Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0248023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248023

Relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic factor in children

Carlos Berlanga-Macías 1,#, Mairena Sánchez-López 1,2,#, Montserrat Solera-Martínez 1,*,#, Ana Díez-Fernández 1,#, Inmaculada Ballesteros-Yáñez 3,#, Carlos A Castillo-Sarmiento 3,#, Isabel A Martínez-Ortega 1,#, Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno 1,4,#
Editor: Marly A Cardoso5
PMCID: PMC7932083  PMID: 33662047

Abstract

Objective

A positive relationship between breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in infants has been suggested due to the presence of BDNF in human milk. This study aimed to determine the relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and BDNF serum levels in Spanish schoolchildren.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis including 202 schoolchildren, aged eight to 11 years, from Cuenca, Spain, was conducted. Information on sociodemographic and anthropometric variables, sexual maturation, birth weight and exclusive breastfeeding (‘no exclusive breastfeeding’, and exclusive breastfeeding for ≤6 and >6 months), and BDNF serum levels using an ELISA method were obtained. Covariance analyses (ANCOVA) were conducted to examine the relationship between serological BDNF and exclusive breastfeeding after controlling for potential confounders.

Results

ANCOVA models showed no significant differences in BDNF levels between children who were exclusively breastfed for more than six months versus those who were not (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed by age group (eight to nine years versus 10 to 11 years; p > 0.05). Additionally, no clear negative trend in BDNF serum levels according to sexual maturation categories was found (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that exclusive breastfeeding does not have a significant positive association on BDNF from eight to 11 years, since children who were exclusively breastfed did not have significantly higher BDNF levels than those who were not exclusively breastfed. Likewise, BDNF levels were not found to be negatively affected by hormonal development. Future research should examine the influence of exclusive breastfeeding on BDNF over the different developmental stages.

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests exclusive breastfeeding as the infant feeding method most appropriate in the first six months of life, the point at which breastfeeding should be combined with complementary feeding up until the age of two or more [1]. These WHO recommendations about breastfeeding are based on its numerous short- and long-term benefits on infants´ health, including improvements in neurophysiological and motor development, cognitive function and intelligence during childhood [25]. On the basis of these studies, the duration and type of breastfeeding -exclusive or mixed- necessary to achieve neurophysiological improvements remain to be clarified; however, Wigg et al. [6] showed higher intelligence levels in those children who had been exclusively breastfed at 6 months in contrast with those who had never been breastfed. Additionally, breastfeeding duration has been positively associated with intelligence in young adult life, reporting significantly higher scores on intelligence tests in those young adults who were breastfed for more than 6 months compared to those who were for less than 6 months [7].

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is a small dimeric protein that is mainly expressed in the hippocampus [8], which promotes synaptic connections and is involved in the growth, development, maintenance and survival of the central nervous system [9, 10]. BDNF has an essential role in dendrite formation and differentiation, and in plasticity [11]. Additionally, BDNF is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, thus allowing both to establish the BDNF levels throughout blood analytic determinations and to relate the BNDF levels in the central nervous system to those in serum [12]. However, the relation between both compartments could be affected by the peripheral and non-cerebral synthesis [13].

In this sense, the content of BDNF in human milk might explain the above-mentioned contribution of breastfeeding to neurological development in the first years of life [14, 15]. In fact, a positive association between breastfeeding and both serum BDNF and neuronal development in infants between four and six months of age has been reported [16]. However, whether this relationship is maintained until school age has not yet been elucidated.

The importance of BDNF lies in its role in learning and memory in childhood, specifically due to its function in long-term memory (LTM) development [17]; yet, the underlying cellular processes remain unknown [18]. At the clinical level, research is needed to clarify if the relationship between BDNF and breastfeeding is maintained over an individual´s lifetime, and therefore, for how long breastfeeding is involved in learning, and LTM development and/or maintenance.

Due to the facts that, first, infancy is a critical period for important development and for the acquisition of cognitive skills [19], second, BDNF acquires an essential function in children cognitive development [17], and third, the breastfeeding effect over other cognitive development-related outcomes is maintained from birth through childhood [20, 21], assessing whether differences in BDNF levels among breastfed and non-breastfed infants persist over childhood is necessary. Thus, this study aimed to assess the relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and BDNF serum levels in Spanish schoolchildren.

Materials and methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study is based on the baseline data derived from a cluster randomized controlled trial (registration number NCT03236337), which aimed to assess the effectiveness of an after-school physical activity intervention (MOVI-daFit!) on reducing fat mass and cardiovascular risk, and improving fitness and cognition in children. Two randomly assigned parallel groups were established; on one side, the MOVI-daFit! intervention group, which participated in 60-minute after-school sessions 4 days per week, following a game program based on high-intensity interval training; on the other hand, both intervention and control group received physical education sessions in accordance with Spanish schools´ legal requirements [22]. Data collection was carried out between September 2017 and June 2018. A detailed methodological description is reported elsewhere [22].

Study sample

The MOVI-daFit! study included 570 children aged eight to 11 years old from 10 schools in Cuenca, a province in Spain. BDNF was measured in a subsample of 220 randomly selected children. Only children with data regarding breastfeeding duration and with BDNF serum levels were included in this study (n = 202). The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Virgen de la Luz hospital, Cuenca (REG: 2016/PI021). The research team presented the objectives and procedures of the study to the school boards to obtain approval. Parents were asked to sign an informed consent for their children´s participation in the study, who gave their verbal consent when their collaboration was requested.

Exclusive breastfeeding assessment

At the same time that the rest of the variables were measured in children, data on exclusive breastfeeding were collected from mothers by using a detailed breastfeeding assessment scale completed at home (available as S1 File), which was developed as part of this study, since questionnaires for measuring type and duration of breastfeeding whose validity and rationale had been previously published were not identified. Nonetheless, a pre-test over more than 100 participants from different sociodemographic status was carried out in order to test both readability and clarity of the scale. Likewise, 15 of those participants were required to conduct in-depth interviews to verify if the data from the personal interview corresponded to the previous information provided in the scale.

In this assessment scale, mothers specified the type of feeding their children received each month in the first 24 months of life, and the time during which their child had received breastfeeding, formula or complementary feeding (liquid or solid nutrition other than breast milk). Mothers were able to list multiple options as necessary. (Available as S1 File)

The duration of exclusive breastfeeding was calculated, and categorized into: (i) no exclusive breastfeeding including children who were exclusively formula-fed; (ii) exclusive breastfeeding for ≤6 months; and (iii) exclusive breastfeeding for >6 months. In the third category it is assumed that complementary feeding is introduced at 6 months of age, so those children who were fed with both exclusive breastfeeding and complementary feeding were only included, excluding those who were with formula feeding or mixed breastfeeding and complementary feeding.

Quantitative determination of BDNF serum levels

BDNF levels were determined within the lipid profile as the primary outcome using a 12-hours fasting blood sample. Blood specimen were collected from the cubital vein between 9:00 and 10:00 AM, with two aliquots being obtained from each participant, so that one sample could be frozen for future analyses that could be of interest to parents. BDNF serum levels were determined using an ELISA method (BDNF ELISA kit SK00752-01, Aviscera Biosciences, Santa Clara, CA, USA), after the appropriate dilution of samples (1:100). All assays were performed in duplicate using the buffers, diluents and substrates provided by the manufacturer.

Briefly, standards and samples were added to pre-coated 96-well flat-bottom plates and shaken for two hours at room temperature. Subsequently, after washing four times, detection antibody was added to each well and plates were incubated for two hours in constant shaking at room temperature. Following another wash step, streptavidin conjugated with horseradish-peroxidase was added, and plates were incubated for 60 minutes at room temperature protected from light. Unbound streptavidin was discarded and TMB substrate solution was added. The reaction was stopped 15 minutes later. Absorbance was read at 450 nm on an iMart microplate reader (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA) and BDNF concentrations were determined according to the BDNF standard curve (ranging from 23.4 to 750.0 pg/mL).

Anthropometric assessment

Anthropometric variables were measured twice by trained nurses using standardized procedures with the average being used for the statistical analyses. Weight and height were measured using a scale (Seca 861) and a wall stadiometer (Seca 222), respectively. In both measures, children were required to wear light clothing and to be barefoot.

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using weight (kg)/height (m)2. Waist circumference was calculated as the average of two measurements at the end of expiration in the mid-point between the iliac crest and the costal margin when the child was upright using a tape measure. Body fat percentage was estimated with an eight-electrode Tanita Segmental-418 bio impedance analysis system (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) [23].

Potential confounding factors

The following breastfeeding related variables were considered as potential confounders: age, birth weight (reported by parents), family socioeconomic status (SES) (using the Spanish Epidemiology Society scale [24], which takes into account the parents’ educational level and employment status) and children´s sexual maturation (reported by parents using Tanner stages [25, 26] to identify pubertal status).

Statistical analyses

Interval scale variables were checked for normal distribution through both graphical procedures and using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation—SD) for continuous variables, and as counts and percentages for categorical variables. Characteristics of participants were compared by sex using the Fisher´s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t test for continuous variables.

Covariance analysis (ANCOVA) was used to test differences in mean BDNF serum levels by exclusive breastfeeding duration categories. Firstly, ANCOVA was stratified by sex and controlled for age, birth weight, SES and sexual maturation. Secondly, the analysis was stratified by age, controlling for sex, birth weight, SES and sexual maturation. The mean differences in BDNF serum levels according to age categories and sexual maturation stages controlling for sex, age, birth weight and SES were also tested.

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25.0 Statistics software, and the level of significance was set at α < 0.05.

Results

Characteristics of study participants

This study included 202 children aged between eight and 11 years (mean = 9.60, SD = 0.69), of which 49.5% (n = 100) were boys. Participants´ characteristics were compared by sex (Table 1). Statistically significant differences were found for both body fat percentage and birth weight, with body fat percentage being higher in girls than in boys, while the opposite was observed for birth weight (p < 0.05). Regarding the infant feeding method, 43 children (21.3%) were never breastfed, and the remaining 159 children (78.7%) were breastfed; of which, 139 (87.42%) were exclusively breastfed for six months or less. No statistically significant association was found between sex and exclusive breastfeeding categories (p = 0.590). Finally, no significant differences were observed in BDNF, age, anthropometric characteristics, birth weight, mothers´ gestational age, SES and sexual maturation between children who had information on breastfeeding and those who did not (S1 Table, available as S1 File).

Table 1. Characteristics of the study sample by sex.

Total (n = 202) Boys (n = 100) Girls (n = 102) p-Value
Age (years) 9.60 (0.69) 9.61 (0.69) 9.60 (0.69) .903
Physical characteristics
    Weight (kg) 37.31 (9.96) 37.31 (9.34) 37.31 (10.59) .998
    Height (cm) 141.39 (7.63) 141.52 (7.07) 141.25 (8.18) .799
    BMI (kg/m2) 18.47 (3.73) 18.48 (3.72) 18.46 (3.75) .971
    BF % 24.33 (6.46) 22.99 (6.48) 25.65 (6.20) .003
    Waist circumference (cm) 66.40 (9.48) 67.16 (9.46) 65.67 (9.48) .264
Birth weight (kg) 3.22 (0.57) 3.34 (0.52) 3.10 (0.60) .004
Mothers´ gestational age (weeks) 38.75 (2.43) 38.95 (2.09) 38.54 (2.74) .265
Exclusive breastfeeding
    No exclusive breastfeeding 43 (21.3) 20 (20.0) 23 (22.5) .590
    ≤6 months 139 (68.8) 68 (68.0) 71 (69.6)
    >6 months 20 (9.9) 12 (12.0) 8 (7.8)
BDNF (nmol/ml) 47.82 (9.90) 46.83 (8.99) 48.79 (10.67) .159
SES
    Low 4 (2.2) 2 (2.2) 2 (2.2) .426
    Medium-low 42 (23.0) 23 (25.3) 19 (20.7)
    Medium 98 (53.6) 52 (57.1) 46 (50.0)
    Medium-high 36 (19.7) 13 (14.3) 23 (25.0)
    High 3 (1.6) 1 (1.1) 2 (2.2)
Sexual maturation (Tanner stages)
    Pre-pubertal 68 (44.7) 32 (43.2) 36 (46.2) .475
    Early-pubertal 54 (35.5) 30 (40.5) 24 (30.8)
    Mid-pubertal 26 (17.1) 10 (13.5) 16 (20.5)
    Late-pubertal 3 (2.0) 1 (1.4) 2 (2.6)
    Post-pubertal 1 (0.7) 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0)

Data are exposed by mean ± standard deviation, except for frequency variables (exclusive breastfeeding, SES and sexual maturation) which are shown as n (%). The values in bold indicate a statistical significance for p < 0.05, analyzed by Student’s t test (continuous variables) or Fisher´s exact test (categorical variables).

Data about participants in SES and sexual maturation variables show missing of 9.4 and 25%, respectively.

BMI, body mass index; BF %, body fat percentage; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SES, socioeconomic status.

Exclusive breastfeeding and BDNF serum levels

The mean differences in BDNF serum levels between breastfeeding categories, by sex, are shown in Table 2. No significant differences were found in BDNF (before and after controlling for age, birth weight, SES and sexual maturation) among children depending on the breastfeeding category (not exclusively breastfed, exclusively breastfed for six months or less and exclusively breastfed for more than six months). Also, no sex differences in BDNF serum levels were observed. Likewise, there were no differences in BDNF serum levels between exclusive breastfeeding categories by age groups Table 3.

Table 2. Mean difference in BDNF levels by exclusive breastfeeding categories and sex.

Exclusive breastfeeding categories
n No exclusive breastfeeding ≤ 6 months > 6 months p-Value
BDNF levels (nmol/ml)
    Boys 68 46.34 (10.58) 46.14 (8.46) 49.41 (7.08) .871
    Girls 76 48.33 (9.88) 50.16 (10.90) 46.00 (7.13) .245
    Total 144 47.48 (10.08) 48.23 (9.96) 47.86 (6.97) .943

Data are presented by mean (± standard deviation).

BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor

Analysis adjusted for age, birth weight, socioeconomic status and sexual maturation.

Table 3. Mean difference in BDNF levels by exclusive breastfeeding categories and age.

Exclusive breastfeeding categories
n No exclusive breastfeeding ≤ 6 months > 6 months Total p-Value
Age (years)
    8–9 57 48.14 (12.17) 47.45 (8.40) 56.60 (9.10) 47.92 (9.29) .518
    10–11 87 47.13 (9.09) 48.84 (11.07) 45.92 (5.20) 48.09 (10.08) .453
p-Value .872 .086 .486 .261

Data are presented by mean (± standard deviation).

BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor.

Analysis adjusted for sex, birth weight, socioeconomic status and sexual maturation.

Finally, because of collinearity between age and sexual maturation was observed (p = 0.008), only the mean differences in BDNF according to sexual maturation stages are showed. No significant trend was observed according to sexual maturation (Tanner stages) Table 4.

Table 4. Mean difference in BDNF levels by sexual maturation categories.

Sexual maturation (Tanner stages)
Pre-pubertal (n = 65) Early-pubertal (n = 51) Mid-pubertal (n = 24) Late-post pubertal (n = 4) Total (n = 144) p-Value
BDNF levels (nmol/ml) 48.05 (9.86) 47.98 (10.73) 47.20 (7.49) 53.05 (8.02) 48.02 (9.74) .366

Data are presented by mean (± standard deviation).

BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor.

Analysis adjusted for sex, age, birth weight and socioeconomic status.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate the relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and BDNF serum levels in children. Our results showed that both presence and maintenance of exclusive breastfeeding were not significantly associated with BDNF levels in eight- to 11-year-old children. There were no differences in BDNF serum levels between children who were not exclusively breastfed and those who were breastfed for six months or less and for more than six months. Additionally, we did not observe any differences between boys and girls regarding the association among exclusive breastfeeding and BNDF levels, and our findings did not support any trend in BDNF levels according to age or sexual stages maturation trend.

Despite existing evidence of BDNF in human milk from lactating women, which acts as a growth and development factor of the central nervous system and is involved in the persistence of certain primary sensory neurons [27], studies addressing the relationship between breastfeeding and BDNF levels throughout childhood are scarce [14, 28, 29]. Nevertheless, numerous studies have reported the influence of BDNF levels in different health-based outcomes, such as obesity [30], autism [31], cognitive function [16, 32, 33] and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder [34, 35]. Likewise, exogenous intake of BDNF in rodents by neural injection has been analyzed, and visible improvements in cognitive achievement and a decline when BDNF is blocked in the hippocampus have been observed [36].

Our findings differ from the only previous research analyzing the relationship between breastfeeding and BDNF levels [16]. Using a sample of infants aged between four and six months, Nassar et al. [16] reported that the group who was exclusively breastfed had significantly higher BDNF levels compared to the formula fed and the mixed-fed groups. Thus, it may be that the association between breastfeeding and BDNF levels is only observed at an early age. Thereby, the influence of breastfeeding on BDNF levels is diluted throughout life, potentially due to the influence of environmental and behavioral factors [37]. More research is required to identify the determinants that affect BDNF levels and in what proportion from infancy to adolescence.

Intestinal permeability in neonates, which would positively influence the increase of BDNF levels in this age group, may explain why the effect of breastfeeding is not maintained from birth to adolescence. This effect is likely more plausible in the first months of life, coinciding with the period of maximum brain development [15]. Additionally, both the range of BDNF plasma levels and variability in the BDNF measurement may explain the lack of significant associations observed in this study [38, 39]. Moreover, although BDNF protein is mainly expressed in the hippocampus and then it crosses the blood-brain barrier [8, 12], it is also expressed in non-cerebral tissues [13]. As such, the correlation between the levels of the two compartments may not be very strong and, therefore, the BDNF levels measured in our study may not represent faithfully its proportion in the cerebral area. Finally, platelet count in children could also influence BDNF levels since most BDNF is stored in platelets [40].

The influence of hormonal status on BDNF levels among individuals could also explain the results obtained in our study. BDNF is negatively associated with age, being higher in children than in adolescents [41, 42]. Therefore, the association between breastfeeding and BDNF may be diluted according to hormonal development, with a more significant association at early ages [16]. Likewise, our results may be affected by the fact that BDNF fluctuates depending on certain pathologies, caloric restriction or exercise, which cause a similar effect to that of BDNF in human milk [37]. Finally, recall bias regarding breastfeeding could influence our results since we included children aged between eight and 11 years, and the reliability of maternal recall has been shown to be until six years after childbirth [43].

Our study has some limitations, which must be considered: (i) inherent limitations in its design, since the retrospective and cross-sectional design does not allow causal relationships to be established and consequently, the findings could be interfered; (ii) although our total sample was higher than that of previous studies, some subgroups did not have a sufficient sample size to reach statistical significance; for instance, regarding exclusive breastfeeding categorization, and with the purpose of working with representative sample sizes, the ‘exclusive breastfeeding ≤ 6 months’ category included a great range of breastfeeding periods (from one to six months), not being able to compare the optimal exclusive breastfeeding duration (= 6 months, according WHO recommendations) with the rest of periods; (iii) a variety of validated methods for measuring serum BDNF content are currently available [38], and BDNF concentration could depend to some extent on the laboratory method used to measure it; (iv) maternal responses about the type and duration of breastfeeding could be affected by recall bias; and (v) the development and implementation of breastfeeding questionnaires entails an inherent complexity of the infant feeding process itself. The limitations must be considered to interpret cautiously the findings of this study, and further research which could solve the limitations of this study is necessary. Longitudinal designs and rigorous registers in clinical records about breastfeeding type and duration from birth could facilitate the attainment of reliable findings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study does not support that the effect of breastfeeding on BDNF levels persist until pre-pubertal age. However, our results should be confirmed by future studies using reliable methods to measure both breastfeeding exposure and BDNF serum levels, as well as to determine the influence of children´s growth and hormonal development on BDNF.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to all schools, families and pupils for their enthusiastic participation in the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research is based on data from a cluster randomized controlled trial (registration number NCT03236337), which has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness - Carlos III Health Institute (Fondo de Investigación en Salud [FIS] PI16/01919). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Infant and young child feeding. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, Chiarotti F, D´Elia L, De Mei B, et al. Effect of duration of breastfeeding on neuropsychological development at 10 to 12 years of age in a cohort of healthy children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(9):843–848. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04319.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McCrory C, Murray A. The effect of breastfeeding on neuro-development in infancy. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(9):1680–8. 10.1007/s10995-012-1182-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Horta BL, Loret de Mola C, Victora CG. Breastfeeding and intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(467):14–9. 10.1111/apa.13139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJD, França GVA, Horton S, Krasevec J, et al. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475–490. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wigg NR, Tong S, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA, Vimpani G, Roberts R. Does breastfeeding at six months predict cognitive development? Aust N Z J Public Health. 1998;22(2):232–6. 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1998.tb01179.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mortensen EL, Michaelsen KF, Sanders SA, Reinisch JM. The association between duration of breastfeeding and adult intelligence. JAMA. 2002;287(18):2365–2371. 10.1001/jama.287.18.2365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Binder DK, Scharfman HE. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Grow factors. 2004;22(3):123–131. 10.1080/08977190410001723308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thoenen H. Neurotrophins and neuronal plasticity. Science. 1995;270(5236):593–598. 10.1126/science.270.5236.593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Teixeira AL, Barbosa IG, Diniz BS, Kummer A. Circulating levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor: correlation with mood, cognition and motor function. Biomark Med. 2010;4(6):871–887. 10.2217/bmm.10.111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chapleau CA, Larimore JL, Theibert A, Pozzo-Miller L. Modulation of dendritic spine development and plasticity by BDNF and vesicular trafficking: fundamental roles in neurodevelopmental disorders associated with mental retardation and autism. J Neurodev Disord. 2009;1(3):185–196. 10.1007/s11689-009-9027-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Poduslo JF, Curran GL. Permeability at the blood-brain and blood-nerve barriers of the neurotrophic factors: NGF, CNTF, NT-3, BDNF. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 1996;36(2):280–286. 10.1016/0169-328x(95)00250-v [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nakahashi T, Fujimura H, Altar CA, Li J, Kambayashi J, Tandon NN, et al. Vascular endothelial cells synthesize and secrete brain-derived neurotrophic factor. FEBS Lett. 2000;470(2):113–117. 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01302-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Li R, Xia W, Zhang Z, Wu K. S100b protein, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in human milk. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):1–6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Viberg H, Mundy W, Eriksson P. Neonatal exposure to decabrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE 209) results in changes in BDNF, CaMKII and GAP-43, biochemical substrates of neuronal survival, growth, and synaptogenesis. Neurotoxicology. 2007;29(1):152–159. 10.1016/j.neuro.2007.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nassar MF, Younis NT, El-Arab SE, Fawzi FA. Neuro-developmental outcome and brain-derived neurotrophic factor level in relation to feeding practice in early infancy. Matern Child Nutr. 2011;7(2):188–197. 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2010.00252.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bekinschtein P, Cammarota M, Izquierdo I, Medina JH. BDNF and memory formation and storage. Neuroscientist. 2008;14(2):147–156. 10.1177/1073858407305850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cunha C, Brambilla R, Thomas KL. A simple role for BDNF in learning and memory? Front Mol Neurosci. 2010;3:1. 10.3389/neuro.02.001.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Meadows S. The child as thinker: The development and acquisition of cognition in childhood. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge;2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berlanga-Macías C, Álvarez-Bueno C, Martínez-Hortelano JA, Garrido-Miguel M, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and cardiorespiratory fitness in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(5):828–36. 10.1111/sms.13622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Álvarez-Bueno C, Cavero-Redondo I, Díez-Fernández A, Pardo-Guijarro MJ, Sánchez-López M, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Cardiorespiratory fitness as a mediator of the relationship between birth weight and cognition in school children. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:255–62. 10.2147/PRBM.S197945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Álvarez-Bueno C, Cavero-Redondo I, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Garrido-Miguel M, Martínez-Hortelano JA, et al. MOVI-daFIT! Intervention: Rationale and design of a cluster randomized controlled trial testing the effects on improving adiposity, cognition, and subclinical atherosclerosis by increasing cardiorespiratory fitness in children. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(9):e14737. 10.1097/MD.0000000000014737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pietrobelli A, Rubiano F, St-Onge M-P, Heymsfield SB. New bioimpedance analysis system: improved phenotyping with whole-body analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004;58(11):1479–1484. 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chilet-Rosell E, Álvarez-Dardet C, Domingo-Salvany A. Use of Spanish proposals for measuring social class in health sciences. Gac Sanit. 2012;26(6):566–569. 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in the pattern of pubertal changes in boys. Arch Dis Child. 1970;45(239):13–23. 10.1136/adc.45.239.13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls. Arch Dis Child. 1969;44(235):291–303. 10.1136/adc.44.235.291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Erickson JT, Brosenitsch TA, Katz DM. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor are required simultaneously for survival of dopaminergic primary sensory neurons in vivo. J Neurosci. 2001;21(2):581–589. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-02-00581.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ballard O, Morrow AL. Human milk composition: nutrients and bioactive factors. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2013;60(1):49–74. 10.1016/j.pcl.2012.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Collado MC, Santaella M, Mira-Pascual L, Martínez-Arias E, Khodayar-Pardo P, Ros G, et al. Longitudinal study of cytokine expression, lipid profile and neuronal growth factors in human breast milk from term and preterm deliveries. Nutrients. 2015;7(10):8577–8591. 10.3390/nu7105415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kaur Y, de Souza RJ, Gibson WT, Meyre D. A systematic review of genetic syndromes with obesity. Obes Rev. 2017;18(6):603–34. 10.1111/obr.12531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Saghazadeh A, Rezaei N. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in autism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2017;47(4):1018–1029. 10.1007/s10803-016-3024-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tsai S-J, Hong C-J, Yu YW-Y, Chen T-J. Association study of a brain-derived neurotrophicfFactor (BDNF) Val66Met polymorphism and personality trait and intelligence in healthy young females. Neuropsychobiology. 2004;49(1):13–16. 10.1159/000075333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yeom C-W, Park Y-J, Choi S-W, Bhang S-Y. Association of peripheral BDNF level with cognition, attention and behavior in preschool children. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2016;10(1):10. 10.1186/s13034-016-0097-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shim SH, Hwangbo Y, Kwon YJ, Jeong H-Y, Lee B-H, Lee H-J, et al. Increased levels of plasma brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008;32(8):1824–1828. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scassellati C, Zanardini R, Tiberti A, Pezzani M, Valenti V, Effedri P, et al. Serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;23(3):173–177. 10.1007/s00787-013-0447-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Piepmeier AT, Etnier JL. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) as a potential mechanism of the effects of acute exercise on cognitive performance. J Sport Health Sci. 2015; 4(1):14–23. 10.1016/j.jshs.2014.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Erickson KI, Voss MW, Prakash RS, Basak C, Szabo A, Chaddock L, et al. Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(7):3017–3022. 10.1073/pnas.1015950108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Polacchini A, Metelli G, Francavilla R, Baj G, Florean M, Mascaretti LG, et al. A method for reproducible measurements of serum BDNF: comparison of the performance of six commercial assays. Sci Rep. 2015. December 10;5(1):17989. 10.1038/srep17989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Karege F, Bondolfi G, Gervasoni N, Schwald M, Aubry J-M, Bertschy G. Low brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in serum of depressed patients probably results from lowered platelet BDNF release unrelated to platelet reactivity. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(9):1068–1072. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Serra-Millás M. Are the changes in the peripheral brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels due to platelet activation? World J Psychiatry. 2016;6(1):84–101. 10.5498/wjp.v6.i1.84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Iughetti L, Casarosa E, Predieri B, Patianna V, Luisi S. Plasma brain-derived neurotrophic factor concentrations in children and adolescents. Neuropeptides. 2011;45(3):205–211. 10.1016/j.npep.2011.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Walsh EI, Smith L, Northey J, Rattray B, Cherbuin N. Towards an understanding of the physical activity-BDNF-cognition triumvirate: A review of associations and dosage. Ageing Res Rev. 2020;60:101044. 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amissah EA, Kancherla V, Ko Y-A, Li R. Validation study of maternal recall on breastfeeding duration 6 years after childbirth. J Hum Lact. 2017;33(2):390–400. 10.1177/0890334417691506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marly A Cardoso

30 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-34834

Relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic factor in children

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Solera-Martínez,

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.

The manuscript  is a good piece of work, with original results. Some important improvements have been suggested by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 05 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,

Marly A. Cardoso, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

4. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested. If these did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 paper investigated if exclusive breastfed children in the beginning of life have different serum BDNF levels at the age of 8-11 years old. The participants were children from a Spanish randomized controlled trial. The data was collected in different moments by using trained team, assessment scales (Tanner and breastfeeding history) and blood samples. The findings suggest that the effects of exclusive breastfeeding in the beginning of life on serum BDNF levels do not persist at the age of 8 to 11 years old. Even so, future research should examine this influence using more reliable methods.

The study has some interesting findings and may contribute for the children's heath and development research area. The manuscript is well written, structured and organized, leading to no ambiguity, doubts or demanding extra attention to interpret the information. However, some minor issues should be reviewed.

The introduction section brings a great set of information about the topic and provides a contextualization of the subject to the reader. However, it doesn’t provide a solid base for the hypothesis of the study. Some examples may illustrate this issue:

1. The authors explore the importance of breastfeeding, but it doesn’t mention why the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (until 6 months) would be relevant to BDNF levels or to the neurophysiological development.

2. Also, despite the fact that the study of Poduslo & Curran (reference 12) is very robust, the sample was constituted by adult rats, so using this reference to affirm that serum BDNF is correlated to BDNF levels in central nervous system in the present study population (humans from 8 to 11 years old) is questionable. In addition to that, in the discussion section the authors state as a limitation of the study (lines 262 to 266) that BDNF levels measured may not represent faithfully its proportion in the cerebral area since it is expressed in the hippocampus and in non-cerebral tissues. Therefore, the objective of measuring serum BDNF in the introduction is not clear.

The methodology section evidences the power of this study, providing a good perspective of the study design to the reader. Both statistical analysis and the process to determine BDNF serum levels are detailed and well described in the manuscript, contributing to the credibility of the results. Nevertheless, some aspects should be reviewed.

3. The BDNF sample was taken when the children were 8 – 11 years old, but it is not clear when data the breastfeeding assessment scale was completed by the mothers. The authors state that they only included in the study children with breastfeeding data and blood sample, giving the impression that it was collected in different time points. So when were they collected?

4. The categorization of the exclusive breastfeeding duration is a bit confusing: the 2nd group (exclusive breastfeeding for ≤6 months) includes children exclusive breastfed for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months. This is an important limitation because this group include a great range of breastfeeding periods, not distinguishing the optimal duration of it (=6 months). Also, the 3rd group (exclusive breastfeeding for >6 months) has a relevant percentage of children (almost 10%), what is a really vague information and may be alarming since that in this age the complementary feeding should be introduced.

5. It is not clear if the evaluation of the pubertal status according to the Tanner stages was self-reported or physician-observed.

6. The study was a retrospective and cross-sectional study, using a convenience sample. It is important to state this fact as a limitation because it may interfere in the results even after adjustments were made in the statistical analysis. At the end of this review I left an important reference that could be interesting for the study since it is prospective and population based sample evidencing the importance exclusive breastfeeding and anthropometric variables on head circumference (Giacomini et al., 2020).

The results from the study are well described in the text and are presented in tables in a very fine way. The discussion of the findings highlights important previous studies, intertwining the existing literature and the findings from the presented study. Yet, considerations must be taken in account to improve this section.

7. In lines 230, 231 and 232 the authors state that “exclusive breastfeeding duration was not significantly associated with BDNF levels (…)”. However the study isn’t investigating the duration of exclusive breastfeeding (e.g. in the 2nd category the authors grouped all children that were exclusive breastfed for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months old).

8. In lines 234-236 the authors state that “we did not observe any differences between boys and girls, and our findings did not support an age or sexual stages maturation trend”, but doesn’t explain regarding to what there were no differences.

The conclusions were drawn appropriately based on the data presented, which are fully available in the manuscript, being presented during the text, but also in tables. In addition, the decision to present the results that did not correspond to the initial hypothesis demonstrate the integrity of the authors and transparency of the study. However, the limitations (some of it even state by the authors) should be consider.

Giacomini I, Mazzucchetti L, B Lima TA, B Malta M, H Lourenço B, A Cardoso M; MINA-Brazil Study Group. Breastfeeding practices and weight gain predicted head circumference in young Amazonian children. Acta Paediatr. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.1111/apa.15517. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32749721.

Reviewer #2: This study aimed to verify the relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic fator (BDNF) serum levels in children aged 8-11 years. The theme is relevant, interesting and, according to the authors, it is the first to investigate the relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and BDNF serum levels in children.

The paper is a good piece of work, well structured, clear and easy to understand. The methods are well described and the results are clearly presented. The discussion of this paper is well structured, considering several and appropriate previous studies. Most references are current and used adequately.

Despite being a very good paper, some considerations must be made: in my opinion, two limitations of the study are important and may weaken the results: 1) the collection of data on the duration of breastfeeding when the child is 8 years old or more certainly results in a recall bias; 2) only 20 children were exclusively breasted for more than 6 months, perhaps not enough to reach statistical significance. I was wondering if reducing the cutoff point to 4 months (instead of 6 months) could not give a different result...

Forthermore, since, according to the authors, the only previous research analyzing the relationship between breastfeeding and BDNF levels was carried out with infants aged four to six months (who may have recently received a significant amount of BDNF from breast milk), what is the biological plausibility of assessing this association in older children (8-11 years old)? It may be important to include this justification/answer in the introduction section.

There are minor points that should be clarified/edited:

- Line 40: “who were exclusively breasfed?”

- Line 178: I suggest writing “Table 1” in parentheses.

- Line 187: I suggest including “(data not shown on Tables)” at the end of sentence.

Reviewer #3: The authors present results of a study of BDNF in about 200 8-11 year old children in Spain and whether or not levels at this age differed between those that were exclusively breastfed and those that were not. In their analysis, they find no significant differences in BDNF levels by breastfeeding subgroups, by sex or by age and also find no significant differences in levels by sexual maturation. The manuscript will be strengthened if the authors consider the following points.

1. Line 105: authors refer the reader to another manuscript to find a detailed description of the study. Authors should also provide a brief description in this manuscript, so readers can get the general idea of the main study without having to go elsewhere to find that information; readers can then go to the other manuscript of they want more than the brief description.

2. Authors should include a supplemental table that shows how individuals in the BDNF subsample (n=202) compared to those that were not selected to provide samples for BDNF measurement.

3. Who determined Tanner stages (since this was used as a covariate in the model)?

4. lines 166-168: This sentence should be rephrased, as it is not clear if stratified analyses were conducted or if interaction terms were utilized.

5. lines 186-187: A supplemental table should be provided to support the statement about lack of significant differences between those with breastfeeding information and those without.

6. Table 1: Sexual maturation appears to be missing for about 25% of the participants. SES also has missing data (though closer to 10%). Authors should at least make note of that in the notes under the table, especially since these variables are used as covariates in later analyses.

7. Table 1: authors use a chi-square test for comparing categorical variables by sex. Some of the cell counts are quite small, which suggests that Fisher's exact test would be more appropriate (overall interpretation does not change, but it is the more appropriate test).

8. Tables 2, 3, and 4: since these results are adjusted for variables that have missing data, authors should make note of how many individuals were actually included in the analysis. Also, as stated in point 4 above, it is not clear if the different analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3 are stratified by sex or age, or if there is an interaction term between breastfeeding categories and sex or age. This is relevant, since the bulk of the participants fall into the <=6 months of exclusive breastfeeding, so there are quite small cell counts in the other two categories. Also, was there any collinearity between sexual maturation and age?

9. Line 288: this concluding sentence should be rephrased, since not being able to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis is true.

Minor points:

1. line 265: "very closed" - should "closed" be a different word?

2. line 282: I believe "BDN" should be "BDNF"

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Isabel Giacomini Marques

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[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.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0248023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248023.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Feb 2021

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments (manuscript number: PONE-D-20-34834)

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

1- Comment: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

Authors: As required, we have modified the ‘Material and methods’ section, including the following details about the questionnaire used in the study:

Page 6, line 135: “At the same time that the rest of the variables were measured in children, data on exclusive breastfeeding were collected from mothers by using a detailed breastfeeding assessment scale completed at home (available as Supporting Information), which was developed as part of this study, since questionnaires for measuring type and duration of breastfeeding whose validity and rationale had been previously published were not identified. Nonetheless, a pre-test over more than 100 participants from different sociodemographic status was carried out in order to test both readability and clarity of the scale. Likewise, 15 of those participants were required to conduct in-depth interviews to verify if the data from the personal interview corresponded to the previous information provided in the scale.”

2- Comment: In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested. If these did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

Authors: Thank you for your recommendation. As suggested, we have modified the ‘Material and methods’ section as it can be appreciated in point 1 above.

REVIEWER 1:

General comments:

Introduction section

1- Comment: The authors explore the importance of breastfeeding, but it doesn’t mention why the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (until 6 months) would be relevant to BDNF levels or to the neurophysiological development.

Authors: Thank you for the comments. As recommended, we have modified the ‘Introduction’ section, including the following details about the relationship between optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding and neurophysiological development:

Page 4, line 73: “On the basis of these studies, the duration and type of breastfeeding -exclusive or mixed- necessary to achieve neurophysiological improvements remain to be clarified; however, Wigg et al. (6) showed higher intelligence levels in those children who had been exclusively breastfed at 6 months in contrast with those who had never been breastfed. Additionally, breastfeeding duration has been positively associated with intelligence in young adult life, reporting significantly higher scores on intelligence tests in those young adults who were breastfed for more than 6 months compared to those who were for less than 6 months (7)”

Page 5, line 90: “In this sense, the content of BDNF in human milk might explain the above-mentioned contribution of breastfeeding to neurological development in the first years of life (14,15). In fact, a positive association between breastfeeding and both serum BDNF and neuronal development in infants between four and six months of age has been reported (16). However, whether this relationship is maintained until school age has not yet been elucidated.”

2- Comment: Also, despite the fact that the study of Poduslo & Curran (reference 12) is very robust, the sample was constituted by adult rats, so using this reference to affirm that serum BDNF is correlated to BDNF levels in central nervous system in the present study population (humans from 8 to 11 years old) is questionable. In addition to that, in the discussion section the authors state as a limitation of the study (lines 262 to 266) that BDNF levels measured may not represent faithfully its proportion in the cerebral area since it is expressed in the hippocampus and in non-cerebral tissues. Therefore, the objective of measuring serum BDNF in the introduction is not clear.

Authors: Thank you for the interesting comment. As required, we have clarified the objective of measuring serum BDNF levels:

Page 4, line 85: “Additionally, BDNF is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, thus allowing both to establish the BDNF levels throughout blood analytic determinations and to relate the BNDF levels in the central nervous system to those in serum (12). However, the relation between both compartments could be affected by the peripheral and non-cerebral synthesis (13).”

Methodology section

3- Comment: The BDNF sample was taken when the children were 8 – 11 years old, but it is not clear when data the breastfeeding assessment scale was completed by the mothers. The authors state that they only included in the study children with breastfeeding data and blood sample, giving the impression that it was collected in different time points. So when were they collected?

Authors: Thank you for the reviewer’s comment. We have modified methods sections as follows:

Page 6, line 135: “At the same time that the rest of the variables were measured in children, data on exclusive breastfeeding were collected from mothers by using a detailed breastfeeding assessment scale completed at home (available as Supporting Information)”.

4- Comment: The categorization of the exclusive breastfeeding duration is a bit confusing: the 2nd group (exclusive breastfeeding for ≤6 months) includes children exclusive breastfed for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months. This is an important limitation because this group include a great range of breastfeeding periods, not distinguishing the optimal duration of it (=6 months). Also, the 3rd group (exclusive breastfeeding for >6 months) has a relevant percentage of children (almost 10%), what is a really vague information and may be alarming since that in this age the complementary feeding should be introduced.

Authors: Thank you for your useful comments. As recommended, we have modified both methods and limitations sections as follows:

Page 7, line 153: “In the third category it is assumed that complementary feeding is introduced at 6 months of age, so those children who were fed with both exclusive breastfeeding and complementary feeding were only included, excluding those who were with formula feeding or mixed breastfeeding and complementary feeding”.

This categorization was carried out in line with previous studies which analyzed exclusive breastfeeding and with the purpose of keeping an homogeneous language.

Page 15, line 316: “(ii) although our total sample was higher than that of previous studies, some subgroups did not have a sufficient sample size to reach statistical significance; for instance, regarding exclusive breastfeeding categorization, and with the purpose of working with representative sample sizes, the ‘exclusive breastfeeding ≤ 6 months’ category included a great range of breastfeeding periods (from one to six months), not being able to compare the optimal exclusive breastfeeding duration (= 6 months, according WHO recommendations) with the rest of periods;”

5- Comment: It is not clear if the evaluation of the pubertal status according to the Tanner stages was self-reported or physician-observed.

Authors: Thank you; we have stated how the pubertal status was evaluated.

Page 9, line 190: “children´s sexual maturation (reported by parents using Tanner stages (25,26) to identify pubertal status).”

6- Comment: The study was a retrospective and cross-sectional study, using a convenience sample. It is important to state this fact as a limitation because it may interfere in the results even after adjustments were made in the statistical analysis. At the end of this review I left an important reference that could be interesting for the study since it is prospective and population based sample evidencing the importance exclusive breastfeeding and anthropometric variables on head circumference (Giacomini et al., 2020).

Authors: Thank you for both the comment and the reference provided. As suggested, we have modified the limitations sections as follows:

Page 15, line 314: “(i) inherent limitations in its design, since the retrospective and cross-sectional design does not allow causal relationships to be established and consequently, the findings could be interfered.

Page 16, line 330: “Longitudinal designs and rigorous registers in clinical records about breastfeeding type and duration from birth could facilitate the attainment of reliable findings.”

Results section

7- Comment: In lines 230, 231 and 232 the authors state that “exclusive breastfeeding duration was not significantly associated with BDNF levels (…)”. However the study isn’t investigating the duration of exclusive breastfeeding (e.g. in the 2nd category the authors grouped all children that were exclusive breastfed for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months old).

Authors: Thank you for the interesting comments. As suggested, we have rephrased the sentence about reported findings.

Page 13, line 264: “Our results showed that both presence and maintenance of exclusive breastfeeding were not significantly associated with BDNF levels in eight- to 11-year-old children.”

8- Comment: In lines 234-236 the authors state that “we did not observe any differences between boys and girls, and our findings did not support an age or sexual stages maturation trend”, but doesn’t explain regarding to what there were no differences.

Authors: We would like to thank the thoughtful comment. As recommended, a more complete description about findings has been included.

Page 13, line 269: “Additionally, we did not observe any differences between boys and girls regarding the association among exclusive breastfeeding and BNDF levels, and our findings did not support any trend in BDNF levels according to age or sexual stages maturation trend.”

Discussion section

9- Comment: The conclusions were drawn appropriately based on the data presented, which are fully available in the manuscript, being presented during the text, but also in tables. In addition, the decision to present the results that did not correspond to the initial hypothesis demonstrate the integrity of the authors and transparency of the study. However, the limitations (some of it even state by the authors) should be consider.

Authors: As suggested, limitations section has been improved.

Page 16, line 328: “The limitations must be considered to interpret cautiously the findings of this study, and further research which could solve the limitations of this study is necessary.”

REVIEWER 2:

General comments:

1- Comment: The collection of data on the duration of breastfeeding when the child is 8 years old or more certainly results in a recall bias.

Authors: Thanks for this comment. We agree with your assessment, so this limitation has been stated on limitation section and it must be considered in order to carry out further research.

Page 16, line 325: “(iv) maternal responses about the type and duration of breastfeeding could be affected by recall bias;”

Page 16, line 328: “The limitations must be considered to interpret cautiously the findings of this study, and further research which could solve the limitations of this study is necessary. Longitudinal designs and rigorous registers in clinical records about breastfeeding type and duration from birth could facilitate the attainment of reliable findings.”

2- Comment: Only 20 children were exclusively breasted for more than 6 months, perhaps not enough to reach statistical significance. I was wondering if reducing the cutoff point to 4 months (instead of 6 months) could not give a different result....

Authors: Thank you for the interesting comment. It is true that sample size of some subgroups could be not enough to reach statistical significance, among which is the ‘exclusive breastfeeding for more than 6 months’ group. However, in accordance with WHO recommendations (1), the cut-off point at 6 months has been stablished. Only then could we both determine the total account of population who adheres to WHO recommendations and assess if complying with these recommendations had a positive and significant effect on BDNF levels.

On the other hand, relevant studies which have evaluated exclusive breastfeeding have established the cut-off point at 6 months (2, 3, 4), as it is the case of a recent study whose aim was to test the validity and reliability of a breastfeeding questionnaire (5). Following this trend set by these studies, among others, to stablish the cut-off point at 6 months could be appropriated.

1- World Health Organization. Infant and young child feeding. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017.

2- Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJD, França GVA, Horton S, Krasevec J, et al. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475–490. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7

3- Bhattacharjee NV, Schaeffer LE, Marczak LB, Ross JM, Swartz SJ, Albright J, et al. Mapping exclusive breastfeeding in Africa between 2000 and 2017. Nature Medicine. 2019; 25(8):1205-1212. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0525-0

4- Wigg NR, Tong S, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA, Vimpani G, Roberts R. Does breastfeeding at six months predict cognitive development? Aust N Z J Public Health. 1998;22(2):232-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1998.tb01179.x

5- Davie P, Bick D and Chilcot J. The Beliefs About Breastfeeding Questionnaire (BAB‐Q): A psychometric validation study. Br J Health Psychol. 2020. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12498

3- Comment: Furthermore, since, according to the authors, the only previous research analyzing the relationship between breastfeeding and BDNF levels was carried out with infants aged four to six months (who may have recently received a significant amount of BDNF from breast milk), what is the biological plausibility of assessing this association in older children (8-11 years old)? It may be important to include this justification/answer in the introduction section.

Authors: We would like to thank the thoughtful comment. As recommended, a more complete justification in the introduction section has been included.

Page 5, line 102: “Due to the facts that, first, infancy is a critical period for important development and for the acquisition of cognitive skills (19), second, BDNF acquires an essential function in children cognitive development (17), and third, the breastfeeding effect over other cognitive development-related outcomes is maintained from birth through childhood (20,21), assessing whether differences in BDNF levels among breastfed and non-breastfed infants persist over childhood is necessary.”

Minor comments:

4- Comment: Line 40: “who were exclusively breastfed?”

Authors: Done.

Page 2, line 39: “ANCOVA models showed no significant differences in BDNF levels between children who were exclusively breastfed for more than six months versus those who were not (p > 0.05).”

5- Comment: Line 178: I suggest writing “Table 1” in parentheses.

Authors: Thank you. As suggested, we have modified the text as follows:

Page 10, line 209: “This study included 202 children aged between eight and 11 years (mean = 9.60, SD = 0.69), of which 49.5% (n = 100) were boys. Participants´ characteristics were compared by sex (Table 1).”

6- Comment: Line 187: I suggest including “(data not shown on Tables)” at the end of sentence.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. A supplemental table to support the statement about lack of significant differences between those who had breastfeeding information and those who did not has been included in the manuscript, and the text has been modified as follows:

Page 10, line 217: “Finally, no significant differences were observed in BDNF, age, anthropometric characteristics, birth weight, mothers´ gestational age, SES and sexual maturation between children who had information on breastfeeding and those who did not (Table S1, available as Supporting Information).”

REVIEWER 3:

General comments:

1- Comment: Line 105: authors refer the reader to another manuscript to find a detailed description of the study. Authors should also provide a brief description in this manuscript, so readers can get the general idea of the main study without having to go elsewhere to find that information; readers can then go to the other manuscript of they want more than the brief description.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. As suggested, we have included a brief description of the above-mentioned manuscript as follows:

Page 6, line 116: “Two randomly assigned parallel groups were established; on one side, the MOVI-daFit! intervention group, which participated in 60-minute after-school sessions 4 days per week, following a game program based on high-intensity interval training; on the other hand, both intervention and control group received physical education sessions in accordance with Spanish schools’ legal requirements (22).”

2- Comment: Authors should include a supplemental table that shows how individuals in the BDNF subsample (n=202) compared to those that were not selected to provide samples for BDNF measurement.

Authors: A representative subsample of 220 children, in which BDNF was measured, was randomly selected out of 570 children who participated in MOVI-daFit! study. Therefore, it is taken for granted that there were not statistically significant differences among children who were selected and those who were not.

3- Comment: Who determined Tanner stages (since this was used as a covariate in the model)?

Authors: Thank you for your comment. As recommended, we have included who determined Tanner stages as follows:

Page 9, line 190: “[…] children´s sexual maturation (reported by parents using Tanner stages (25,26) to identify pubertal status).”

4- Comment: Lines 166-168: This sentence should be rephrased, as it is not clear if stratified analyses were conducted or if interaction terms were utilized.

Authors: We would like to thank the thoughtful comment. As suggested, a more complete description of statistical analysis section has been included.

Page 9, line 198: “Covariance analysis (ANCOVA) was used to test differences in mean BDNF serum levels by exclusive breastfeeding duration categories. Firstly, ANCOVA was stratified by sex and controlled for age, birth weight, SES and sexual maturation. Secondly, the analysis was stratified by age, controlling for sex, birth weight, SES and sexual maturation.”

5- Comment: Lines 186-187: A supplemental table should be provided to support the statement about lack of significant differences between those with breastfeeding information and those without.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. As recommended, a supplemental table to support the statement about lack of significant differences between those who had breastfeeding information and those who did not has been included in the manuscript, and the text has been modified as follows:

Page 10, line 217: “Finally, no significant differences were observed in BDNF, age, anthropometric characteristics, birth weight, mothers´ gestational age, SES and sexual maturation between children who had information on breastfeeding and those who did not (Table S1, available as Supporting Information).”

6- Comment: Table 1: Sexual maturation appears to be missing for about 25% of the participants. SES also has missing data (though closer to 10%). Authors should at least make note of that in the notes under the table, especially since these variables are used as covariates in later analyses.

Authors: Thank you for the thoughtful comment. As suggested, we have modified the notes under the Table 1.

Page 11, line 225: “Data about participants in SES and sexual maturation variables show missing of 9.4 and 25%, respectively.”

7- Comment: Table 1: authors use a chi-square test for comparing categorical variables by sex. Some of the cell counts are quite small, which suggests that Fisher's exact test would be more appropriate (overall interpretation does not change, but it is the more appropriate test).

Authors: After categorical variables were compared by sex using both Fisher´s exact test and chi-square test, no differences among obtained data were found. As recommended, Fisher´s exact test was used:

Page 9, line 196: Characteristics of participants were compared by sex using the Fisher´s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t test for continuous variables.

8- Comment: Tables 2, 3, and 4: since these results are adjusted for variables that have missing data, authors should make note of how many individuals were actually included in the analysis.

Authors: Thank you for the recommendation. As suggested, Tables 2,3,4 have been modified and an update of how many individuals were included has been noted (Pages 12 and 13: Tables 2,3, 4).

9- Comment: Also, as stated in point 4 above, it is not clear if the different analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3 are stratified by sex or age, or if there is an interaction term between breastfeeding categories and sex or age. This is relevant, since the bulk of the participants fall into the <=6 months of exclusive breastfeeding, so there are quite small cell counts in the other two categories.

Authors: See point 4 above.

10- Comment: Also, was there any collinearity between sexual maturation and age?

Authors: Thank you for the comment. After correlation was carried out, collinearity between sexual maturation and age was identified (Spearman´s correlation coefficient = 0.21; p=0.008). For this reason, we only showed the mean differences in BDNF levels according to sexual maturation.

Page 12, line 235: “Finally, because of collinearity between age and sexual maturation was observed (p=0.008), only the mean differences in BDNF according to sexual maturation stages are showed. No significant trend was observed according to sexual maturation (Tanner stages) Table 4.”

11- Comment: Line 288: this concluding sentence should be rephrased, since not being able to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis is true.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. As suggested, we have rephrased the above-mentioned sentence as follows:

Page 16, line 334: “In conclusion, our study does not support that the effect of breastfeeding on BDNF levels persist until pre-pubertal age.”

Minor comments:

12- Comment: Line 265: "very closed" - should "closed" be a different word?

Authors: As recommended, another different word has been included.

Page 15, line 300: “As such, the correlation between the levels of the two compartments may not be very strong and, therefore, the BDNF levels measured in our study may not represent faithfully its proportion in the cerebral area.”

13- Comment: Line 282: I believe "BDN" should be "BDNF".

Authors: Thank you for your appreciation. It was a mistake, but it has been already rectified.

Page 16, line 323: “(iii) a variety of validated methods for measuring serum BDNF content are currently available (38)”.

We sincerely appreciate the fruitful comments of the reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marly A Cardoso

18 Feb 2021

Relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic factor in children

PONE-D-20-34834R1

Dear Dr. Solera-Martínez,

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,

Marly A. Cardoso, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 for all the responses for each one of the comments. Although the study has some limitations, as already stated by the authors, there was a significant improvement of the manuscript. Now, the information is better described, contributing to the reader's interpretation of the study.

Reviewer #2: The authors made several improvements in the text. The points I raised in response to the initial submission have been sufficiently addressed. I consider that the article is suitable for publication in this Journal.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Isabel Giacomini

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Marly A Cardoso

22 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-34834R1

Relationship between exclusive breastfeeding and brain-derived neurotrophic factor in children

Dear Dr. Solera-Martínez:

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. Marly A. Cardoso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES