Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 7, 2020
Decision Letter - Hemant K. Paudel, Editor

PONE-D-20-09948

Aromatherapy improves cognitive dysfunction in senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 by reducing the level of amyloid beta and tau phosphorylation.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Okuda:

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.

Reviewers questioned the use of only male mice in the study. Some problems with statistical analyses of the data was also noted.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15th August, 2020. 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,

Hemant K. Paudel

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. We understand that you purchased essential oils for this study. In your Methods section, please provide additional regarding the source of this material. Please provide the further details about the purchased items including lot number, source origin, description of appearance, whether the company provided any purity or yield measurements, and whether any chemical characterization was performed.

Please also provide further detail about oil exposure procedure, stating when it was added to the disks before exposure and the distance of the disks from cage.

3.Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "The experimental procedures concerning mice and their care in this study were carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Kyoto University Animal Experimentation Committee.".   

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named ethics committee specifically approved this study.

For additional information about PLOS ONE submissions requirements for ethics oversight of animal work, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research  

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

4.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.

[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: This is a good article. There are a few lacunae. Why was Y maze test specifically chosen. What would be the approximate amounts of aromatic oils required if the subject was human. I recommend that the article be published after minor revision

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Aromatherapy improves cognitive dysfunction in senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 by reducing the level of amyloid beta and tau phosphorylation”, by Okuda et al. studied the effect of aromatherapy in three-month-old male senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 model. The research is novel and interesting. The manuscript is well written. Most conclusions are supported by the results presented. Authors studied AD manifestations both at protein and behavioral levels, correlating the science to the previous research published by the authors in AD patients. There are some minor concerns which if addressed, would significantly improve clarity of the work to the readers.

Minor Comments:

1. In the present study, authors claim to evaluate the “mechanism of action” of aromatherapy, but no mechanism of action is proposed or discussed at a molecular level. Please clarify?

2. Please provide reasoning for only selecting male mice in this study.

3. How was the duration of treatment (9 weeks) selected?

4. Lines 212-214 state: “in the aromatherapy group, the percentage of spontaneous alternations remained at the same level as at the start of treatment (64.4% ± 2.2%). The difference between the two groups was significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney test). There was no change in the total number of arm entries in either group (P = 0.14, M-W test, Fig. 1D).”

These sentences are unclear. Also, 64.4% ± 2.2% does not seem to be at the same level with the values reported for control. Please reword these sentences for clarity.

5. Providing a table for control and treatment groups, with days and type of treatment would be beneficial to the readers.

6. Manuscript contains some typographical errors.

**********

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

To editor;

1. The format of our manuscript was amended by referring to The PLOS ONE style templates.

2.The information of the essential oils and the exposure procedure was added to the Materials and Method section.

3. The ethics statement was amended.

4. The blot images for figures 3 and 4 are in supporting information Fig S1.

To Reviewer #1;

Why was Y maze test specifically chosen?

In our previous study we have tried the Morris water maze in the same type of mice (Reference 26), but it was difficult to compare between groups because of the considerable variation in the data between each mouse. In addition, we have also tried the novel object recognition test in SAMP8 mice, but we could obtain no evaluable data because the mice were very rough and restless. Therefore, in the present study, we specifically chose the Y-maze test.

What would be the approximate amounts of aromatic oils required if the subject was human?

We think it very difficult to estimate the required amounts of oils in human at the moment because olfactory sensitivity varies by species.

To Reviewer #2;

1. In the present study, authors claim to evaluate the “mechanism of action” of aromatherapy, but no mechanism of action is proposed or discussed at a molecular level. Please clarify?

In our previous study only cognitive function was tested (Reference 16). But, in the present study, we newly measured the brain levels of some proteins such as tau and Aβ, so we used the word “mechanism” in the manuscript. We modified this expression more concretely in the introduction (line 66-).

2. Please provide reasoning for only selecting male mice in this study.

We have usually used male mice in our studies because females have a sexual cycle and it may affect mental state and behavior of mice, leading to data variability in behavioral tests. And, reportedly, olfactory ability is affected by circulating sex hormones in mice (Kass et al., Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 26;7:45851. doi: 10.1038/srep45851). So, it may be more difficult to evaluate the effects of aromatherapy in female because of the changes in olfactory function due to the sexual cycle. However, it is interesting to do the comparative study between male and female in the future.

3. How was the duration of treatment (9 weeks) selected?

At least we found that a significant cognitive decline was seen in 2-3 months in young SAMP8 mice evaluated using Y-maze test from our previous studies (References 26 and 27). Therefore, we set the treatment periods to 9 weeks in the present study.

4. Lines 212-214 state: “in the aromatherapy group, the percentage of spontaneous alternations remained at the same level as at the start of treatment (64.4% ± 2.2%). The difference between the two groups was significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney test). There was no change in the total number of arm entries in either group (P = 0.14, M-W test, Fig. 1D).” These sentences are unclear. Also, 64.4% ± 2.2% does not seem to be at the same level with the values reported for control. Please reword these sentences for clarity.

We modified the expression of sentences in lines 221-224 to match the data.

5. Providing a table for control and treatment groups, with days and type of treatment would be beneficial to the readers.

We added the table for the summary of treatment (Table 1).

6. Manuscript contains some typographical errors.

We corrected the manuscript being checked by a native speaker.

Decision Letter - Hemant K. Paudel, Editor

Aromatherapy improves cognitive dysfunction in senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 by reducing the level of amyloid beta and tau phosphorylation.

PONE-D-20-09948R1

Dear Dr. Okuda:

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,

Hemant K. Paudel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hemant K. Paudel, Editor

PONE-D-20-09948R1

Aromatherapy improves cognitive dysfunction in senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 by reducing the level of amyloid beta and tau phosphorylation.

Dear Dr. Okuda:

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. Hemant K. Paudel

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 .