PONE-D-19-18393

Antifungal susceptibility of oral Candida species to copper oxide nanoparticles on polycaprolactone fibers (PCL-CuONPs)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Reyes-López,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 17 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,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, 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 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: In general, the manuscript was written very poorly. Likewise, explanations of the results are rather shallow or not explained at all.

1. Some phrases in the conclusion is not supported in the results or vague

(a) “…diameter were affected by the increment of CuONPs concentration.” This is not supported by the data You only show with and without CuONP, no “increment” or varying CuONP concentrations was presented.

(b) “….their cellular morphology was demonstrated to be affected by PCL-CuONPs composites determining a dose-dependent activity”. Please rephrase, the sentence construction is vague.

2. I have not seen the raw data of the UV-VIS spectra . (No attached supplementary data.)

3. The use of English language needs improvement. Many sentences are vague. You need the help of a professional grammar editor.

4. The SEM images do not support that the fibers are nanometer in thickness. Although there is no “nanofiber” word in the title, the word “nanofiber” was used to describe the fiber samples in some parts of the manuscript (e.g., abstract, results and discussion, conclusion).

5. Title: You can remove the word “oral” in the title, “Candida Species” is enough.

6. Abstract: Line 13: “Polycaprolactone-silver…”. Silver was written instead of Copper.

7. Abstract: Line 16-17: “the second step involved the simple addition of polycaprolactone before electrospinning process”. The sentence is vague. Please rephrase. I think you mean that the second step involved electrospinning using polycaprolactone maybe as matrix of the CuO.

8. Lines 82-86 (Methodology: Copper oxide nanoparticle preparation): Some phrases sentences are vague and confusing. Simplify the sentence construction.

9. The caption of Figure 1 is poorly written. The figure labels (a,b,c) should be written also in the “caption of the figure” to concretely match its label/description.

10. Figure 1a is not an UV-VIS spectrum but rather the intensity of a certain peak from the UV-VIS spectrum. Rewrite the description more concretely.

11. Figure 1a: Is the x-axis really CuONP concentration? Or it is the initial copper nitrate concentration used?

12. Figure 1a: Does the label “270”, “275”, “280”, “285” pertains to the peak absorbance or wavelength position of the peak? The unit of your y-axis is “absorbance” while in the manuscript the unit is nm.

13. The explanation of Figure 1a in the manuscript is very shallow. What possible cause the shift? Instead of just saying “The observe changes in the spectrum reflects the characteristic pattern of CuONP formation…”.

14. Figure 1b is not merely the “size” but rather the frequency distribution of the samples diameter as measured by DLS.

15. The concentration labels in Figure 1b are not specified that is the initial concentration of copper nitrate.

16. “Figure 1a” and “Figure 1b” are not “called/mentioned” in the body of the manuscript

17. What is the purpose of having Raman Spectrum in your paper? You have not detected presence of CuO using Raman Spectroscopy. Likewise, you have already used commercially available PCL. Do you need to still identify that you have PCL using Raman Spectroscopy? Or do you need to identify the crystalline of your sample? Is determining the crystallinity relevant to your study?

18. Line 159-162: PCL is semicrystalline polyester. However, are you sure that what you have mentioned to be “narrow” peaks really are narrow to be able to signify “crystallinity” of PCL? Do you need to specify the crystalline of your sample in your paper?

19. Line 162. “The broad peak at 825 cm-1 indicates that the amorphous phase is present in the PCL fibers (Baranowska).” Where is the broad peak at 825 cm-1 (Figure 1c)? Do you forget to label or it is not present ?

20. Based from Figure 2b, the average diameter of the synthesized copper particles decreases with the increase in initial copper nitrate concentration. Briefly explain the possible reason of this trend.

21. Your Figure 2 has labels “a” and “b” but the figure caption does not have corresponding labels.

22. Line 165: “….free area of beads, precipitates and fractures.” Rephrase this phrase, I think you mean “with no beads, precipitates and fractures”.

23. Line 167-169: “Results obtained by electron microscopy showed the existing relation between size distribution and concentration of CuO nanoparticles.” This statement has no supporting explanations.

24. Figure 3: “PCL-CuO (mM) 25mM, 50mM….” The “mM” pertains to the initial copper nitrate concentration used in fabricating CuO, and not the concentration of CuO in PCL fiber? If so, the label “PCL-CuO (mM) might be misleading”.

25. What do you mean by the “inverted bracket” in Figure 3? Please specify in its caption.

26. The captions of Figures 4,5 and 6 are vague. They do not give specifications of what is a, b, c, and d”. Please rewrite the captions.

27. Figures 4,5, and 6 were described in the manuscript without identifier of which image (a,b,c or d) they are taking about. For example, they should have state that Figure 4a (instead of just Figure 4) is the SEM image of C.Albican which was exposed to polymer fiber without the CuO.

28. Line 194: “The SEM images of C. glabrata, as well as C. albicans, show the integrated cell wall of the yeast in the control conditions in Fig. 5 ” No need to write “as well as C. albican” since it is not part of Figure 5. If you want to write “as well as C. Albicans”, rephrase the sentence.

**********

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

[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.

PONE-D-19-18393R1

Antifungal susceptibility of Candida species to copper oxide nanoparticles on polycaprolactone fibers (PCL-CuONPs)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Reyes-López,

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. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 27 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,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: General Review:

The manuscript improved.

1. Line 165: “only XRD patterns of the CuO are observed”… the actual XRD pattern was not available.

Minor concerns:

Abstract

1. Line 23: there is a word “STEM images”, however, you have not discussed about the STEM images in the result and discussion. You only discuss about the SEM images.

2. Line 14: You can remove the word “capacity”.

3. Line 16: the word “polymer” is redundant since polycaprolactone is already a polymer. In the body of your work, you have described your sample as polycaprolactone fiber. Thus, “fiber” is better than “film”.

4. Line 17: “Polycaprolactone-silver fibers (PCCl-CuONPS) were prepared by reduction in-situ method of Cu+2 ions by gallic acid in ….”. Change the word “silver” to “copper”. The sentence is confusing. You are trying to incorporate two different concepts in one paragraph. Your method can be divided into two major steps: (a) Synthesis of CuO particles, then (b) incorporation of CuO particles on polycaprolactone fiber.

5. Line 20-21: Please rephrase. I think it is either “Raman spectra shows that you have synthesized copper oxide (CuO)” or “Raman spectra provide information about the nature of your synthesized sample”.

6. Line 25: “Dynamic light scattering…. showed uniform CuONps in a range of 88�11nm”. Is “88�11nm” a range? In the result and discussion, your range is 88-97nm. “P” is capital letter in the word “CuONps”.

Materials and Method

1. Line 90: Place comma between “Poly �-caprolactone (average molecular weight of 80K)” and “Gallic acid”.

Results and Discussion

1. Line 63: Rephrase the word “the not formation…”

2. Line 164:” What is “DRX”? Is this “XRD”?

3. Line 164: What is “whit”? Is this “with”?

4. Line 214-216: Indicate what is 0 mM, 25mM…? It is mM of Copper nitrate, used as precursor?

5. Captions of Figures 5,6 and 7: Indicate what is 200 mM? It is mM of Copper nitrate, used as precursor?

6. Figures 5 and 6” Change the word “Amplified images”? Based on the magnification, it is not amplified image but demagnified imaged.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

[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.

Antifungal susceptibility of Candida species to copper oxide nanoparticles on polycaprolactone fibers (PCL-CuONPs)

PONE-D-19-18393R2

Dear Dr. Reyes-López,

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,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: