Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 9, 2021

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - A. M. Abd El-Aty, Editor

PONE-D-21-07735

Efficient method for isolation of high-quality RNA from Psidium guajava L. tissues

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferreira,

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.

In addition to the comments raised by the reviewers', please do the following:

1- Full vendor details should include company, city (state), and country. Please check and amend throughout the text

2- Please don't use "We, our". Use impersonal phrasing throughout the text

3- Fig. 3 is not good, redo it in color

4- Before conclusion please add these two section

a- Comparisons with other methods: You should compare your finding with other techniques to prove the applicability, if any. Summarize the findings in Table

b- "Study strength and limitations". In this section, you have to discuss the strength and limitations of this study

5- Proofread the text for grammar and syntax errors

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 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,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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: 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: The authors have addressed most of the issues raised during the first review process. In order to clearly evaluate the efficiency of the different extraction protocols, however, statistical analysis should be conducted on the data in Table 1 and Table 2 (i.e the authors should evaluate and indicate if there is any significant difference in yield in relation to variation in extraction protocol, tissue type, and genotype). The result and discussion parts should also describe these statistical analysis results.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is technically sound and all the suggestions given by the reviewers has been addressed and necessary corrections has been done to improve the manuscript. The data presented in the manuscript is sufficient and well analyzed as per the objective of the experiments. All the data are available in the manuscript and its supplementary part. There is no additional comments to authors.

Reviewer #3: The authors responded adequately to the questions posed and have improved the manuscript, for which I consider it convenient for its publication in this journal.

Minor comments

Line 116, 129, 142, 146. Since the authors added this reference in the Results and Discussion section, they must add the reference number.

Line 235-237. True, the authors demonstrated to obtain high-quality RNA, however, in this section it could be convenient (if the authors consider) to add that this RNA obtained may still have limitations for other molecular studies such as gene expression analysis by RNA-seq (among other) , due to the RIN values obtained, and for the reasons mentioned in previous paragraphs. Examples of Ref. (Doi: 10.1186 / 1471-2199-7-3 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105855)

**********

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: Dr. Rakesh Singh

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.

Revision 1

Academic Editor’s comment:

1- Full vendor details should include company, city (state), and country. Please check and amend throughout the text.

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation and we have corrected it in the manuscript, as highlighted in the text.

2- Please don't use "We, our". Use impersonal phrasing throughout the text.

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation and we have added the information in the manuscript, as highlighted in the text.

3- Fig. 3 is not good, redo it in color.

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation and we have corrected it.

4- Before conclusion please add these two section:

a- Comparisons with other methods: You should compare your finding with other techniques to prove the applicability, if any. Summarize the findings in Table.

Answer: We appreciate the editor's suggestion; however, we believe that this information would be most appropriate if placed immediately after the results of comparison of protocols. Thus, we have included in this revised version the new suggested table (table 2 - line 163).

b- "Study strength and limitations". In this section, you have to discuss the strength and limitations of this study.

Answer: We appreciate the editor's suggestion. We have included this section in the revised version (lines 321-340).

5- Proofread the text for grammar and syntax errors.

Answer: We sent the manuscript back for editing by a native speaker to correct grammar and syntax errors. We believe that after this review the manuscript will be presented in an intelligible form and written in standardized English.

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

Answer: We have corrected it in the revised manuscript.

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. 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.

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.

Answer: The gel raw images data are in Supporting Information.docx file and Raw images.pdf file.

3. 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.

Answer: The ORCID iD of the corresponding author is validated.

Reviewer #1’s comment:

The authors have addressed most of the issues raised during the first review process. In order to clearly evaluate the efficiency of the different extraction protocols, however, statistical analysis should be conducted on the data in Table 1 and Table 2 (i.e the authors should evaluate and indicate if there is any significant difference in yield in relation to variation in extraction protocol, tissue type, and genotype). The result and discussion parts should also describe these statistical analysis results.

Answer: We appreciate and agree with the reviewer's comments, and modified tables 1 and 2, including statistical analysis, as well as adding this information in the discussion (lines 155-162 and 223-231).

Reviewer #2’s comment:

The manuscript is technically sound and all the suggestions given by the reviewers has been addressed and necessary corrections has been done to improve the manuscript. The data presented in the manuscript is sufficient and well analyzed as per the objective of the experiments. All the data are available in the manuscript and its supplementary part. There is no additional comments to authors.

Answer: We appreciate the comments.

Reviewer #3’s comment:

The authors responded adequately to the questions posed and have improved the manuscript, for which I consider it convenient for its publication in this journal.

Minor comments

Line 116, 129, 142, 146. Since the authors added this reference in the Results and Discussion section, they must add the reference number.

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation and we have added the information in the manuscript.

Line 235-237. True, the authors demonstrated to obtain high-quality RNA, however, in this section it could be convenient (if the authors consider) to add that this RNA obtained may still have limitations for other molecular studies such as gene expression analysis by RNA-seq (among other) , due to the RIN values obtained, and for the reasons mentioned in previous paragraphs. Examples of Ref. (Doi: 10.1186 / 1471-2199-7-3 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105855).

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation and we have added the information in the manuscript (lines 244-255).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - A. M. Abd El-Aty, Editor

PONE-D-21-07735R1

Efficient method for isolation of high-quality RNA from Psidium guajava L. tissues

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferreira,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Still the MS needs language editing, in particular, the parts which are added in the last round of revision. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 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,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: 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 #1: The authors have fully addressed the issues raised during the two rounds of review processes. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript in its current status.

**********

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

[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

In our last contact, all the points raised by the reviewers had been satisfactorily answered and all of them approved the manuscript. Lastly, the Academic Editor informed that language editing was still necessary.

In this final version, we have joined efforts to ensure that the adjustments were finally met and requested an additional Academic editing service, as can be seen by the two certificates attached to the submission files (Certificates of English Editing.pdf).

We hope the Academic Editor agrees that we have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers, and the manuscript is now suitable for publication in Plos One.

Sincerely,

Marcia Flores da Silva Ferreira

Professor at Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo

ZIP: 29.500-000 Alegre – ES, Brazil

E-mail: marcia.ferreira@ufes.br

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Certificates of English Editing.pdf
Decision Letter - A. M. Abd El-Aty, Editor

Efficient method for isolation of high-quality RNA from Psidium guajava L. tissues

PONE-D-21-07735R2

Dear Dr. Ferreira,

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,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - A. M. Abd El-Aty, Editor

PONE-D-21-07735R2

Efficient method for isolation of high-quality RNA from Psidium guajava L. tissues

Dear Dr. Ferreira:

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

Prof. A. M. Abd El-Aty

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 .