Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by probability density functional method

Miyako Oya; Yosuke Taniguchi; Naoaki Fujimura; Karen Miyamoto; Masaru Oya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237255

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 7, 2020
5 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Editor PONE-D-20-08400 Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oya, 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 Jul 20 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, Anjani Kumar Tiwari, 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. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The paper describes about the Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method. The concept seems very interesting but Methodology is being required in more details for the sake of reproducibility of data. On what basis the group has decided to study only selective parameters (The process of cleaning has been studied as a function of pH, temperature and surfactant concentration), it should be explicitly explained in the manuscript. The statistical parameter should also be mentioned in appropriate manner. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 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: No 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: Methodology is required for details for the sake of reproducibility of data. the concept is good and interesting but how do you select different parameters for detergency. this requires more information. the structuring of manuscript is a problem and require more changes in the draft. Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors report washing tests performed on medical samples prepared by soiling of fabric substrate with haemoglobin. There is sufficient data provided for the method of washing of samples with special reference to the calculation of two parameters αrl (Related to the cleaning mechanism) and µrl (Related to cleaning power).The process of cleaning has been studied as a function of pH, temperature and surfactant concentration and the data so obtained are explained on the basis of probability density functional method. The manuscript is well written and the results are explained properly.I recommend the publication of the manuscript in PLOSONE provided the following minor comments are addressed. 1. In the abstract: The first two lines in the beginning “Protein contamination----------theoron” should be deleted. 2 .In the abstract, the sentence starting from “ In this study------should be reworded and include washing tests performed by soiling of fabric and the continue as it is” 3.In the introduction: The lines 55 and 56 both starts both from “In this study..It should be corrected and reworded by deleting the words “in this” from line 55. 4. Materials and methods: Authors should mention the company and make of the thermostat/ water bath used for temperature control after pH in this section. 5.In Fig4,5: The authors should mention the values of regression coefficients(R2) either in the linear plots given in Fig 4 and Fig 5 or within the text at appropriate places. Reviewer #3: The manuscript entitled "Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method " by Miyako Oya and others seems very interesting but i have few observations which should be clarified for the researchers who wants to work in this direction 1- The author does not describe the nature of the cloth which is used and explained as Approximately 250 g of cotton cloth was immersed in 2 L of 0.5% aqueous sodium carbonate 75 solution at 60–70 °C. The cloth was then rinsed using distilled water, dehydrated, air-dried, and cut it into sections with dimensions of 5 × 5 cm2 76 . 2- Author should also explain that why specific pH and temperature variation were taken why not pH 9 and temp 20 or 25°C The time-dependent curves of the detergency obtained by varying the pH in steps of 6, 9, 10, and 11 at cleaning temperatures of 30 °C, 40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C ****** 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.] 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOSONE report.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237255.r001
Revision 1
26 Jun 2020 Author Response <To Editor> Thank you for your valuable suggestions. It was corrected according to the instructions. 1) The following sentence was added to the introduction to explain the reason for determining the cleaning conditions. (Revised Manuscript L66-70) Since an alkaline solution is often used as a detergent for protein stains, it can be expected that the washing rate will change significantly depending on pH. Further, since SDS has a hemolytic action, it is expected that the concentration of SDS greatly contributes to the removability of hemoglobin stains. Moreover, since both can be regarded as a kind of chemical reaction, it can be predicted that they are affected by temperature. 2) The description of the statistical parameters was added as follows. (Revised Manuscript L59-60) the mean µrl and standard deviation σrl of the removal load distribution, assuming that the cleaning power follows a normal distribution. <To Reviewer #1> Thank you for your valuable suggestions about the selection of parameters. The manuscript was corrected as follows. (Revised Manuscript L66-70) Since an alkaline solution is often used as a detergent for protein stains, it can be expected that the washing rate will change significantly depending on pH. Further, since SDS has a hemolytic action, it is expected that the concentration of SDS greatly contributes to the removability of hemoglobin stains. Moreover, since both can be regarded as a kind of chemical reaction, it can be predicted that they are affected by temperature. The structure of the manuscript has already been corrected by Editage, but if you point out more specific problems, I would like to ask Editage to respond again. <To Reviewer #2> We would like to thank you for your careful review and for your valuable suggestions. 1. In the abstract: The first two lines in the beginning “Protein contamination----------theoron” should be deleted. The manuscript has been revised as instructed. 2 .In the abstract, the sentence starting from “ In this study------should be reworded and include washing tests performed by soiling of fabric and the continue as it is” The manuscript has been revised as follows. (Revised Manuscript L3-4) In this study, washing tests were performed using samples prepared by contaminating fabrics with hemoglobin, and a kinetic analysis 3.In the introduction: The lines 55 and 56 both starts both from “In this study..It should be corrected and reworded by deleting the words “in this” from line 55. The manuscript has been revised as instructed. 4. Materials and methods: Authors should mention the company and make of the thermostat/ water bath used for temperature control after pH in this section. The following explanationwas added in L80-81 (temperature was controlled in the washing machine) 5.In Fig4,5: The authors should mention the values of regression coefficients(R2) either in the linear plots given in Fig 4 and Fig 5 or within the text at appropriate places. The regression coefficients were added in Fig.4 and Fig. 7. <To Reviewer #3> Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The following modifications were made according to your instructions. 1) An explanation about the specifications of the fabric was added as follows. (Revised Manuscript L78) (weave density: 22.5/10 mm warp, 24.0/10mm weft, weight: 15.2 mg/cm2) 2) The following explanation was added about the reason why the test was performed at a temperature of 30°C or higher. (Revised Manuscript L166-169) Since it was expected that the cleaning efficiency would be low when the pH was low at low temperature and the cleaning effect due to the temperature and pH increase would be difficult to appear, the minimum temperature was set to 30 °C. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237255.r002
23 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Editor Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method PONE-D-20-08400R1 Dear Dr. Oya, 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, Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Dr Masaru Oya, It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript entitled "Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method" in its current form for publication in PLOS ONE. The comments of the reviewer(s) who reviewed your manuscript are included at the foot of this letter. 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 #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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: the revised manuscript has addressed all the necessary clarifications and I expressed my satisfaction with the current status of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #3: The authors of manuscript responed reviewers query in well manner and now it can be considered for publication. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237255.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Jul 2020 Acceptance Letter - Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Editor PONE-D-20-08400R1 Kinetic analysis of hemoglobin detergency by Probability Density Functional Method Dear Dr. Oya: 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. Anjani Kumar Tiwari Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237255.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 .