PONE-D-21-15668

Inhibition of Acetic acid-Induced Colitis in Rats by P. acidilactici WNYM (01-03); Vitamin Producers Recovered from  Human Gut Microbiota

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mansour,

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 23 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,

Mahmoud Abdel Aziz Mabrok, PhD

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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

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: 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: Inhibition of Acetic acid-Induced Colitis in Rats by P. acidilactici WNYM (01-03); Vitamin Producers Recovered from Human Gut Microbiota

The manuscript should be revised for proper used of abbreviations.

Do not start paragraphs with abbreviations or mathematical numbers.

The ethical approval number should be written in details.

Animal handling, anesthesia and euthanasia should be written in details.

How many animals per group?

Why not used one-way ANOVA for statistical analysis to compare among the studied groups.

The pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis in relation to oxidative stress and inflammation should be discussed in more details. The following reference might be helpful:

https://doi.org/10.3109/08923973.2014.998368

The biomedical applications of probiotic should be discussed in more details. The following references might be helpful.

Biomolecules 2021, 11(5), 678; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11050678

TBARS is a lipid peroxidation marker (not oxidative stress marker). Please discuss.

For oxidative stress markers, why not chose enzymatic antioxidant markers (SOD, CAT or GSH-Px). The authors chose only reduced glutathione (GSH).

I recommend immunohistochemistry of colon tissue (COX-2, Caspase 3, INOS, BCL2, BAX)

Why the authors chose IL10 with TNF-α Why not IL-1beta, IL-6 as proinflammatory cytokines.

Reviewer #2: Major comments:

1- Lack of references in many paragraphs inside the manuscript as follows:

- 2nd paragraph in the Introduction section includes many information without references.

- Last line in page 3 (many studies ??) where are the references of these studies.

2- Methods section also there are many references lacking as follows:

- Acid Tolerance assay ??

- Blood hemolysis

- HPLC for determination of riboflavin & folate

- Determination of oxidative stress biomarkers

3- Expression of the results in the form of tables or figures are necessary & more impressive as text only is not enough as follows:

- Screening the isolation by PCR

- Photo of Gel electrophoresis Band.

- Molecular identification

- HPLC peak point & retention time

4- Gross finding: because you administered the bacterial strains for 14 days before colitis induction, So, this is not treatment regimen, it is prophylactic or preventive strategy. If you administer the strain after colitis induction start, at this case become treatment regimen.

5- Discussion section: there is no discussion for the antibacterial activity of the bacterial strains??

6- Also, the results of antioxidant activity of the bacterial strain are not discussed & no interpretation has mentioned.

Minor corrections:

a- Abbreviation in the title is not preferred (P. Pediococcus)

b- First sentence in the second paragraph in introduction section to be revised.

c- Introduction: 2nd paragraph: Vitamin B lack (un common word) to be changed in to Vitamin B deficiency; Also respiratory contagion to be changed to respiratory infection.

d- Page (4), second paragraph, second sentence is very long need to be revised as not logic to contain (and & furthermore) in the same sentence.

e- Page (10): first paragraph last line, the word after to change to "Later".

f- Result section: isolation of LAB: no need to repeat the first 5 lines as it is mentioned in the method section & the results start definitely from the line 6.

**********

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: Yes: Abdelfattah Mohamed Abdelfattah Ali

[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: Dear Editor of PLOS ONE.docx

Inhibition of Acetic acid-Induced Colitis in Rats by New Pediococcus acidilactici Strains, Vitamin Producers Recovered from Human Gut Microbiota

PONE-D-21-15668R1

Dear Dr. Mansour,

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,

Mahmoud Abdel Aziz Mabrok, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Based on the reviewers' comment, I would like to appreciate your efforts to present the manuscript in the current version. The authors addressed all scientific comments and inquiries as required, and therefore the final decision is acceptable. However, based on my review, I would like to suggest adding a small paragraph on MDR (multi-drug resistance and its negative impact on the animal industry, which also reflects the potential use of certain probiotics as an alternative compound for disease prevention and control. Please use the following valuable manuscripts as a guide for further editing. They discussed briefly the emergence of MDR in different animals, including poultry, cattles, fish

1-PMID: 32235800

2- PMID: 32497922

3-PMID: 32472209 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-020-01037-z

4-PMID: 33061472

5- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736070

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: As The authors addressed the reviewers comments, I suggest acceptance of the manuscript. The manuscript is acceptable in the current form.

Reviewer #2: No more comments as the manuscript has been revised correctly, language is carefully written clear & correct; No topographical errors present and no specific errors

**********

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: Yes: Abdelfattah Mohamed Abdelfattah Ali