Human milk-based fortifier is associated with less alteration of milk fat globule size than cow milk-based fortifier.

We aimed to evaluate if human milk-based fortifier (HMBF) affects human milk fat globule (MFG) size less than cow milk-based fortifier (CMBF), which may impact overall infant feeding tolerance. Measurements of donated human milk were performed before fortification as well as at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fortification with CMBF or HMBF. MFG size in each sample of fortified milk was measured by laser light scattering. MFG size in the fortified milks increased gradually over time. At 24 and 48 hours after fortification, MFG size in the milk with CMBF was larger than that in the milk with HMBF (4.8 ± 0.5 vs 4.3 ± 0.3 μm, p<0.01, 5.1 ± 0.7 vs 4.5 ± 0.4 μm, p = 0.03, respectively). HMBF is associated with less alteration of MFG size than CMBF. This may have an impact on feeding tolerance of very preterm infants.

Introduction

Mother’s own milk (MOM) is the best nutrition for very preterm infants. There are many advantages, such as decreased rates of infection, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), retinopathy of prematurity, and better cognitive development [1]. However, the amount of protein, calcium, and phosphorus in MOM is inadequate for the appropriate growth of preterm infants. Therefore, a human milk fortifier (HMF) is necessary.

In Japan, the only HMF available for preterm infants is derived from cow’s milk and is in a powder form, known as cow milk-based fortifier (CMBF, Morinaga Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Although fortification of human milk with CMBF may result in variable degrees of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, CMBF in powder form is widely used all over the world. One common, severe GI symptom is the formation of fatty acid calcium stones. Case reports on intestinal obstruction by fatty acid calcium stones have been reported [2-4]. All of the reported infants with calcium stone obstruction were fed with human milk fortified by a CMBF. Additionally, many neonatologists are concerned about the tolerance of a powdered HMF in very preterm infants with a previous history of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), other bowel surgery, or feeding intolerance.

Recently, we reported the first use in Japan of a human milk-based fortifier (HMBF, Prolacta Bioscience, California, USA) as a successful rescue strategy for very preterm infants with severe meconium ileus who had undergone surgeries and were demonstrating poor feeding tolerance and growth [5]. Those infants did not demonstrate any GI problems with HMBF; therefore, we assumed HMBF leads to better fat digestion for these very premature infants with a history of GI tract surgeries. When human milk is fortified according to the manufacturers’ recommendations, the energy and protein level are similar, although there are some differences in fat, carbohydrate, and calcium content.

Some premature infants may not tolerate HMF well. One possible reason is an alteration of the milk fat globule (MFG) in both shape and size. The MFG in unfortified human milk maintains its original shape at the end of gastric digestion [6] but little is known about the shape of MFG in fortified human milk. The MFG structure is also altered by temperature changes and increases in size when human milk is frozen [7, 8]. While the freeze-thaw process typical in many hospitals may change the pH of human milk, this change in pH did not seem to impact MFG size [6]. Additionally, significantly larger fat and mineral aggregations have been found in the feces of infants fed fortified human milk compared to those with preterm formula [9]. Therefore, we speculate that the alteration of the microstructure of the MFG of donor human milk during the freezing process could make aggregates with calcium when the HMF is added and be related to poorer digestion ability.

A safe strategy for the addition of HMF to thawed milk for very preterm infants with GI surgeries or demonstrating feeding intolerance should be established. Our objective was to find out if the HMBF affects MFG size less than CMBF, which may impact overall feeding tolerance.

Methods

Unpasteurized donor human milk (DHM) was evaluated in vitro. All mothers who donated milk provided written, informed consent to use their milk for research purposes. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Showa University School of Medicine.

We collected a total of 60 mL frozen DHM from each mother. The DHM was thawed completely in the refrigerator for 20 hrs. Five mL of thawed samples were used for controls as unfortified milk. The rest of the milk was divided into aliquots with the addition of either 1 packet of CMBF to 30mL DHM or 6mL of HMBF added to 24mL DHM and mixed according to manufacturers’ recommendation. The contents of the CMBF and HMBF along with 100 mL comparisons of fortified human milk are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Contents in unfortified/fortified HM.

	energy(Cal)	protein(g)	fat(g)	carbohydrate(g)	calcium(mg)
( /content)
CMBF(/sachet)	20	1	1	1.7	100
HMBF(/30ml)	43.1	1.8	2.8	2.7	103.1
(  /100mL)
CMBF(#1)	89	2.3	4.7	9.5	132
HMBF(#2)	90.7	2.4	5.3	8.3	119.2

#1: 100ml HM + 1 sachet of CMBF

#2: 70 ml HM + 30 ml HMBF.

MFG size measurements were taken at four times: baseline immediately upon thawing before fortification, and 1, 24, and 48 hours after fortification (Fig 1). Samples were kept in the refrigerator (4°C) until the measurements were performed. The MFG size was measured three times for each sample. The two variables that were evaluated included: 1) MV: Mean diameter of the “volume distribution” which represents the center of gravity of the distribution; and 2) MA: Mean diameter of the “area distribution” which is calculated from the volume distribution.

Fig 1

The timing of particle size measurement.

Timing of Particle Size Measurement. MFG size measurements were taken at four times: baseline upon thawing before fortification, and 1, 24, and 48 hours after fortification.

The measurement of MFG size by laser light scattering has been described elsewhere [7, 10–12]. In brief, Microtrac S3500 (Nikkiso, Tokyo, Japan) employs the laser light scattering method for particle size measurement and covers from 0.02 to 2800 μM. The Tri-Laser system allows light scattering measurements to be made from the forward low angle region to almost the entire angular spectrum (approximately zero to 160 degree). It achieves this through a combination of three lasers and two detector arrays, all in fixed positions. The analysis of scattered light to determine particle size employs a Mie-based unified angular scattering theory from large particle analysis to small particle analysis.

An electron microscope evaluation was performed to observe the difference in MFG size between human milk samples. In terms of scanning electron microscopy, we prepared three samples: thawed unfortified human milk, human milk fortified with CMBF for 24 hours, and human milk fortified with HMBF for 24 hours. The samples were dropped onto a nano-percolator (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) for 1 minute. The samples were air-dried and observed without metal coating by LVSEM (SU-1000; Hitachi High-Tech Co. Tokyo, Japan) using a backscattered electron mode with acceleration voltage of 15 kV in 30 Pa.

The data were summarized by means and standard deviations at each time point of evaluation (after freeze-thaw, 1, 24, and 48 hours post-fortification). To assess whether there were differences in the size distribution of MFG (dependent variable) over time between the two fortified groups (CMBF and HMBF; the independent variable), we used a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance model with an assumption of circularity for the variance-covariance matrix of the data. The assumptions of normality and circularity/sphericity were checked by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Machly’s test, respectively. The lack of the latter assumption was adjusted using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction, if necessary. While the statistical model employed the main effects of fortifier group and time, the group-by-time interaction was the key term in this analysis.

Given the nature of the data, missing values were not an issue. Outliers were detected through the use of box plots for each fortifier group (where outliers were defined as values below the 25th percentile minus 1.5 times the interquartile range and above the 75th percentile plus 1.5 times the interquartile range). Since no outliers were detected, no data transformations or adjustment for outliers were required.

A p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant for all inferential analyses. All statistical analyses were performed using NCSS 2021 Statistical Software (2021, NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA).

Results

Samples of human milk were obtained from 9 Japanese women who were 27–36 years of age and 3–6 months postpartum. All the mothers were registered donors of the Japanese Human Milk Bank Association, had delivered term infants, and had exclusively breastfed their infants.

The mean MFG size in the thawed unfortified DHM and fortified DHM with either CMBF or HMBF is shown in Table 2. The MFG size distribution of the thawed, unfortified milk is shown in Fig 2. At baseline, mean particle size (MA) of MFG in the thawed, unfortified milk was 3.9 ± 0.4 μm. Fortification of 1 hour did not alter the MFG particle size significantly (4.1 ± 0.7 and 4.2 ± 0.2 μm, CMBF and HMBF, respectively). However, the MFG size became larger over time in both fortified milks. At 24 hours after fortification, MFG particle size in the milk with CMBF was larger than MFG size in the milk with HMBF (4.8 ± 0.5 vs 4.3 ± 0.3 μm, p<0.01). At 48 hours after fortification, MFG size remained larger in the milk with CMBF compared to the milk with HMBF (5.1 ± 0.7 vs 4.5 ± 0.4 μm, p = 0.03). In fact, MFG size of the milk with HMBF at 48 hours (4.5 ± 0.4 μm) was still smaller than that found in the milk with CMBF at 24 hours (4.8 ± 0.5 μm). S1 and S2 Tables show all data with HMBF and CMBF, respectively.

Table 2

Changes in area average diameter (MA), volume average diameter (MV), of the MFG with time after fortification.

(n = 9).

	variables		1 hour	24 hours	48 hours
Freeze-thawed (control)	MA	3.9±0.4
	MV	7.1±2.5
CMBF	MA		4.1±0.7	4.8±0.5##	5.1±0.7#
	MV		11.1±4.1	16.8±5.4##	18.5±5.1###
HMBF	MA		4.2±0.2	4.3±0.3	4.5±0.4
	MV		9.7±1.6	9.9±2.2	10.8±2.7

#: p<0.05,

##:p<0.01,

###: p<0.001 vs HMBF

MA (p<0.001) and MV (p = 0,002) increased with time course.

Fig 2

MFG size distribution (thawed milk prior to fortification).

The particle size distribution after the freeze-thaw process prior to any fortification is shown.

As shown in Fig 3, particle size increased over time from baseline for each of the fortified milks. The MV from baseline to 48 hours of the milk fortified with CMBF was significantly larger than that of the milk fortified with HMBF (p<0.001). Additionally, the MA from baseline to 48 hours of the milk fortified with CMBF was significantly larger than that of the milk fortified with HMBF (p = 0.002). The distribution of particle size as measured by electron microscopy at 24 hours after fortification for both CMBF and HMBF are shown in Fig 4. The shape of the particle distribution after 24 hours of CMBF fortification is different from the shape after 24 hours of HMBF fortification, with the CMBF fortification showing 2 peaks and a longer tail (Fig 5).

Fig 3

Particle size with time course.

The diameter of MFG particles increased over time in donor human milk fortified with either cow milk-based fortifier (CMBF) or human milk-based fortifier (HMBF), with larger MFG particle sizes found in milk with CMBF. There were significant differences over time from baseline to 48 hours in mean diameter of the volume distribution (MV) and mean diameter of the area distribution (MA) (p<0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) between CMBF and HMBF.

Fig 4

MFG with electron microscope.

The electron microscopes for unfortified human milk (left side) and the fortified human milk at 24 hours after fortification are shown (right side; the upper photo indicates CMBF and the lower photo indicates HMBF). The arrow indicates MFGs.

Fig 5

Distribution of particle size: 24 hours after fortification.

The particle size distributions after 24 hours of fortification are shown for milk with cow milk-based fortifier (CMBF) and human milk-based fortifier (HMBF). The shape of the particle distribution after 24 hours of CMBF fortification was wider toward the end and different from the shape after 24 hours of HMBF fortification.

Discussion

The feeding of very preterm infants with an exclusive human milk diet which uses only HMBF with DHM or MOM has been shown to reduce the incidence of NEC, sepsis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and retinopathy of prematurity compared to cow milk-based nutrition sources [13-16]. The results of the current study provide new data that the addition of HMBF to thawed DHM results in less alteration in MFG size compared to CMBF. Even after 48 hours of fortification, the MFG size in HM with HMBF was smaller than that in HM with CMBF at 24 hours after fortification.

Our recent questionnaire survey of nurses in Japan found that fortification with CMBF often resulted in reports of abdominal distension and increase in gastric residuals [17]. Similar reports have also been published [18, 19]. Hair et al. has shown that use of CMBF in the diet of very preterm infants correlates with more days on parenteral nutrition and a longer time to achieve full feeds [13]. The source of HMF has been known to affect feeding tolerance of very preterm infants [20]. Feeding intolerance in very preterm infants is a concern since weight gain during NICU stay is known to relate to cognitive function in later life [21].

A possible mechanism for GI distress symptoms is the use of previously frozen, thawed human milk since the freezing process alters the MFG membrane [3, 7]. Previous reports of MFG particle size in fresh unfrozen milk were shown to be 4.0 μm, and increasing in size the longer the milk was frozen, up to 12 months, longer than the milk samples in our study were frozen [7]. This is similar to the particle size we found immediately upon thawing the milk samples. The damaged MFG membrane and premature release of triglycerides could deteriorate fat digestion and the lipid status in milk has been known to affect gut digestion in a piglet model [22]. Because very preterm infants already have difficulty with fat absorption [23], these changes in MFG could further impact the infant’s digestive function. Wei et al [24] previously concluded that MFG with high electrokinetic potential are electrically stabilized while MFG with low electrokinetic potentials tend to coagulate or flocculate. Human MFG demonstrate low electrokinetic potential compared to other animals and may be of special benefit to the digestion and metabolism of human milk fat in infants [25]. Although we have not measured electrokinetic potential in this study, casein micelles protrude outside the MFG membrane and are likely to affect electrokinetic potential [25]. Casein micelles attach to the damaged MFG membrane resulting in larger MFG particle sizes. Since interfacial and electrostatic properties are being altered, damages to the MFG can profoundly affect the stability and properties of milk [25].

In this study, addition of CMBF to DHM resulted in larger MFG size compared with HMBF. This result could indicate that denatured MFG membranes make aggregates with calcium when CMBF is added to thawed human milk. Jensen et al. reported that significantly larger fat and mineral aggregations have been found in the feces of infants fed fortified human milk compared to those with preterm formula [9]. Our results show that the MFG size enlarged with time after fortification; therefore, the aggregation process could be exaggerated by the lag time from addition of HMF. Many NICUs in Japan add powdered CMBF to thawed frozen milk once a day for convenience, which leads to larger MFG size as shown in our results. Furthermore, CMBF contains beta-lactoglobulin which is not present in HMBF, and could also play a role in MFG alteration [26]. Although we cannot estimate how the size changes shown in our results have clinical significance, the more efficient gastric digestion of the fat in human milk might be related to the structure and size of the MFG.

Another issue of concern with feeding intolerance is osmolality which increases with time after the mixture of HMF with human milk [27] at the same time that there is a decrease in anti-infective factors in human milk [28]. For CMBF, osmolality increases to 360 mOsm/kgH2O immediately after fortification and then further increases to 400 mOsm/kgH2O after 24 hours. The osmolalities of human milk fortified with HMBF are in the range of 350–380 mOsm/KgH20, independent of time. Therefore, differences in osmolality does not appear to be significant between these two fortification strategies.

There are some limitations in this study. One limitation is that we did not evaluate a liquid CMBF because there is not yet one available in Japan as there is in other countries. Human milk fortified with liquid CMBF significantly improves preterm infant docosahexanoic acid and arachidonic acid status compared to powdered HMF [29] and may have a different outcome on alteration of the MFG size. Additionally, more data is needed to determine the mechanism of action whereby HMF changes the MFG particle size, the significance of the MFG particle size distribution, and its impact on feeding intolerance of the infant. Finally, we did not evaluate the difference in fat absorption between HMBF and CMBF in clinical settings. However, HMBF has been known to result in better GI tolerance compared to CMBF [20, 30]; therefore, we assume the fat absorption might be better tolerated with HMBF due to decreased MFG size alteration.

In conclusion, a HMBF is associated with less alteration of MFG size than CMBF. This may impact feeding tolerance of very preterm infants who often have difficulties with fat absorption and should be considered when providing nutritional care.

All data on MFG size with HMBF.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

All data on MFG size with CMBF.

MFG particle size data are shown 1 hour after fortification in upper panel, 24 hours after fortification in middle panel, and 48 hours after fortification in the bottom panel. MV: mean volume diameter, MN: mean number diameter, MA: mean area diameter, SD: standard deviation, CS: calculated specific surface area, TR: transmission.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-01879

Human Milk-Based Fortifier is Associated with Less Alteration of Milk Fat Globule Size than Cow Milk-Based Fortifier

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mizuno,

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 May 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-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 and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'KH receives speaker honoraria from Prolacta Bioscience.

Prolacta Bioscience (www.prolacta.com) provided the product for use in this study but

was not involved in the study design, data collection or analysis, performance of the

study, outcomes, decision to publish, or manuscript writing.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Prolacta Bioscience

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this 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 there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 to 4, to which you refer in your text. If the figures are no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to them within the text.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

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

**********

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 study aimed to assess the change of the MFG size with the fortification of a human milk-based or a cow milk-based fortifier. Changes in the particle size might associate with feeding intolerance. This is of great relevance, particularly for low-birth-weight or preterm infants.

Over the manuscript, there are some inconsistencies in the grammar, as well as some repetitiveness in some parts. I would suggest authors revise the manuscript.

The Introduction section seems very broad. In this part, the authors should describe more about the relevance of the MFG size, the differences in composition of the two fortifiers, etc. This would create a greater interest in the reader.

Regarding the methodology, was the MGF size measurement done in duplicate, or were they single measurements? What software was used to conduct the statistical analyses?

Could the author summarize the demographic characteristics of the donors (e.g. age, weight, BMI)?

The results section mentions three different figures which were not part of the manuscript. I wonder if there was an issue with the website/system. I can not discuss much about the information associated with the figures.

Table 1 could include more information to make it more comprehensive. For example, could you add the number of samples in each group (n=), as well as the p values for the differences within and between groups?

The discussion summarizes the findings and the impact on MFG sizes. Although the authors discuss some of the possible mechanisms, they could further explain how human milk-based or a cow milk-based fortifier changes the size and structure of the MFG and how the consumption affects the feeding tolerance in infants consuming these fortifiers.

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author

This paper aimed at to evaluate the HMBF and CMBF on the MFG, and to explain it impact on feeding tolerance. The result sounds interesting, however, the paper still explain the detail of the test and how it works, more data need before it could accept. Question is list below:

1. For the particle size of fat globule, many parameter many effect the result, such as p

H, Ca and casein content in milk. You should add this data in the paper.

2. Line 76-80, you collected human milk from 9 monther, do you mixed the 9 sample together or

Separated? If you separate, does all sample the protein is 2.9g/100ml? for the line 79, more information about CMBF is need, company, composition.

3. Line 82-83, after you mixed together, you test the size in 0, 1, 24, 48h. Does the sample is put in refrigerator? What’s temperature you keep the sample?

4. Excepted the particle size, such as the scanning electron microscope is need to show the difference of the samples.

5. The figures is not show in the paper, please added it.

**********

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: Yes: Daxi Ren

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Jun 2021

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Updated to match requirements

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

Added to the manuscript.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

We obtained written, informed consent from all mothers to use their milk for research purposes (added to the manuscript). We did not include any minors.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

We did not include a retrospective chart review or utilized archived samples as part of this study.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'KH receives speaker honoraria from Prolacta Bioscience.

Prolacta Bioscience (www.prolacta.com) provided the product for use in this study but was not involved in the study design, data collection or analysis, performance of the study, outcomes, decision to publish, or manuscript writing.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Prolacta Bioscience

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this 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 there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have included the appropriate Competing Interests Statement and information within our updated cover letter.

5. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 to 4, to which you refer in your text. If the figures are no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to them within the text.

Thank you, Figures 1-4 will be uploaded.

. 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 study aimed to assess the change of the MFG size with the fortification of a human milk-based or a cow milk-based fortifier. Changes in the particle size might associate with feeding intolerance. This is of great relevance, particularly for low-birth-weight or preterm infants.

Over the manuscript, there are some inconsistencies in the grammar, as well as some repetitiveness in some parts. I would suggest authors revise the manuscript.

A native English speaker has provided writing and editing assistance for the manuscript to eliminate errors and repetitiveness.

The Introduction section seems very broad. In this part, the authors should describe more about the relevance of the MFG size, the differences in composition of the two fortifiers, etc. This would create a greater interest in the reader.

More information about the MFG size has been added to the introduction. A comparison of the 2 fortifiers has been added in Table 1.

Regarding the methodology, was the MGF size measurement done in duplicate, or were they single measurements?

The MFG size was measured three times for each sample.

What software was used to conduct the statistical analyses?

All statistical analyses were performed using NCSS 2021 Statistical Software (2021, NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA).

Could the author summarize the demographic characteristics of the donors (e.g. age, weight, BMI)?

Samples of human milk were obtained from 9 Japanese women who were 27-36 years of age and 3-6 months postpartum. This has been added to the Results section.

We did not obtain other demographic information such as weight or BMI.

The results section mentions three different figures which were not part of the manuscript. I wonder if there was an issue with the website/system. I can not discuss much about the information associated with the figures.

We are sorry for not having attached the figures. In revised manuscript, we confirmed that we could upload the figures appropriately.

Table 1 could include more information to make it more comprehensive. For example, could you add the number of samples in each group (n=), as well as the p values for the differences within and between groups?

We added the number of samples in each group as well as the p values for the differences in Table 2.

The discussion summarizes the findings and the impact on MFG sizes. Although the authors discuss some of the possible mechanisms, they could further explain how human milk-based or a cow milk-based fortifier changes the size and structure of the MFG and how the consumption affects the feeding tolerance in infants consuming these fortifiers.

The alteration of the microstructure of MFG with cold temperatures and with a cow milk-based fortifier in part relates to poorer digestion ability. We are uncertain of the mechanism causing this effect. More data is needed to determine this mechanism of action.

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author

This paper aimed at to evaluate the HMBF and CMBF on the MFG, and to explain it impact on feeding tolerance. The result sounds interesting, however, the paper still explain the detail of the test and how it works, more data need before it could accept. Question is list below:

1. For the particle size of fat globule, many parameter many effect the result, such as pH, Ca and casein content in milk. You should add this data in the paper.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have added the data on pH, calcium, osmolarity and casein content in fortified milk for both types of fortifiers to Table 1.

2. Line 76-80, you collected human milk from 9 mother, do you mixed the 9 sample together or Separated? If you separate, does all sample the protein is 2.9g/100ml? for the line 79, more information about CMBF is need, company, composition.

We did not mix the samples. We fortified the donor milk according to the manufactures’ recommendation. The protein content 2.9g/100ml was estimated from the average protein content of human milk; we deleted this part in the revision.

3. Line 82-83, after you mixed together, you test the size in 0, 1, 24, 48h. Does the sample is put in refrigerator? What’s temperature you keep the sample?

Yes, we kept the sample in a refrigerator at 4℃

4. Excepted the particle size, such as the scanning electron microscope is need to show the difference of the samples.

We performed the electron microscope experiment as the reviewer suggested and it shows the difference in MFG size visually. We appreciate this suggestion.

5. The figures is not show in the paper, please added it.

We apologize for not having attached the figures. Now attached.

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers, human milk-based fortifier study.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2021

Human Milk-Based Fortifier is Associated with Less Alteration of Milk Fat Globule Size than Cow Milk-Based Fortifier

PONE-D-21-01879R1

Dear Dr. Mizuno,

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 authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Thank you to the authors for addressing the comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved.

There are only some minor things that I would suggest. The numbers for the citations should be before the point or commas just so there are no blank spaces. The title of Figure 3 should begin with a capital letter.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Miriam Aguilar-Lopez

Reviewer #2: No

25 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-01879R1

Human milk-based fortifier is associated with less alteration of milk fat globule size than cow milk-based fortifier

Dear Dr. Mizuno:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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 onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

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