Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 8, 2020
Decision Letter - Pankaj Kumar Arora, Editor

PONE-D-20-38549

Degradation of benzo[a]pyrene by the halophilic bacterium strain Staphylococcus haemoliticus, 10SBZ1A

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nzila,

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 Feb 28 2021 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,

Pankaj Kumar Arora

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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 10.

[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: No

**********

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: A halophilic BaP degradation strain was isolated, and its characteristics and a metabolic pathway of BaP was investigated and proposed. As the first report of a halophilic BaP degrading bacterial strain at salinity > 5% NaCl, this paper has some innovation. However, some details are still need to be addressed. Please follow the comments:

1. Abstract Line 42-43, Please carefully check the results of doubling time ‘2-10h’ and degradation rate ‘0.2 μmol/l’. It is inconsistent with the text.

2. Abstract Line 42-44, “The strain 10SBZ1A degraded BaP at a rate of 0.2 μmol/l per day” “The optimum conditions of growth were 37 ºC, 10% NaCl (w/v) and pH 7.” It’s better to change the order of the two sentences. It should be the degradation rate under optimum conditions.

3. Materials and methods Line 202-208, What’s the salinity of the soil sample? Please add the operation conditions of this experiment, including temperature, salinity, and pH.

4. Introduction Line 60-66, this part introduced the background of this study. I advise the authors to supply some references of benzo[a]pyrene as the main PAHs components existed in the produced water. In addition, some references are also needed to support the high salinity of PW, even up to 30% NaCl.

Reviewer #2: Comments:

1. Delete the word "the" from the title and there should be "bacterial" in place of "bacterium".

2. The end of the sentence is incomplete "and among them, Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)" at Line No. 34-35. Rewrite.

3. Cite the following reference at the end of the sentenece "The biodegradation of HMW-PAHs is challenging........difficult it is to degrade": Arora (2020), doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.570307

4. Delete "also" from the sentence at Line no. 35.

5. Rephrase the sentence " that can reach up to 30% NaCl" at Lie No. 35-36.

6. There should be "organic contaminants" in place of "PAHs" at Line no. 75.

7. Mention the purity status of the followings: pyrene, anthracene, phenanthrene, naphthalene, phthalic

120 acid, salicylic acid, catechol; palmitic, oleic and stearic acids.

8. Write the model, make and country of origin for GC at Line No. 208.

9. Why the chromatograms of liquid chromatography-high resolution tandem mass spectrometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and HPLC is not included in the main text. Include all these chromatogram and supporting information in the main text of the manuscript.

**********

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

A file has been uploaded.. in addition, below the same information

PONE-D-20-38549

Degradation of benzo[a]pyrene by the halophilic bacterium strain Staphylococcus haemoliticus, 10SBZ1A

PLOS ONE

POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

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

OUR RESPONSE: Our response: we have rechecked our manuscript about the style requirement

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

OUR RESPONSE: We have uploaded an excel file containing the necessary set of data to replicate our findings.

2. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 10.

OUR RESPONSE: This has been an oversight, the Table has been added.

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

OUR RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, we have uploaded an excel file containing the necessary set of data to replicate our findings.

Reviewer 1

1. Abstract Line 42-43, Please carefully check the results of doubling time ‘2-10h’ and degradation rate ‘0.2 μmol/l’. It is inconsistent with the text.

OUR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this remark. Yes, there was inconsistency with the text and the figures. This has been changed accordingly.

2. Abstract Line 42-44, “The strain 10SBZ1A degraded BaP at a rate of 0.2 μmol/l per day” “The optimum conditions of growth were 37 ºC, 10% NaCl (w/v) and pH 7.” It’s better to change the order of the two sentences. It should be the degradation rate under optimum conditions.

OUR RESPONSE: We agree with the suggestion. Therefore we have changed the order of these 2 sentences.

3. Materials and methods Line 202-208, What’s the salinity of the soil sample? Please add the operation conditions of this experiment, including temperature, salinity, and pH.

Our response: The soil was not used dried. It was kept in the medium solution (BH), pH 7, salinity 5%. We have clarified this in the text.

4. Introduction Line 60-66, this part introduced the background of this study. I advise the authors to supply some references of benzo[a]pyrene as the main PAHs components existed in the produced water. In addition, some references are also needed to support the high salinity of PW, even up to 30% NaCl.

OUR RESPONSE: We quoted reference (Ref.1), that is relevant in relation with produced water (PW). In light of the reviewer comment, we have added an additional reference (Ref.2), and this reference provides information that PAHs are part of important pollutants found in PW.

Reviewer #2:

1. Delete the word "the" from the title and there should be "bacterial" in place of "bacterium".

OUR RESPONSE: Done

2. The end of the sentence is incomplete "and among them, Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)" at Line No. 34-35. Rewrite.

OUR RESPONSE: We have removed “among them” and replace it with “including”. The sentence is not clearer.

3. Cite the following reference at the end of the sentence "The biodegradation of HMW-PAHs is challenging........difficult it is to degrade": Arora (2020), doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.570307

OUR RESPONSE: Done

4. Delete "also" from the sentence at Line no. 35.

OUR RESPONSE: Done

5. Rephrase the sentence " that can reach up to 30% NaCl" at Lie No. 35-36.

OUR RESPONSE: This has been done, by replacing" that can reach up to 30% NaCl" by “which can be as high as 30% NaCl”

6. There should be "organic contaminants" in place of "PAHs" at Line no. 75.

OUR RESPONSE: In this sentence, we are referring to a specific type of the organic pollutants, which are PAHs. Thus, replacing PAHs will make the sentence not clear.. So we suggest to keep it.

7. Mention the purity status of the followings: pyrene, anthracene, phenanthrene, naphthalene, phthalic

120 acid, salicylic acid, catechol; palmitic, oleic and stearic acids.

OUR RESPONSE: All chemicals were of HPLC, analytical grades. We have added this information in the text.

8. Write the model, make and country of origin for GC at Line No. 208.

OUR RESPONSE: We have provided the necessary additional information of the GC equipment we have used

9. Why the chromatograms of liquid chromatography-high resolution tandem mass spectrometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and HPLC is not included in the main text. Include all these chromatogram and supporting information in the main text of the manuscript.

Our response: This information has been added as Supplementary material. Adding this information in the text is going to make it unnecessary long. Such information is appropriate to be added as Supplementary material.. Thus, for the conciseness of the manuscript, we suggest to keep it as Supplementary material.

END DOCUMENT

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer_PONE-D-20-38549_.docx
Decision Letter - Pankaj Kumar Arora, Editor

PONE-D-20-38549R1

Degradation of benzo[a]pyrene by halophilic bacterial strain Staphylococcus haemoliticus, 10SBZ1A

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nzila,

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 Mar 25 2021 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,

Pankaj Kumar Arora

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Whole manuscript should be edited for grammatical and English languages. Some examples are:

1. There are two full-stop line number 44.

2. Line 33, produced water is not scientific term. Use petroleum waste effluent or something else in whole manuscript.

3. use word " Strain before 10SBZ1A in whole manuscript.

4. Line 258- Bacterial DNA was isolated and purified.

5. Check other errors.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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 2

Point by point response to the editor comments

1. There are two full-stop line number 44.

Our response: This has been removed

2. Line 33, produced water is not scientific term. Use petroleum waste effluent or something else in whole manuscript.

Our response: The term produced water is used in many publications, for instance, in Ref1 &2, the term “produced water” is even mentioned in the titles.. However, in light of the editor comments, we have mentioned that produced water is same as petroleum waste effluent (line 34 and 61), that we have replaced “produced water” by “petroleum waste effluent (PWE)” throughout the text.

3. use word " Strain before 10SBZ1A in whole manuscript.

Our response: This has been changed throughout the text, the tables and the figures

4. Line 258- Bacterial DNA was isolated and purified.

Our response: This has been done

5. Check other errors.

Our response: We have cross-checked the all text for mistakes.

END DOCUMENT

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer Response.docx
Decision Letter - Pankaj Kumar Arora, Editor

Degradation of benzo[a]pyrene by halophilic bacterial strain Staphylococcus haemoliticus strain 10SBZ1A

PONE-D-20-38549R2

Dear Dr. Nzila,

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,

Pankaj Kumar Arora

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Pankaj Kumar Arora, Editor

PONE-D-20-38549R2

Degradation of benzo[a]pyrene by halophilic bacterial strain Staphylococcus haemoliticus strain 10SBZ1A

Dear Dr. Nzila:

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. Pankaj Kumar Arora

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 .