PONE-D-20-02970

Morphological and genetic description of a novel synthetic allotetraploid of Gossypium herbaceum L. and Gossypium nelsonii Fryx.

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Yin,

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 May 16 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,

Paulo Eduardo Teodoro, Dr.

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the cotton varieties used in your study and ensure you have described the source. For more information regarding PLOS' policy on materials sharing and reporting, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-materials.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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):

Dear authors, your manuscript was reviewed by three experts and all of them pointed out important changes to be made in the manuscript. I ask that you respond to all comments made in a letter-by-point response letter and mark corrections in red in the text. The English in this manuscript is also not acceptable. Please look for a specialized company (I suggest Editage or AJE) for English review and send the review certificate as supplementary material. If the manuscript is not in proper English, it will not be returned to the reviewers for the next round of evaluation and this will delay your evaluation process.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Yes

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: The manuscript “Morphological and genetic description of a novel synthetic allotetraploid of Gossypium herbaceum L. and Gossypium nelsonii Fryx” created a new germplasm of cotton through remote hybridisation for a resistant source of wild cotton. G. herbaceum L. crossed with G. nelsonii Fryx. to produce an interspecies F1 hybrid cotton. Colchicine was used to double its chromosomal content, leading to the successful generation of a synthetic S1 tetraploid. The newly created S1 tetraploid showed morphological variations in its flowers, cotton bolls, and fibres and was partially resistant to Verticillium dahliae Kleb . The S1 tetraploid was hybridised with upland cotton to produce two types of cotton with different characteristics. This newly synthesised tetraploid cotton species is a valuable resource for cotton resistance breeding and for the enrichment of cotton genetic resources. The results are informative, but there are some major concerns need to be addressed.

1. The description of phenotypic morphological analysis of the diploid F1 hybrid and the synthetic S1 tetraploid is poorly organized. The author's investigation of morphological in materials and methods has not been described in detail. Even with reference to the methods of previous reference, no specific survey data and criteria are given. In the survey results, the key traits such as the germinating stage and the flowering stage are unclear. Moreover, wild cotton is mostly perennial wild material, and its germinating stage and flowering stage belongs to agronomic traits. It is not suitable for investigation and comparative analysis of wild materials.

2. Statistical analysis of leaf shape, plant height, boll shape and other traits is not appropriate. Because the leaf shape will change according to the different growth stages of the plant, the plant height will vary greatly due to changes in the growth environment, and the boll shape will also vary in different positions of the plant. The number of bolls per plant is also strongly related to nutritional status and planting density, so the author's description of these traits seems meaningless.

3. When statistically analysis the differences in phenotypic traits, it is necessary to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative traits. For F1, in the case of a limited single plant, it cannot be compared with a tetraploid with a larger number of offspring. As for the results of the investigation against Verticillium wilt, as it is a quantitative trait, it is recommended to compare and analyze the resistance differences of different isolated plants of S1.

4. For the identification and analysis of F1 true or false hybrids, when doing cytological analysis, the chromosomes of both parents and the chromosome of F1 should be observed.

5. When conducting a flow cytometer test, both parents, F1, S1, and the TM-1 materials, should be tested and investigated to increase the scientificity and credibility of the test.

6. At present, according to the taxonomic standards of the cotton genus, it has been recognized that Gossypium nelsonii Fryxell has been classified as the G3 species. So the newly synthesized double cotton germplasm should be A1A1G3G3.

7. According to the cotton genus classification and distribution research, 53-54 cotton species have been discovered and named, instead of 55.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has potential for publication, i the authors have achieved good results, the discussion needs to be improved, with mention to other works, in the discussion it is necessary to mention other results found in the difference of ploidy, the use of colchicine, as well as resistance to Verticillium dahliae, which is one of the main objectives, however, the work has all merit for publication.

Reviewer #3: WHAT THE AUTHORS NEED TO DO FOR IMPROVE THEIR PAPER

• I THEORIZED THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW A LANGUGE EDITING FIRSTLY AND AFTERWARDS WE COULD CAPABLE TO FOLLOW DETAILED CORRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

• I AM SORRY BUT THERE MAINY TERMS AND SENTENCES THAT MUST BE REWRITE USING BETTER TERMINOLOGY.

ALL THE SENTENCES, TERMS AND WORDS UNDERLINED INTO THE TEXT BY YELLOW COLOUR SHOULD BE CHANGED.

• PLEASE FOLLOW A LANGUAGE EDITIND FROM A PERSON WHO HAS ENGLISH AS NATIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU LOOSE MUCH OF THE VALUE OF YOUR WORK .

PLEASE SEE CAREFULLY OUR ADVICES INTO THE FILE COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS (1)

**********

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 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-02970_reviewer (1) -1.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER 1 - SUGGESTIONS.docx

PONE-D-20-02970R1

Morphological and genetic description of a novel synthetic allotetraploid of Gossypium herbaceum L. and Gossypium nelsonii Fryx.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

==============================

Dear authors, your manuscript has been revised again by the same reviewers of round 1.

One of them refused the article, as several suggested changes were not made. I agree with this reviewer.

The other reviewer made a detailed review of the text and pointed out several excerpts that must be modified.

The English in this manuscript remains poor and very difficult to read. I strongly suggest that the authors do an English review for the next round of evaluation. I suggest EDITAGE or AJE. Please attach the English revision certificate as a supplementary document. Without this review, it will be difficult to proceed with the evaluation of this manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 10 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,

Paulo Eduardo Teodoro, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors, your manuscript has been revised again by the same reviewers of round 1.

One of them refused the article, as several suggested changes were not made. I agree with this reviewer.

The other reviewer made a detailed review of the text and pointed out several excerpts that must be modified.

The English in this manuscript remains poor and very difficult to read. I strongly suggest that the authors do an English review for the next round of evaluation. I suggest EDITAGE or AJE. Please attach the English revision certificate as a supplementary document. Without this review, it will be difficult to proceed with the evaluation of this manuscript.

[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)

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The author's concept of the distinction between wild cotton and cultivated cotton is vague. The content of the survey on qualitative and quantitative traits is unclear. The author is confused about the genomic properties of Gossypium. No substantial changes were given to all amendment proposals.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: GENERAL COMMENT

Although the authors incorporated the suggestions from the reviewers, I feel that this paper must be improved, by English Editing and a careful extension of discussion with mention to other research works and results found in international references.

I propose some differentiation in the subtitles and in titles of the tables (please find STIKCY NOTES in the manuscript).

(e.g p.p. 173 A title : Root tip chromosome observations changed as KARYOTYPE ANALYSIS)

All new suggestions and corrections are indicated by Highlight Notes in the Manuscript (please change all the proposed words or terms or terminology as proposed in the NOTE BOX).

NOTICE : Micronaire value up to 6, is not a desirable trait for fiber quality.

Please not confuse the reader.

THE RESULTS FROM THIS RESEARCH ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

The researchers offer lot of work onto these experiments but is important to clarify the useful data and give the most significant conclusions in a clear way.

PLEASE WRITE THE CONCLUSIONS

**********

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 #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: PONE-D-20-02970_R1 (2).pdf

PONE-D-20-02970R2

Morphological description of a novel synthetic allotetraploid  (A1A1G3G3) of Gossypium herbaceum L. and G. nelsonii Fryx. suitable for disease-resistant breeding applications

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Dec 12 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,

Paulo Eduardo Teodoro, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors, one of the reviewers also pointed out the need for Minor Revision in his manuscript.

Therefore, I ask you to carefully review the manuscript according to this reviewer's suggestions.

[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 #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 #3: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #3: ALL CORRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHED FILES (I) (Full Text with Suggestions )

AND (II) (Reviewer Comments)

**********

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 #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: PONE-D-20-02970_R3.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER (3).pdf

Morphological description of a novel synthetic allotetraploid  (A1A1G3G3) of Gossypium herbaceum L. and G. nelsonii Fryx. suitable for disease-resistant breeding applications

PONE-D-20-02970R3

Dear Dr. Chen,

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,

Paulo Eduardo Teodoro, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: