Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 19, 2020
Decision Letter - Ouliana Ziouzenkova, Editor

PONE-D-20-18913

Evaluating the appropriate oral lipid tolerance test model for investigating plasma triglyceride elevation in mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ochiai,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2020 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,

Ouliana Ziouzenkova, PhD

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. 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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 evaluated rodent models for OLTT and then suggested an optimal method.

Basically, the reported models would be fine because pharmacological substances would always be evaluated compared to controls. However, the larger the dynamic rage, the clearer the results from the bioassay. OTLL models were evaluated under a variety of conditions, and the suggested method could be helpful to researchers.

The publication of this manuscript in PLOS ONE can be supported after the suitable modification as follows.

-Abstract need to be concise and written shorter.

-Page 7, line 103, “I selected….” should be rewritten. Do not use “I”.

-All figures should be provided as high-resolution images.

-Mark statistical significance on the graph.

-In figure 2, please make it easy to distinguish.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Evaluating the appropriate oral lipid tolerance test model for investigating plasma triglyceride elevation in mice” have described the complete standardization of a novel model to evaluate the postprandial hyperlipidemia trough oral lipid tolerance test, demonstrating which is the best strain, the optimum oil and the difference between gender...

The study was written carefully and well in terms of language. However, this work requires minor corrections.

Minor issues:

- Ethically it is an excellent idea to use the same animals for different experiments, however, in this case a method is being standardized and the age must always be the same to be exact. I suggest that in the future this be done with animals of the same age in order to confirm the results obtained in your model.

- In the high-performance thin-layer chromatography plate section in line 169-172 i suggest to mention which standard was used to compare and determine the lipids.

**********

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

[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.

Revision 1

The author very appreciated to the precise comments, questions, and suggestions to the manuscript. The author has prepared the reply point by point as also attached in the submission file.

Reviewer #1: The publication of this manuscript in PLOS ONE can be supported after the suitable modification as follows.

-Abstract need to be concise and written shorter.

Reply: The previous manuscript observed a PLOS ONE guideline of the abstract section (not exceed 300 words), but the abstract has been more concisely revised.

-Page 7, line 103, “I selected….” should be rewritten. Do not use “I”.

Reply: The part pointed out has been revised (Line 104).

-All figures should be provided as high-resolution images.

Reply: The figures have been clearly revised.

-Mark statistical significance on the graph.

Reply: I think the reviewer pointed out the Fig 9 and Fig 10. The part pointed out has been explained in detail (Fig 9-10 captions). In case that interactions between the two factors, a comparison among the four groups would be performed using a one-way-ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer test. However, because statistically significances were not observed in the two-way ANOVA, a one-way ANOVA was not carried out according to statistical analysis rules. (Line 294, 306)

-In figure 2, please make it easy to distinguish.

Reply: The part pointed out has been clearly revised. Figure 2 has been changed to be a color mode.

Reviewer #2: ~ ~ ~ However, this work requires minor corrections.

- I suggest that in the future this be done with animals of the same age in order to confirm the results obtained in your model.

Reply: I appreciated to the comment. In this study, various aged mice models were used for the investigation because normal model mice were not in the special pathological condition. When the suppressive effect of food materials on lipids-induced hypertriglyceridemia is evaluated in the future, the same aged ddY mice should be used.

- In the high-performance thin-layer chromatography plate section in line 169-172. I suggest to mention which standard was used to compare and determine the lipids.

Reply: The part pointed out has been revised (Line 174).

Decision Letter - Ouliana Ziouzenkova, Editor

Evaluating the appropriate oral lipid tolerance test model for investigating plasma triglyceride elevation in mice

PONE-D-20-18913R1

Dear Dr. Ochiai,

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,

Ouliana Ziouzenkova, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ouliana Ziouzenkova, Editor

PONE-D-20-18913R1

Evaluating the appropriate oral lipid tolerance test model for investigating  plasma triglyceride elevation in mice

Dear Dr. Ochiai:

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. Ouliana Ziouzenkova

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .