PONE-D-19-21816

In vitro activity and in vivo efficacy of Isoliquiritigenin against Staphylococcus xylosus ATCC 700404 by IGPD Target

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yanhua Li,

We are please to inform you that your MS is acceptable for publication with some minor corrections as suggested by reviewers. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vivek Sharma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dr. Yanhua Li,

The MS PONE-D-19-21816 entitled "In vitro activity and in vivo efficacy of Isoliquiritigenin against Staphylococcus xylosus ATCC 700404 by IGPD Target" has been reviewed by three reviewers and they have suggested acceptance for same with some minor correction. Additionally, as per PLOS ONE guidelines, it is mandatory for authors to submit original blots. Therefore, MS is acceptable after these corrections.

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: Authors of the article have prepared an excellent work, giving the full information of mode of action of using isoliquiritigenin (ISL), a flavonoid compound, as an drug in mice model mastitis. The excellence of the work is greater because authors gave a model of examination for future drugs. The subject of the work is pioneer, very important in veterinary, so I recommend it to publish.

In my opinion there is lack of a special subtitle/or more detailed describtion both tested microorganisms; I feel there was not distincly pointed what served as controls during the experiments. It would be nice if authors could slightly improve the article in methodological parts, although this feeling do not make the article worse.

Reviewer #2: Line 16 and Line 43: delete (S. xylosus)

Line 37: Italics Staphylococcus

Line 54: add ‘and’ after natural compounds

Line 120: Add reference of the studies

Line 230-233: Little more explanation of results is required

Line 296: Italicise in vitro

Line 315: delete et al

Reviewer #3: 1. The authors have poorly written introduction. Likewise, in the first paragraph, the authors have given the importance of S. xylosus but in the next paragraph, they suddenly shifted to (IGPD) as the key enzymes of histidine biosynthesis and in next paragraph to flavonoids. Both these aspects are different and the authors must write in a way to easily understandable to the readers. The main aim of the study should be mentioned at the end in an elaborative manner.

2. The authors have also mentioned about the expression of IGPD in pET 30a and purification as well as preparation of its polyclonal antibody in methodology. The same should be a part of results and mentioned properly. The same results could also be a part as supplementary section.

3. The authors have reported the cytokine expression of TNF-α and IL-6. Why only two cytokines have been studied. The authors must relate the results to Th1 and Th2 type immune response based on cytokine expression. The authors must report comparative cytokine expression based on qPCR as well as ELISA as the respective results are reported based on ELISA only.

4. The entire discussion provides limited insight regarding structure-function and disease status. A more direct connection should be established by making predictions and experimental testing.

5. The authors should provide the PDB identification numbers of the structures used to generate the structural models shown and data used.

6. Throughout document (nearly every sentence) - There are numerous spelling, English grammar and syntax and typo errors. This manuscript could really benefit from English editing. For example:

7. Line 15, 34: Stapylococcus should be italics

8. Line 17: can causes

9. Line 59- main bacteria isolate

10. Line 102- meaning of ½ MIC should be mentioned

11. Line 146- Use appropriate word for “The determination was performed”

12. Line 257- it also could

13. Line 302- also can

14. Line 306-307- E. coil et al

15. Line 312- can be bind

16. Line 313- remove comma

17. Line 342-343- rewrite the sentence “There were almost no inflammatory responses or pathological changes were detected in the negative control group”

18. Line 350- remove comma

19. Line 353- has a therapeutic effective against

20. Line 22, 71, 104, 131, 297, 303 and many more - remove all sticky words

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

In vitro activity and in vivo efficacy of Isoliquiritigenin against Staphylococcus xylosus ATCC 700404 by IGPD Target

PONE-D-19-21816R1

Dear Dr. Yanhua Li,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Vivek Sharma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Yanhua Li,

I am pleased to inform you that MS PONE-D-19-21816R1 entitled "In vitro activity and in vivo efficacy of Isoliquiritigenin against Staphylococcus xylosus ATCC 700404 by IGPD has been accepted for publication.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One. We hope you consider us again for future submissions.

Kind regards

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 #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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is revised and modified now. All the comments are addressed point wise and the present form of manuscript is acceptable.

**********

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 #3: No