Undernutrition combined with dietary mineral oil hastens depuration of stored dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls in ewes. 2. Tissue distribution, mass balance and body burden

Sylvain Lerch; Lucille Rey-Cadilhac; Ronan Cariou; Yannick Faulconnier; Catherine Jondreville; Denis Roux; Gaud Dervilly-Pinel; Bruno Le Bizec; Stefan Jurjanz; Anne Ferlay

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230628

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 30, 2019
9 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Juan J Loor, Editor PONE-D-19-30218 Undernutrition combined with dietary mineral oil hastens depuration of stored dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls in ewes. 2. Tissue distribution, mass balance and body burden PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lerch, 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 Feb 23 2020 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, Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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 [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 the submitted manuscript the authors investigated the efficacy of a depuration protocol, including undernutrition and mineral oil administration, in ewes dietary exposed to TCDD, PCB126 and PCB153. Chemical analyses were performed in different body tissues, as well as in feces and wool. The study is well designed and performed with appropriate techniques. However, there are some minor concerns that should be considered before publishing: 1. Why did the authors select the investigated congeners? An explanation for their choice, which includes 2 DL-compounds and 1 NDL, would be noteworthy. 2. The paper is quite well written; however, to be suitable for publication, the manuscript should undergo English editing by a native English speaker. 3. Lines 221-224: please, rephrase since the sentence is too long and hard to read. 4. Table 1: please check the values of the “changes during depuration period”, since in some cases they are not correct. 5. Lines 284-288: the higher accumulation of DL-compounds (and not NDL PCBs) in sheep liver compared to other species, including other ruminants, is well known. However, the reason for such phenomenon is likely not related to higher hepatic CYP1A levels, since in ovine they are lower than in bovine. In my opinion the authors should revise this part of the discussion, providing other references. 6. Lines 290-291: In my opinion the sentence is not clear. Please, rephrase. 7. Lines 388-395: the authors drew a general conclusion that refers broadly to all POPs and all livestock species. Although their data are interesting and robust, in my opinion they should be cautious in extending their results to other species and POPs, due to the well-known kinetics differences. Accordingly, in the abstract (lines 29 and 43), “lipophilic food contaminants” are too generic. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230628.r001
Revision 1
14 Feb 2020 Author Response Subject: Manuscript PONE-D-19-30218: “Undernutrition combined with dietary mineral oil hastens depuration of stored dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls in ewes. 2. Tissue distribution, mass balance and body burden“ Dear Editor, We appreciate all of the constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions provided by the referee. All suggestions arising from the peer-review have been carefully considered during revision of the original manuscript. In all cases, the suggested changes have been carefully considered and implemented in full. The associate changes are highlighted in red thorough the manuscript labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’. A response to the comment from the referee is outlined in the accompanying response indicated by sentences starting with AU:. The line number reported in the response are the one of the 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’. We hope that this revision would allow the manuscript to be considered acceptable for publication. With our best regards, S. Lerch, On behalf of all co-authors Reviewers Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: In the submitted manuscript the authors investigated the efficacy of a depuration protocol, including undernutrition and mineral oil administration, in ewes dietary exposed to TCDD, PCB126 and PCB153. Chemical analyses were performed in different body tissues, as well as in feces and wool. The study is well designed and performed with appropriate techniques. However, there are some minor concerns that should be considered before publishing: 1. Why did the authors select the investigated congeners? An explanation for their choice, which includes 2 DL-compounds and 1 NDL, would be noteworthy. AU: We agree that no justification about the choices of these three specific molecules among the dioxins and PCBs families was included in the introduction section of the initial submission. A sentence was added at the end of the introduction section in order to justify this choice. See lines lines 62-65. 2. The paper is quite well written; however, to be suitable for publication, the manuscript should undergo English editing by a native English speaker. AU: The R1 version of the manuscript was subjected to an additional English editing step provide by the Scribendi services (https://www.scribendi.com/). See the concomitant changes along the main text highlighted in green. 3. Lines 221-224: please, rephrase since the sentence is too long and hard to read. AU: The sentence was split in two and rewrite accordingly. See lines 234-238. 4. Table 1: please check the values of the “changes during depuration period”, since in some cases they are not correct. AU: Thank you for notice this. The lsmeans and P value of the model for empty body lipids mass at day +57 were not correct initially. Table 1 was corrected accordingly. Moreover, in the case of pericaudal adipose cell diameter data for the CTL treatment: difference between lsmeans reported for day 0 and 57 is of -3 µm, but a value of -4 µm is reported for the delta model. This is simply due to the rounding of the data (exact results are -3.75 µm). See the concomitant changes throughout the Table 1. 5. Lines 284-288: the higher accumulation of DL-compounds (and not NDL PCBs) in sheep liver compared to other species, including other ruminants, is well known. However, the reason for such phenomenon is likely not related to higher hepatic CYP1A levels, since in ovine they are lower than in bovine. In my opinion the authors should revise this part of the discussion, providing other references. AU: We agree and further remove this sentence. Now, we only state the consistency of the results of our study when compared to previous one reporting dioxins and PCBs liver concentrations in bovine and ovine. We did not provide any more putative mechanistic explanations for liver sequestration, as the results of our study did not allow us to support any specific hypotheses. See lines 299-302. 6. Lines 290-291: In my opinion the sentence is not clear. Please, rephrase. AU: The sentence has been rewritten accordingly the comment. See lines 304-306. 7. Lines 388-395: the authors drew a general conclusion that refers broadly to all POPs and all livestock species. Although their data are interesting and robust, in my opinion they should be cautious in extending their results to other species and POPs, due to the well-known kinetics differences. Accordingly, in the abstract (lines 29 and 43), “lipophilic food contaminants” are too generic. AU: We agree and further adjusted the concluding statements. See lines 405-415. Moreover, terminology was reviewed throughout the text, retaining only “persistent organic pollutants” and no more “lipophilic contaminants”. See concomitant changes thorough the abstract and the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230628.r002
5 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Juan J Loor, Editor Undernutrition combined with dietary mineral oil hastens depuration of stored dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls in ewes. 2. Tissue distribution, mass balance and body burden PONE-D-19-30218R1 Dear Dr. Lerch, 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, Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230628.r003
Formally Accepted
16 Mar 2020 Acceptance Letter - Juan J Loor, Editor PONE-D-19-30218R1 Undernutrition combined with dietary mineral oil hastens depuration of stored dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls in ewes. 2. Tissue distribution, mass balance and body burden Dear Dr. Lerch: I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230628.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .