Acid Laboratory, Davis CA), Eurofins Craft Technologies (Wilson, NC), Michigan State University (MSU, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Lansing MI), and Texas A&M University (TAMU, GI Laboratory, College Station TX), respectively. All samples were shipped to each laboratory in a single batch overnight with iced gel packs.
Plasma was separated from 1 ml whole blood collected into a green top tube (lithium heparin), and submitted to UCD for Plasma Amino Acid (AA) Analysis. Plasma AA concentrations were measured by the Amino Acid Laboratory at UCD by means of an automated high-performance liquid chromatography AA analyzer as previously described [21].
Serum was separated from 6 ml whole blood collected into red cap-yellow ring (CAT Serum Sep Clot Activator) tubes, and sub-divided into 0.5 ml aliquots. One aliquot was sent for L-carnitine analysis. Serum L-carnitine concentration was measured by Eurofins Craft Technologies (Wilson, NC) according to existing laboratory procedures. Samples were diluted and filtered through 10 kDa Amicon Ultra-0.5 mL (Cat. No. UFC501024, EMD Millipore) before analysis using an L-carnitine Assay Kit (Cat. No. AB83392, ABCAM). Colorimetric reactions were measured using a VersaMax tunable microplate reader, following assay kit procedure.
Additionally, 0.5 ml serum sample aliquots were sent to MSU and TAMU for vitamin analyses. Analyses of liposoluble vitamin 25-Hydroxyvitamin D, vitamin A and vitamin E (alpha tocopherol) were performed by the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at MSU (Lansing, MI). Water-soluble vitamin B12 (cobalamin), and vitamin B9 (folate) were analyzed by the GI laboratory at TAMU (College Station, TX) according to internal laboratory protocols.
Statistical analysis
A non-parametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to compare health profiles (clinical, nutritional, and hematological parameters) of dogs at baseline versus endpoint (0 and 12 months), while a Friedman test was used to compare health profiles at baseline, intermediate and endpoint (0, 6 and 12 months). Non-parametric testing was chosen in light of the sample size. Unlike t-tests with small sample sizes, these non-parametric distributions do not assume normal distributions. Still, their power to detect differences is almost as high. Data are presented as median and either Q1 to Q3 (first quartile—third quartile), or (minimum—maximum), which was determined based on the format of available reference values for each of the measured parameters. P-values < .05 were considered statistically significant. Data analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 9 version 9.4.1 for macOS (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).
To determine the minimal required sample size, an a priori power analysis was carried out utilizing the effect size from a recent study on health outcomes in dogs fed a plant-based diet [14]. Plasma taurine concentration from that study was used in the power analysis given the role of this amino acid in some dogs with taurine-deficiency dilated cardiomyopathy [22]. The required sample size using the effect size (d = 1.4) of the plasma taurine concentrations was calculated to be 7 to achieve 0.80 power (1 – β error probability with an α error probability of 0.05 using the Wilcoxon signed-rank with one sample case test). Since we included 15 dogs in this study, which used a within-subject design with repeated measures that allowed subjects to serve as their own controls, our sample size is large enough to detect the size difference we sought with an actual power of 0.83. Sample size and power calculations were completed using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 [23].
Results
Dogs
Dogs enrolled in the study had a median age of 4 years (range 1–11 yrs.) and 53% were male (8 of 15). All dogs were altered (spayed/neutered) except one intact male. Breeds represented (one dog per breed) included, American pit bull terrier, boxer, English bulldog, French bulldog, springer spaniel, Labrador retriever, while the remaining 67% were mixed breed (5, 3, and 1 derived from terrier, herding, and sporting group breeds, respectively). The median (minimum–maximum) body weight was 20.2 kg (5.4–41.4 kg) at baseline, 20.9 kg (5.4–40.7 kg) at 6 months (intermediate), and 20.6 kg (6.2–41.8 kg) at endpoint, showing there was no statistically significant change in body weight between the three timepoints (p = 0.08). Two dogs (1 English bull dog, 1 German shepherd mix) were obese upon enrollment, and their body condition score decreased from 8 to 7 (scale of 1–9). One dog (shepherd mix) was overweight upon enrollment and BCS decreased from 7 to 6 at endpoint (Fig 1). The remaining 80% (12 of 15) of the dogs maintained a normal body condition score of 5 (scale of 1–9). The quarterly physical exam findings combined with monthly client reported histories confirmed that all dogs remained clinically healthy while fed K9PBN over twelve months. No adverse effects were reported for any of the dogs in response to the eight questions included in the client telephone questionnaire.
Nutrient composition of the study diet
Analysis of the study diet (Kind Kibble, V-Dog, San Francisco, CA) confirmed nutrient levels adherent to AAFCO nutrient profiles for adult canine maintenance (Table 1). Additionally, the glyphosate level in the kibble (0.18 mg/kg) measured substantially below the ADI for humans [18].
Table 1
ND: not determined. ω-6/ω-3 FA ratio = omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio = (LA + AA):(ALA + EPA + DHA) = (linoleic + arachidonic):(alpha-linoleic + eicosapentaenoic + docosahexaenoic) acid ratio.
| Nutrient | Units per 1000 kcal ME | Study Diet (Eurofins Analysis) | AAFCO K9 Adult Maintenance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | |||
| Crude protein | g | 75.30 | 45.0 | ND |
| Arginine | g | 5.39 | 1.28 | ND |
| Histidine | g | 1.74 | 0.48 | ND |
| Isoleucine | g | 3.37 | 0.95 | ND |
| Leucine | g | 6.22 | 1.70 | ND |
| Lysine | g | 5.08 | 1.58 | ND |
| Methionine | g | 1.46 | 0.83 | ND |
| Methionine-cystine | g | 2.43 | 1.63 | ND |
| Phenylalanine | g | 3.94 | 1.13 | ND |
| Phenylalanine-tyrosine | g | 6.65 | 1.85 | ND |
| Threonine | g | 3.23 | 1.20 | ND |
| Tryptophan | g | 0.91 | 0.40 | ND |
| Valine | g | 4.00 | 1.23 | ND |
| L-Taurine | g | 0.60 | ND | ND |
| L-Carnitine | mg | 28.83 | ND | ND |
| Crude fat | g | 33.28 | 13.8 | ND |
| Linoleic acid | g | 7.76 | 2.80 | ND |
| Alpha-linoleic acid | g | 2.74 | ND | ND |
| ω-6/ω-3 FA ratio | 3:1 | ND | 30:1 | |
| Minerals | ||||
| Calcium | g | 2.62 | 1.25 | 6.25 |
| Phosphorous | g | 2.33 | 1.00 | 4.00 |
| Ca:P ratio | 1:1 | 1:1 | 2:1 | |
| Potassium | g | 2.94 | 1.5 | ND |
| Sodium | g | 1.06 | 0.20 | ND |
| Chloride | g | 2.40 | 0.30 | ND |
| Magnesium | g | 0.46 | 0.15 | ND |
| Iron | mg | 94.48 | 10.00 | ND |
| Copper | mg | 5.99 | 1.83 | ND |
| Manganese | mg | 13.42 | 1.25 | ND |
| Zinc | mg | 46.24 | 20 | 286 |
| Iodine | mg | 0.37 | 0.25 | 2.75 |
| Selenium | mg | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.5 |
| Vitamins and others | ||||
| Vitamin A | IU | 2,697.37 | 1,250 | 62,500 |
| Vitamin D | IU | 201.80 | 125 | 750 |
| Vitamin E | IU | 88.89 | 12.5 | ND |
| Thiamine, Vit.B1 | mg | 5.48 | 0.56 | ND |
| Riboflavin, Vit.B2 | mg | 3.54 | 1.3 | ND |
| Niacin, Vit.B3 | mg | 17.78 | 3.4 | ND |
| Pantothenic acid, Vit.B5 | mg | 7.76 | 3.0 | ND |
| Pyridoxine, Vit.B6 | mg | 1.40 | 0.38 | ND |
| Folic acid, Vit.B9 | mg | 0.26 | 0.054 | ND |
| Cobalamin, Vit.B12 | mg | 0.01 | 0.007 | ND |
| Choline | mg | 667.92 | 340 | ND |
Ingredients of Study Diet (https://v-dog.com/pages/vegan-dog-nutrition): Dried Peas, Pea Protein, Brown Rice, Oatmeal, Potato Protein, Sorghum, Canola Oil (preserved with Mixed Tocopherols), Natural Flavor, Suncured Alfalfa Meal, Brewers Dried Yeast, Dicalcium Phosphate, Flaxseeds, Millet, Calcium Carbonate, Lentils, Peanut Hearts, Quinoa, Sunflower Chips, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Choline Chloride, Taurine, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Vitamin A Supplement, Niacin Supplement, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin D2 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Folic Acid), Dried Carrots, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Sodium Selenite, Manganese Sulfate, Calcium Iodate), DL-Methionine, Dried Parsley, L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C), preserved with Citric Acid, preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, Dried Celery, Dried Blueberries, Dried Cranberries, Dried Beets, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Dried Lettuce, L-Carnitine, Dried Watercress, Dried Spinach, Rosemary Extract
Complete blood count, blood chemistry, and urinalysis
Comparative analysis of blood work and urinalysis showed no clinically significant changes between baseline, intermediate, and endpoint values. CBC and blood chemistry values remained within normal reference intervals (S1 Table), as provided by IDEXX Laboratories (Westbrook, ME), or DiBartola 2012 in the case of osmolality [24].
The urinalysis results showed no statistically significant differences between baseline, intermediate, and endpoint values (S2 Table). Normal values [25] assume specific gravity is evaluated in light of hydration status, blood work, and history. We identified crystals in the urine from 60% of the dogs (9 of 15) with no identifiable pattern to the changes. Crystals were identified at different time points, including 3 dogs at baseline (1 with unclassified crystals; 1 with struvite & unclassified crystals; 1 with calcium oxalate dihydrate, struvite & unclassified crystals), 3 different dogs at 6 months (2 with struvite & unclassified crystals; 1 with bilirubin & unclassified crystals) and 3 different dogs at end-point (1 with calcium oxalate dihydrate; 2 with struvite & unclassified crystals). One dog had crystals in the urine at both 0 and 12 months (struvite & unclassified crystals), while no crystals were identified at 6 months. Potential crystal formation is associated with changes in urine pH [26, 27]. All dogs were clinically healthy and hydration status remained within normal.
Serum cardiac biomarker concentrations
Serum cTnI concentrations showed no statistically significant differences between baseline, intermediate and endpoint values (p = 0.08), or between baseline and endpoint values alone (p = 0.08). An overall decrease was observed in median (minimum–maximum) values between baseline 62.4 pg/ml (13.2–352.6 pg/ml), intermediate 64.61 pg/ml (11.0–185.5 pg/ml), and endpoint 29.6 pg/ml (6.3–208.9 pg/ml). cTnI levels measured within normal (0–49 pg/ml) in 7, 8, and 10 dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively. cTnI levels were equivocal (50–135 pg/ml) in 5, 3, and 4 dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Levels were consistent with active myocardial injury (≥ 136 pg/ml) in 3, 4, and 1 dog at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively (Fig 2). All study participants were clinically healthy adult dogs with no clinical signs of heart disease.
The Vcheck measurement range for the NT-proBNP assay is 500–10,000 pmol/L, and the limit of detection (500 pmol/L) is reflected in 29% (13 of 45) of all the samples. Horizontal bars represent median values, while minimum and maximum values are shown by short horizontal lines. Black, blue, and red data points represent normal, equivocal, and abnormal values, respectively. The grey-shaded areas reflect normal levels for cTnI (0–49 pg/ml), and NT-proBNP (< 900 pmol/L).
Serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations showed no statistically significant difference between baseline, intermediate, and endpoint values (p = 0.25). A statistically significant difference was found between baseline and endpoint (p = 0.04). A decrease was observed in median (minimum–maximum) values between baseline 586.7 pmol/L (500.0–1,146 pmol/L), intermediate 555.5 pmol/L (500.0–698.5 pmol/L), and endpoint 544.6 pmol/L (500.0–722.0 pmol/L). NT-proBNP levels measured within normal (< 900 pmol/L) in 12, 15, and 15 dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Levels were ‘suspected’ (900–1,800 pmol/L) in three dogs at baseline (Fig 1). None were abnormal (>1,800 pmol/L) at any of the timepoints.
Plasma amino acids, including L-taurine, and serum L-carnitine concentrations
The interquartile intervals (middle 50% of data delineated by the first and third quartiles) of all essential amino acid (AA) levels (Fig 3) measured within or above the reference intervals (Q1 –Q3) provided by the reference laboratory (UC Davis Amino Acid Laboratory) [21] at baseline, intermediate, and endpoint (S3 Table), except tryptophan levels (which measured within the normal minimum to maximum reference interval derived through extrapolation).
Horizontal bars represent medians, while first and third quartiles are shown by short horizontal lines. The grey-shaded areas reflect the interquartile reference intervals (Q1 –Q3) provided by UCD. Lower dashed lines (arginine, leucine, methionine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine) reflect calculated minimum values derived by extrapolation (S3 Table).
Tryptophan levels measured below the first quartile provided by the UCD reference laboratory in 87% of dogs (13 of 15) at baseline while consuming a meat-based diet, 80% of dogs (12 of 15) at 6 months, and 40% of dogs (6 of 15) at 12 months while consuming K9PBN (p = 0.01). Since the reference intervals were provided as quartiles [21], and because tryptophan is an essential AA, we calculated the minimum to maximum reference interval for this AA using the quartiles provided by UC Davis, knowing the interquartile range (IQR) can be derived using standard conventions (S3 Table) [28]. The tryptophan levels at all time points were within the calculated (min.–max.) reference interval (11–103 nmol/ml). We found no statistically significant difference in neither L-taurine nor L-carnitine levels between baseline and endpoint, but their median values increased between 0 and 12 months (Fig 4).
Horizontal bars represent medians, while first and third quartiles are shown by short horizontal lines. The grey-shaded areas reflect reference intervals for L- taurine (60–90 nmol/ml) provided by the UCD Amino Acid Laboratory, and L-carnitine (10–46 uMol/L), as reported by Neumann, et al. (2007).
Serum vitamin concentrations
Serum vitamin A concentrations exhibited a relative increase (p = 0.01) during the trial, while median values stayed within the reference interval (S4 Table). Vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) levels were insufficient in 47% (7 of 15) at baseline, 7% (1 of 15), and 0% of the dogs at endpoint (Fig 5) with a statistically significant change over time (p = 0.004). Vitamin E levels measured above the reference interval at all three time points with no statistically significant change over time (p = 0.33).
Horizontal bars represent median values, while minimum and maximum values are shown by short horizontal lines. Values that are either within the MSU Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory’s reference interval (grey-shaded area), or above, are depicted by black dots, while concentrations that are below the reference interval are depicted by orange dots.
Folate (p = 0.04) and cobalamin (p = 0.25) increased over time (Fig 6), when comparing serum values across the time points. Folate levels measured below the serum reference interval provided by the TAMU GI Laboratory in 40% (6 of 15), 7% (1 of 15), and 20% (3 of 15) of the dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences in baseline versus endpoint values for neither folate (p = 0.09) nor cobalamin (p = 0.17).
Horizontal bars represent median values, while minimum and maximum values are shown by short horizontal lines. Values that are either within the TAMU GI Laboratory’s reference interval (grey-shaded area), or above, are depicted by black dots, while concentrations below the reference interval are depicted by orange dots.
Discussion
In this study, we confirm that clinically healthy adult dogs maintain health when fed a nutritionally complete, commercially available, plant-based diet with pea protein as a main ingredient over a twelve-month period.
Our results align with previously published, short term, studies reporting on the outcomes in dogs fed K9PBN [4, 6, 14]. A recent study by Cavanaugh, et al, evaluated the same diet as used in our study (including peas as a primary protein source) in dogs over a shorter time period [14]. The authors did not detect any essential AA (or taurine) deficiencies, nor any clinically relevant changes in hematological, serum biochemical or echocardiographic parameters after feeding K9PBN to dogs. A 2009 study on canine endurance athletes, which evaluated a plant-based diet in sled dogs over 16 weeks, further supports our findings. This study found that sled dogs maintained hematological parameters and high performance when fed a custom-made meat-free diet [6]. K9PBN is not a new concept when viewed in a global context where many dogs maintain health on vegetarian diets with minimal to no animal-derived ingredients. Still, the scientific study of health outcomes in response to K9PBN has been limited.
Nutrient analysis of the dry food used in this study confirmed compliance with AAFCO nutrient profiles for adult canine maintenance [16]. Additionally, the level of glyphosate (0.18 mg/kg), a widely used herbicide, was measured in the kibble, and found to be significantly below the ADI for humans in the US (1.75 mg/kg) and the EU (0.5 mg/kg) [18]. We also documented that the body weight of dogs that switched to K9PBN remained stable, while body condition scores trended downwards in overweight/obese dogs (Fig 1). Plant-based nutrition is known to reduce body fat in people through various mechanisms, including the lower caloric density of many whole plant foods, impact on energy balance through gut microbiome modulation, increased post-prandial metabolism (diet-induced thermogenesis), etc. [29, 30].
Consumer concerns about heart health and potential risk of diet‐associated DCM (da-DCM) when feeding non-traditional dog foods warrants careful consideration. We evaluated cardiac biomarkers retrospectively in all dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in neither cTnI nor NT-proBNP levels across the three time points, but we did observe a downward trend in both biomarkers (Fig 2). All dogs were clinically healthy; however, the cTnI levels were increased in three dogs at baseline, compared to only one dog at endpoint. We recognize these biomarkers are not specific for DCM, however, these findings may alleviate some concerns about the safety of K9PBN. Plant-based nutrition is a pillar of lifestyle medicine and of central importance to human heart health, specifically prevention and reversal of atherosclerosis [31, 32].
The essential AAs arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, and valine measured within or above normal reference intervals using the first and third quartiles (50% of expected data points) at all time points with an upward trend (Fig 3). Tryptophan levels measured within the reference interval of minimum to maximum values (100% of expected data points). These findings confirm the K9PBN study diet provided all essential AAs exogenously. Additionally, we measured L-taurine (plasma) and L-carnitine (serum) levels and observed a statistically non-significant increase in these nutrients when comparing baseline to endpoint values (Fig 4). We acknowledge the inherent discrepancy between serum and tissue L-carnitine levels. However, these were clinically healthy companion dogs and collection of myocardial biopsies would not be a relevant consideration in this context. We did not measure taurine levels in whole blood or urine, which is a study limitation. The third-party laboratory did not provide reference values for canine L-carnitine serum levels, however, dogs served as their own controls in this study and our findings are consistent with L-carnitine (plasma) levels reported in other clinically healthy dogs with a mean value of 24 uMol/L (range 10–46 uMol/L) [33]. Taurine and L-carnitine are important to myocardial health, and both have been used as nutritional supplements in conjunction with pharmaceutical intervention to address canine DCM [22]. Taurine is derived from sulfur-containing AAs (methionine and cysteine) and considered a conditionally non-essential AA in dogs. As such, taurine deficiency may render some dog breeds more vulnerable to nutritional dilated cardiomyopathy (nDCM) [34, 35]. Taurine impacts the regulation of tissue calcium concentrations and free radical inactivation [22]. L-carnitine is a derivative from essential AAs lysine and methionine and important for long-chain fatty acid oxidation, which is the main energy source for cardiomyocytes in heart health [36]. The mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation capacity is reduced in heart failure where the myocardium increasingly relies on glucose and ketone bodies as alternative sources of energy [36]. Carnitine deficiency has been associated with DCM in humans and dogs, however, elevation in circulating carnitine has also been reported in DCM patients, which may be a compensatory response in the failing myocardium to increase fatty acid oxidation [36]. In humans with heart failure from DCM, L-carnitine supplementation may improve survival time [37]. Carnitine supplementation has also been observed to support canine heart health [38].
Almost half (7 of 15) of the dogs presented with insufficient levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D at baseline (Fig 5). Vitamin D insufficiency in clinically healthy dogs has been reported. One US study measured vitamin D serum levels in a sample of 320 clinically healthy dogs from breed clubs across the US consuming meat-based diets, and found that 85% of dogs were vitamin D insufficient (while 1% of the dogs was vitamin D deficient) [39]. These authors reported that vitamin D levels remained insufficient in approximately 75% of dogs irrespective of supplementation (fish oils). In contrast, we found that vitamin D levels normalized in most dogs at six months (6 of 7 vitamin D insufficient dogs), and all dogs at 12 months, which was achieved with K9PBN alone and without supplement use (Fig 5). Interestingly, a recent communication highlighted that the results from Sharp, et al. (2015), as compared to data reported by the MSU VDL, may be explained by differences in analytical methods between the laboratories [40].
The MSU VDL reported that an adequate serum vitamin E concentration for adult dogs is between 4 and 12 ug/mL (Fig 5). The vitamin E levels in this study were more than adequate, and the relative increase in concentrations is considered unremarkable without cause for concern.
Cobalamin (vitamin B12) and folate (vitamin B9) were measured at 0, 6, and 12 months. While cobalamin measured within the normal reference interval at all three time points, folate levels measured below the serum reference interval provided by the laboratory (TAMU GI Lab, College Station, TX) in 6, 1, and 3 of the dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, respectively (Fig 6). None of these dogs presented with clinical signs that would indicate folate insufficiency, and dogs served as their own controls. Here, the number of folate insufficient dogs decreased by 50% at endpoint after switching from a meat-based diet to K9PBN without supplement use. Supplementation with folate in these cases would have been empirical since the clinical benefits have not been established in dogs without clinical signs, and the sensitivity and specificity of this diagnostic assay has not been established [41]. A team of board-certified nutritionists have reported a different normal reference interval for plasma folate concentrations with a lower minimum value (4–26 ng/mL) [42], suggesting our measurements at all time points could be within normal range. Comparatively, the normal reference interval for folate levels in humans is 6–20 ng/mL, while 3–5.9 ng/mL reflects possible deficiency, and < 3 ng/mL deficiency [43].
We recognize that data from a clinical feeding trial involving client-owned dogs is reliant upon client compliance with instructions to feed only the prescribed study diet/treats. We conducted informal monthly phone interviews with clients to monitor the well-being of canine participants between the quarterly on-campus appointments. During the phone interviews, it was moreover confirmed that all canine participants were fed only the prescribed plant-based study diet/treats (i.e., no foods or treats containing animal-based products). We acknowledge that the phone interviews were not conducted using a validated formal questionnaire.
The study was also limited by structural barriers that meant echocardiographic exams were not obtained. Still, we evaluated cardiac biomarkers, which reflected this nutritional intervention did not impact cardiac status adversely (based on blood biomarkers only) and may have had a positive impact on overall heart health in some dogs. This finding contrasts concerns about using pea protein as a main ingredient [13]. We recognize that a comprehensive cardiac assessment would include echocardiography, and that the absence of such data is a study limitation. We plan to explore these novel findings in combination with echocardiography in future studies on K9PBN.
Significant strengths of this study include its duration and comprehensiveness. Also, all blood nutritional markers and cTnI analyses were performed as fee-for-service by accredited third-party laboratories, which is an additional strength of this study. To our knowledge, this is the longest clinical feeding trial evaluating a nutritionally complete plant-based diet in companion dogs. Furthermore, we measured a significantly greater number of clinical, nutritional, and hematological parameters than any other K9PBN study. Our study design goes far beyond AAFCO feeding trial guidelines [16], which recommend a minimum study period of six months and eight dogs with the health exams performed by a licensed veterinarian and assessment of four blood parameters, including hematocrit, hemoglobin, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase.
The ability to ensure individuals maintain health on non-animal-based food sources is a key component of the ongoing societal shift towards sustainable and more equitable food systems in a global health context. A recent publication in the American Journal of Cardiology also points out that efforts to promote nutrition equity through the emphasis on plant-based nutrition is a moral imperative of the medical profession [44]. With a population of nearly 90 million dogs, the US has the most canine companions per capita worldwide [45]. Dogs have a wealth of positive implications for human health; however, canine populations also translate into a substantial amount of consumption and waste production. A 2017 study estimated dog and cat food production is responsible for up to 30% of the total environmental costs from industrial food animal production [46]. This needs to also be viewed in light of the total cumulative adverse impacts of industrial food animal production and the tremendous potential that could be derived from phasing out this industry with respect to reduction of total global greenhouse gas emissions [47].
Comparatively, humans require nine essential AAs from exogenous sources (histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine.) Dogs have an additional requirement for arginine, while cats have yet another requirement for taurine [48]. The common view that plant proteins are incomplete and inferior to animal proteins is a fallacy from a nutrition science perspective since protein from non-animal sources provide sufficient essential AAs to maintain health. It is well-established that plant proteins are adequate for meeting essential AA requirements for humans since the body possesses an inherent capacity to mix and match AAs to meet required proportions [49]. One study evaluated macronutrient and AA compositions in high-quality and novel protein sources, hereunder pea, potato, faba bean, soy, and dried yeast in reference to canine nutrition [50]. The protein quality and high essential AA digestibility of these ingredients make them viable protein sources for use in dog food alongside ingredients with high sulfur-containing AAs, such as cereal grains to provide sufficient methionine [50].
Studies by Knight, et al., have assessed different aspects of feeding vegan and vegetarian diets to companion animals [4, 7]. A 2022 study aimed to evaluate the nutritional soundness and quality of pet foods globally. The study reported on superior standards for plant-based diets at nearly all stages examined, throughout the design, manufacturing, transportation and storage phases [7]. Two studies reported on quality control concerns in reference to some commercial vegetarian diets [51, 52]. A recent review highlighted the need for collaboration between stakeholders within the pet food industry, veterinary medical community, and consumers to advance companion animal care sustainably [53].
Canine nutrition using novel protein sources (including peas) has been a subject of recent interest in light of da-DCM cases reported in atypical dog breeds in the US [54]. It is important to assess potential risks of nutrient deficiencies (e.g., assessment of protein (essential AAs), vitamin B12, vitamin D3, taurine, L-carnitine, etc.) when using novel protein sources. Notably, the relative uptick in da-DCM cases in the US has not been reported at a comparable scale in Europe or elsewhere, and focus is shifting towards assessment of potential culprits related to ingredient contaminants versus specific nutrient deficiencies. The veterinary community is in need of evidence-based K9PBN research at the intersection between clinical cardiology and nutrition to define clinical health outcomes in dogs transitioned to a diet produced independent of industrial food animal production. This is important because existing food systems are undergoing change as a result of increasing costs of animal-derived ingredients combined with the escalating climate crisis, thus supporting studies on more cost-effective and sustainable options for feeding companion dogs. The present study provides an important stepping stone in that direction.
Supporting information
S1 Table
Complete blood count and blood chemistry analyses in dogs consuming meat-based diets (baseline) versus plant-based nutrition (6 and 12 months).Values reflect median (minimum—maximum).
(DOCX)
S2 Table
Urinalysis in dogs consuming meat-based diets (baseline) versus plant-based nutrition (6 and 12 months).Values refer to median (minimum—maximum). N/A: not applicable (since each row has zero difference, which precludes calculation of a paired test). Semi-quantitative UA parameters were tabulated as ‘0’ (normal/negative/not detected or <1/HPF), ‘1’ (trace), or the highest reported value (e.g., 1-5/HPF and 6-20/HPF were tabulated as ‘5’ and ‘20’, respectively), where HPF is high power field. Urine samples were collected via cystocentesis where iatrogenic microscopic hematuria is to be expected.
(DOCX)
S3 Table
Nutrient analysis including plasma amino acid and serum L-carnitine concentrations in dogs consuming meat-based diets (baseline) versus plant-based nutrition (6 and 12 months).Values refer to median (first quartile—third quartile). Reference values for first and third quartiles were provided by UCD. We requested reference intervals (minimum to maximum) from this laboratory, but were informed they were not available.
(DOCX)
S4 Table
Nutrient analysis of serum vitamin concentrations in dogs consuming meat-based diets (baseline) versus plant-based nutrition (6 and 12 months).Values refer to median (minimum—maximum).
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the organizing team behind the Plant-Based Dog Food Health Study Initiative in Los Angeles, California for facilitating the fundraising efforts that made this study a reality. We acknowledge support from the WesternU College of Veterinary Medicine Office for Research, the True One Medicine Initiative, and colleagues at the WesternU PHC who provided technical support. We also acknowledge BioNote, Inc. for providing the Vcheck200 Analyzer and the canine NT-proBNP assays. Our team is grateful for the participating dogs and clients. The authors declare no financial conflict of interest. The study was completed independent of sponsorship from V-Dog. The Kind Kibble and Wiggle Biscuits were purchased from V-Dog using research funding.
Funding Statement
The study was made possible with funding from the Plant-Based Dog Food Health Study Initiative in Los Angeles, California. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
References
Decision Letter 0
7 Aug 2023
PONE-D-23-18094Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a yearPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Melgarejo,
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 Sep 09 2023 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 gro.solp@enosolp. 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,
Juan J Loor
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
2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:
AL & TM received research funding from Plant-Based Dog Food Health Study Initiative in Los Angeles, California, WesternU College of Veterinary Medicine Office for Research, the True One Medicine Initiative at WU.
Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."
If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.
Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.
3. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement:
AL & TM received research funding from Plant-Based Dog Food Health Study Initiative in Los Angeles, California, WesternU College of Veterinary Medicine Office for Research, the True One Medicine Initiative at WU.
We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.
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 in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form. Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following 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 the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.
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.
4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.
[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
Reviewer #3: Yes
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: I Don't Know
Reviewer #2: Yes
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: This project aimed to look at the health of dogs fed a K9PBD for 12 months by evaluating overt clinical health, blood work, and nutrient biomarkers. The investigators noted no statistical change over time within the sample population following long term ingestion of a non-animal protein based diet. Secondarily, the authors were notably trying to highlight the lack of change in cardiac biomarkers when fed a pea protein diet to reduce the fears of dietary-induced cardiomyopathy.
The reviewer believes that this study does not meet rigorous research standards due to many omissions, including nutrition information each individual subjects' diets before the study and the feeding recommendations during the study. In addition, sweeping comments regarding cardiac health are questionable as true evaluation of cardiac function was not performed; cardiac biomarkers have significant limitations and are not recommended for screening in a general healthy dog population. This study was simple and should be stated as such- maybe a brief communication rather then a publication. The reviewer would not have read this paper after reading the MM; the author should request critical appraisal prior to submission.
Introduction: The reviewer notes that in this introduction, the concern over cardiomyopathy in dogs eating non-traditional foods was not addressed as this was in large part an important portion of the study design and discussion. If the audience for this publication is veterinary health professionals, whom are making the recommendations to pet owners regarding diet, it is essential to highlight the "whys" of this project.
Line 80- Conclusions should not be in the introduction
Study Design: This is a small study population (n=17) and a biased population as people enrolled were all participants in health sciences; if many of these dogs were owned by the veterinary population, stronger bias exists. As the veterinarian evaluating the dogs was not blinded, this should be duly noted. What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria? The client questionnaire should be in supplementary material and noted that it is not validated. No mention of the feeding recommendations is noted- this is essential as the author addresses BCS and body weight. This is an oversight that cannot go overlooked.
Discussion: The reviewer notes areas in the discussion which are superfluous and areas that are considerably lacking. Lines 347-353, which in fact states that dogs can maintain health over time on a meat free diet (which was published in 2009). The current study, therefore, does not provide additional information to the reader. Lines 358-359 the author highlights the reduction in BCS- as no feeding recommendations were noted nor compared with previous kcal, protein, fat, carbohydrate consumption this finding is questionable to be a result of a plant based diet. The change simply may have been a reduction in calories ingested at the bare minimum. The diets ingested prior to the study were not mentioned- therefore the reader has no idea how to compare this change. No mention of muscle condition scoring is noted; did the dogs loose/maintain muscle mass? Were their changes in exercise/environment/etc? Since the owners were not blinded, were they also biased in their reporting? Evaluation of biomarkers is very questionable as they have limited clinical screening use in healthy dogs. The reviewer does not agree with the conclusion that the study findings alleviate any of the cardiomyopathy concerns as no true screening (VHS, Echo) was completed prior to diet change or after 1 year on the diet. To interpret the biomarkers, the prevalence of disease in the population needs to be considered as well as their considerable limitations in a dog with occult DCM. The reviewer is struggling to understand the discussion on Vitamin D- Lines 414-416 discuss the differences in analytical methods as possibly being the reason why the greater population of dogs were notably D deficient. If this is the case, then the comparison to the large population is not applicable. The reviewer is just questioning the comments in this section as these comments appear to negate the findings. Line 446 just simply mentions the pea protein concerns- and the author is trying to assuage their audience of its use in dogs, why is there so little information in the discussion. To the reviewer, it appears as an afterthought and not worthy of my time as a reader. 450-458 simply states what the author has already said- unacceptable to be restated. 460-471 is simply just more words to fill the page and can be stated in a simple sentence in the introduction rather than a paragraph in the discussion. Following a brief discussion of findings, the reader is again presented with a paragraph on PBD- the author again needs to keep these thoughts together rather than spread them out through the discussion in a haphazard fashion.
Reviewer #2: The authors evaluated the effect of a pea-based protein diet in dogs, detecting its safety through clinical information and various laboratory parameters. The authors themselves highlighted and made it clear that the main limitation of the study is its duration of only one year. In this regard, it is difficult to extrapolate that these results are conclusive when considering longer periods, and as the authors mention, further studies will be necessary for confirmation. Another significant limitation mentioned includes cardiac evaluation, as the markers used may not adequately reflect cardiac function, and the time for the development of nutritional cardiopathy is relatively short. As these limitations have been adequately discussed, I believe the manuscript should be published, as it truly opens perspectives for dietary changes in dogs, providing evidence to support this change. Some minor points are included in the sequence.
Introduction
Lines 48-52: The authors used two initial references that provide broad information about immunity and nutrition in reference to dogs, but current knowledge does not allow for such extrapolations.
Line 78: The authors should bring the meaning of the acronym AAFCO in full.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
The main concern of this reviewer is whether, in fact, the dogs received only plant-based food, that is, whether the tutors did not provide any other type of food during the study.
Reviewer #3: The manuscript is very well and clearly written. I have only two comments:
- Would it be possible to analyse urine for taurine? Urinary taurine is considered by many researchers to be the most reliable measure of taurine status and would add to the understanding of whether the dogs are retaining or at risk of becoming depleted in taurine
- The Discussion is quite long, largely because the results are being repeated in the text. I recommend that the authors make efforts to reframe the Discussion.
**********
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: No
Reviewer #3: Yes: Anne Marie Bakke, Prof. Dr.med.vet.
**********
[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 gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 0
5 Sep 2023
Reviewer #1: This project aimed to look at the health of dogs fed a K9PBD for 12 months by evaluating overt clinical health, blood work, and nutrient biomarkers. The investigators noted no statistical change over time within the sample population following long term ingestion of a non-animal protein based diet. Secondarily, the authors were notably trying to highlight the lack of change in cardiac biomarkers when fed a pea protein diet to reduce the fears of dietary-induced cardiomyopathy.
The reviewer believes that this study does not meet rigorous research standards due to many omissions, including nutrition information each individual subjects' diets before the study and the feeding recommendations during the study. In addition, sweeping comments regarding cardiac health are questionable as true evaluation of cardiac function was not performed; cardiac biomarkers have significant limitations and are not recommended for screening in a general healthy dog population. This study was simple and should be stated as such- maybe a brief communication rather then a publication. The reviewer would not have read this paper after reading the MM; the author should request critical appraisal prior to submission.
Thank you for these comments. The authors maintain that the significant extent of data justifies a full-length publication and would not seem suitable for a brief communication. It is correct that the specific nutrition information was not included for individual dogs, because that was not within the scope of the study. Our goal was simply to study dogs who transitioned from a meat-based diet to a plant-based diet. We were not looking to study the specific nutrition information in the meat-based diets at baseline. In our assessment, the study limitations have already been mentioned in the manuscript. It is correct that cardiac biomarker analysis in the absence of echocardiography is far from ideal, however, we had already stated that as a limitation in the original manuscript.
Introduction: The reviewer notes that in this introduction, the concern over cardiomyopathy in dogs eating non-traditional foods was not addressed as this was in large part an important portion of the study design and discussion. If the audience for this publication is veterinary health professionals, whom are making the recommendations to pet owners regarding diet, it is essential to highlight the "whys" of this project.
Thank you for this feedback. It is correct that a complete cardiac exam, including echocardiography, would have been ideal in context of this study. Having said that, it is important to note that most feeding trials would not include an echocardiographic exam. In reality, the AAFCO guidelines for feeding trials have much fewer requirements (line 461-463: “recommend a minimum study period of six months and eight dogs with the health exams performed by a licensed veterinarian and assessment of four blood parameters, including hematocrit, hemoglobin, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase.”) than what we decided to have included for the purpose of this particular feeding trial.
Line 80- Conclusions should not be in the introduction
A summary statement is generally included at the end of an introduction. As such, we have modified the wording to say, ‘We showed that clinically healthy, adult, dogs can maintain health over a longer period of time when using a complete K9PBN approach.”
Study Design: This is a small study population (n=17) and a biased population as people enrolled were all participants in health sciences; if many of these dogs were owned by the veterinary population, stronger bias exists. As the veterinarian evaluating the dogs was not blinded, this should be duly noted. What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria? The client questionnaire should be in supplementary material and noted that it is not validated. No mention of the feeding recommendations is noted- this is essential as the author addresses BCS and body weight. This is an oversight that cannot go overlooked.
Thank you for these important comments. It is correct that dogs enrolled in the study were volunteered by WesternU student, staff, faculty, which is a biased population. We have already stated that the dogs were prospectively identified by emailing all students, staff, and faculty at Western University of Health Sciences (WesternU) in California (line 90-91). We have modified the text to state that the veterinarian evaluating the dogs was not blinded (line 99), and that we used a non-validated questionnaire (line 103). It has furthermore been added to the text (line 103-104), that participating dogs were fed by “following the manufacturer’s feeding recommendations”.
Discussion: The reviewer notes areas in the discussion which are superfluous and areas that are considerably lacking. Lines 347-353, which in fact states that dogs can maintain health over time on a meat free diet (which was published in 2009). The current study, therefore, does not provide additional information to the reader. Lines 358-359 the author highlights the reduction in BCS- as no feeding recommendations were noted nor compared with previous kcal, protein, fat, carbohydrate consumption this finding is questionable to be a result of a plant based diet. The change simply may have been a reduction in calories ingested at the bare minimum. The diets ingested prior to the study were not mentioned- therefore the reader has no idea how to compare this change. No mention of muscle condition scoring is noted; did the dogs loose/maintain muscle mass? Were their changes in exercise/environment/etc? Since the owners were not blinded, were they also biased in their reporting? Evaluation of biomarkers is very questionable as they have limited clinical screening use in healthy dogs. The reviewer does not agree with the conclusion that the study findings alleviate any of the cardiomyopathy concerns as no true screening (VHS, Echo) was completed prior to diet change or after 1 year on the diet. To interpret the biomarkers, the prevalence of disease in the population needs to be considered as well as their considerable limitations in a dog with occult DCM. The reviewer is struggling to understand the discussion on Vitamin D- Lines 414-416 discuss the differences in analytical methods as possibly being the reason why the greater population of dogs were notably D deficient. If this is the case, then the comparison to the large population is not applicable. The reviewer is just questioning the comments in this section as these comments appear to negate the findings. Line 446 just simply mentions the pea protein concerns- and the author is trying to assuage their audience of its use in dogs, why is there so little information in the discussion. To the reviewer, it appears as an afterthought and not worthy of my time as a reader. 450-458 simply states what the author has already said- unacceptable to be restated. 460-471 is simply just more words to fill the page and can be stated in a simple sentence in the introduction rather than a paragraph in the discussion. Following a brief discussion of findings, the reader is again presented with a paragraph on PBD- the author again needs to keep these thoughts together rather than spread them out through the discussion in a haphazard fashion.
Thank you for providing this additional feedback. In reality, this study provides additional information to the reader since we conducted a twelve-month study and used many more parameters than the 2009 study. As mentioned, an in-depth nutrition evaluation of the meat-based diets used at baseline was not within the scope of this study. The clients fed the dogs according to the manufacturer’s recommendation, which has been added. It is correct that the change in BCS may simply reflect a difference in caloric intake. We are not making specific claims to state what is the specific reason, but simply including the relative change in BCS as an observation. It is correct that muscle condition scores were not recorded. In hindsight, this would have been valid to add. The dogs were not subject to any major environmental (or exercise) changes. The fact that clients were not blinded is not of major significance here since we did not use a cross-over design. Assessment of biomarkers involves certain inherent limitations. We have clearly acknowledged in the text what we perceive as the major study limitations. The lack of comprehensive cardiac evaluations is already listed as a study limitation. Still, we have included an additional sentence to highlight this limitation (line 448, 450-451). It should be noted that radiography (VHS) would not be a sensitive tool to screen for DCM. In reference to the concern about the discussion as it pertains to vitamin D, it is noted that MSU is considered the main reference laboratory for this nutritional parameter (vitamin D) in the US. So, we are simply including a comparison to another study that used a different reference laboratory in the UK. Therefore, this comparison doesn’t negate our findings. The mentioning of pea protein as a main ingredient is of interest since some papers have highlighted peas (and pulses) as ‘less desirable’ ingredients. Again, it is not within the scope of this manuscript to discuss pea protein in any greater detail. We find that it is key to highlight the relative length and comprehensiveness of the study. While the bigger One Health picture is a politically charged topic for some readers, we find that veterinary clinician-scientists have a moral responsibility to discuss such topics. Consequently, we find that this content (lines 460-471) serves a very important purpose.
Reviewer #2: The authors evaluated the effect of a pea-based protein diet in dogs, detecting its safety through clinical information and various laboratory parameters. The authors themselves highlighted and made it clear that the main limitation of the study is its duration of only one year. In this regard, it is difficult to extrapolate that these results are conclusive when considering longer periods, and as the authors mention, further studies will be necessary for confirmation. Another significant limitation mentioned includes cardiac evaluation, as the markers used may not adequately reflect cardiac function, and the time for the development of nutritional cardiopathy is relatively short. As these limitations have been adequately discussed, I believe the manuscript should be published, as it truly opens perspectives for dietary changes in dogs, providing evidence to support this change. Some minor points are included in the sequence.
We are grateful that Reviewer #2 recognizes that we have fully acknowledged the limitations of the study, and find that it is suitable for publication. Although this study is not a multi-year investigation, it is the longest study on this particular topic to date.
Introduction
Lines 48-52: The authors used two initial references that provide broad information about immunity and nutrition in reference to dogs, but current knowledge does not allow for such extrapolations.
Yes, that this correct. We have deleted the word ‘canine’ from this sentence to address the concern that these references are not specific to canine health.
Line 78: The authors should bring the meaning of the acronym AAFCO in full.
Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been modified to include ‘Association of American Feed Control Officials’.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
The main concern of this reviewer is whether, in fact, the dogs received only plant-based food, that is, whether the tutors did not provide any other type of food during the study.
This is another important comment. Clinical research involving client-owned dogs requires a high degree of trust that clients follow specific feeding instructions. Unlike a feeding trial with laboratory beagles in a highly controlled environment, the canine study subjects in this project lived with the clients and they ultimately had full control of what these dogs would be consuming. Having said that, the participating dogs in this study were voluntarily enrolled by individuals in a higher education environment (including students, staff, faculty) and we therefore trust that they were following our instructions.
Reviewer #3: The manuscript is very well and clearly written. I have only two comments:
We are thankful to Reviewer #3 for the positive feedback on the manuscript.
- Would it be possible to analyse urine for taurine? Urinary taurine is considered by many researchers to be the most reliable measure of taurine status and would add to the understanding of whether the dogs are retaining or at risk of becoming depleted in taurine
While it is possible to analyze urine for taurine, we only analyzed blood. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to perform additional analyses at this point in time. In future feeding trials, we will take this important feedback into consideration. Many thanks!
- The Discussion is quite long, largely because the results are being repeated in the text. I recommend that the authors make efforts to reframe the Discussion.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have deleted the initial summary of study results (line 338-343) and trimmed content that is included in supplementary material (line 380-381).
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: No
Reviewer #3: Yes: Anne Marie Bakke, Prof. Dr.med.vet.
Decision Letter 1
3 Nov 2023
PONE-D-23-18094R1Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a yearPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Melgarejo,
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.
GIVEN THE SUGGESTION OF REJECTION FROM THE LAST REVIEWER I SOUGHT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM TWO REVIEWERS. I BELIEVE THE COMMENTS FROM REVIEWER #4 MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A REVISED VERSION BEFORE A FINAL DECISION CAN BE MADE.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2023 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 gro.solp@enosolp. 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,
Juan J Loor
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.
[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: All comments have been addressed
Reviewer #4: (No Response)
**********
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: Partly
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #4: Partly
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: I Don't Know
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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: (No Response)
Reviewer #2: The authors responded adequately to the questions presented and the limitations of the study were adequately highlighted, so I believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Reviewer #4: While I agree that the paper and findings support the use of plant-based diets as the main source of nutrition, there is still the possibility of alternative nutrition being available and uncontrollable, as well as a lack of a control group to compare to. The use of the baseline as each individual control is quite far removed from the end of the study (a year later) with limited ability to understand aging or seasonal effects to the parameters. 1 - 11 years is a big range on top of potential breed confounding factors.
STUDY DESIGN:
L99-101: Why is there reference to a sample timeframe of every 3 months if it was disregarded for the analysis? If the samples were taken I feel it would be valuable to show the data, even if it is not analyzed in the final dataset.
RESULTS:
There is no mention of the questionnaire results. Due to their inclusion in the methods, this is a miss.
DISCUSSION:
This contains references to figures already described in the results (i.e. Fig 1, Fig 2 etc) and feels repetitive. I don't believe there is a need to re-reference the figure references.
L389: statement should include lack of analysis of Taurine in urine too.
L441-444: mention of questionnaire again but no clarity on any results/findings from this. This section implies that the questionnaire would give clarity or reassurance on the compliance to the study protocol (i.e. no meat-based treats), however the questions do not cover additional feeding explicitly. I am concerned that the questionnaire is inadequate to aid in ensuring compliance.
**********
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
Reviewer #4: Yes: Jennifer Carolyn Coltherd
**********
[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 gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 1
16 Dec 2023
REBUTTAL LETTER
RESPONSE TO ACADEMIC EDITOR & REVIEWER COMMENTS
12/16/23
PONE-D-23-18094R1
Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a year
PLOS ONE
Response to Reviewer #4
Reviewer #4: While I agree that the paper and findings support the use of plant-based diets as the main source of nutrition, there is still the possibility of alternative nutrition being available and uncontrollable, as well as a lack of a control group to compare to. The use of the baseline as each individual control is quite far removed from the end of the study (a year later) with limited ability to understand aging or seasonal effects to the parameters. 1 - 11 years is a big range on top of potential breed confounding factors.
- We thank the reviewer for this important observation and agree that there are always inherent limitations of different study designs, including the one chosen for this study. The possibility of alternative nutrition is inevitable in a study that includes client-owned dogs living in households outside a restrictive laboratory environment. While one can focus on the limitations of work with client-owned dogs, there are also clear advantages. The study of laboratory beagles in a controlled environment does not reflect the true diversity of canine lifestyles and breeds within different home environments. We find the advantages of studying client-owned companion dogs far outweigh any concerns.
Having dogs serve as their own controls is considered a statistically sound approach.
If we had introduced a separate control group, we would have added more variation. The study did not attempt to understand effects of aging or seasonal changes and this was never within the scope. All adult dogs who were volunteered for the study were enrolled. It is correct that one could have elected a narrow range of age, body weight, breed, etc. However, this would also have meant that we would have had a much more difficult time enrolling a sufficient number of dogs in this study. In other words, enrolling dogs in a clinical study is also subject to logistic limitations such as budget and location.
STUDY DESIGN:
L99-101: Why is there reference to a sample timeframe of every 3 months if it was disregarded for the analysis? If the samples were taken, I feel it would be valuable to show the data, even if it is not analyzed in the final dataset.
- As mentioned in lines 94-98, all dogs were examined quarterly, however, samples were collected at 0, 6, and 12 months. Consequently, we show data from three timepoints. Also, analyzing samples quarterly would have required a significantly larger budget.
RESULTS:
There is no mention of the questionnaire results. Due to their inclusion in the methods, this is a miss.
-We have added the following (lines 213-214) in response to the comment: “No adverse effects were reported for any of the dogs in response to the eight questions included in the client telephone questionnaire.”
DISCUSSION:
This contains references to figures already described in the results (i.e. Fig 1, Fig 2 etc.) and feels repetitive. I don't believe there is a need to re-reference the figure references.
-We appreciate the comment and understand that some readers might find this repetitive. Having said that, we have included the figure references to enhance readability for those who benefit from this approach and to improve accessibility.
L389: statement should include lack of analysis of Taurine in urine too.
- Thank you for noting this omission. We have revised the text (line 379): “We did not measure taurine levels in whole blood or urine, which is a study limitation”
L441-444: mention of questionnaire again but no clarity on any results/findings from this. This section implies that the questionnaire would give clarity or reassurance on the compliance to the study protocol (i.e. no meat-based treats), however the questions do not cover additional feeding explicitly. I am concerned that the questionnaire is inadequate to aid in ensuring compliance.
-We have added the following text (line 433): “During the phone interviews, it was moreover confirmed that all canine participants were fed only the prescribed plant-based study diet/treats (i.e., no foods or treats containing animal-based products).”
Attachment
Submitted filename: PLOS_RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS_12_16_23.docx
Decision Letter 2
2 Feb 2024
Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a year
PONE-D-23-18094R2
Dear Dr. Melgarejo,
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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.
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 gro.solp@sserpeno.
Kind regards,
Juan J Loor
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
Acceptance letter
20 Feb 2024
PONE-D-23-18094R2
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Melgarejo,
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.
At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:
* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited
* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,
* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset
If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.
Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@eracremotsuc.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Juan J Loor
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE