PONE-D-21-06870

Dynamic changes of bioactive components and antioxidant potential of Prunus humilis Bunge fruit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fu,

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.

The manuscript needs considerable restructuring, according to the Reviewers' reports, in order to headline the importance of the study. English language usage should be substantially polished. Figure captions should be completely rewritten in order to be self-explanatory. Statistical significance must be introduced in Figures 1-5. Please put labels of statistical significance in Table 2 into superscript. Do not use the entire Latin name "Prunus humilis" throughout the text, but instead "P. humilis". However, "Prunus humilis" should stand in the first mention in the main title, Abstract, and Introduction section. It also applies to other species' Latin names in the text, such as "Camellia japonica". Please precise what Nongda 4, Nongda 5, 02-16 and DS-1 represent. If they are cultivars, then they should stand under single quotation marks as 'Nongda4' and so on.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Branislav T. Šiler, 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

●               The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

●               A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

●               A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: 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: Authors develop their work adequately on the changes of phenolics and antioxidant activities of P. humilis fruit during the development.

1. The title needs edits to reflect "the changes are during fruit development".

2. Taking into account the amount of results obtained and the different varieties used, perhaps, the article should be structured in a different way. For example, a Principal component analysis (PCA) could be conducted to see the overall differences in phenolic profile and antioxidant activities during different development stages, according to the variety studied (i.g., TPC, TFC, DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and individual compounds)

3. Spell out the abbreviation FW for the first time, and note all the abbreviations in the legend for Figure 1-5.

4. Table 1 indicate the year.

5. Line 202 “…showed a decrease in…”

6. It looks like no significant analysis used for illustrating the results of Figure 1-5, and only mean values were compared.

7. Line 238-239 Rephrase this sentence.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented by Fu et al. analysed the changes in total flavonoid and anthocyanin content, the content of eight flavonoid compounds and antioxidant capacity by three methods in for accessions of Prunus humilis Bunge fruit at six develop stages. Although the manuscript presented some interesting results, it must be thoroughly reviewed before it can be accepted. Authors should place more emphasis on pointing out the importance of this study.

I advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript.

The abstract should be rewritten. A brief description of the work with the most relevant results should be given. Thus, readers can get an idea of the content of the work.

Introduction. The sentences in Lines 82-84 and 84-87 are redundant.

Material and Methods.

- I suggest separating plant material and chemicals into different sections.

- Authors should include how they expressed the different results. In reference to the replicates. Please change lines 104-105 to "A total of three biological replicated consisting in 3 healthy plants each one was selected” or something like that.

- Authors should include how they expressed TFC, TPC, antioxidant capacity determined by the the three methods.

- Flavonoid content: Please indicate at which range were performed the different calibration curves. Moreover, which software were used for the acquisition data?

Results.

This section should be rewritten. Moreover, the Figure legends should be improved because Authors did not include any reference to the results showed in each one (biological samples, statiscal method, etc). They only included the titles. Furthermore, the statistical results should be included in the Figures. Based on the results showed it is difficult to know whether some of the changes are statistically different.

- Lines 289-291. Please delete. Authors should only refer to the results of this section. Such sentences should be in the discussion or in the results section where correlations are discussed.

- Lines 315-321. Please move to discussion section.

- In reference to the results included in the correlation analysis, Authors should avoid repeating that "the level of correlation is different". What is important is the biological sense of that correlation, not whether it was 0.99 or 0.93.

- Lines 337-339. Please delete.

**********

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.

Changes of bioactive components and antioxidant potential during fruit development of Prunus humilis Bunge

PONE-D-21-06870R1

Dear Dr. Fu,

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,

Branislav T. Šiler, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: