A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins

Thanakrit Kaewsahnguan; Sajee Noitang; Papassara Sangtanoo; Piroonporn Srimongkol; Tanatorn Saisavoey; Onrapak Reamtong; Kiattawee Choowongkomon; Aphichart Karnchanatat

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256595

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 2, 2021
22 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Shashi Kant Bhatia, Editor PONE-D-21-03572 A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Karnchanatat, 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 May 06 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, Shashi Kant Bhatia 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 Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. 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. 3.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Furthermore, the authors would also like to make clear their 12 gratitude for the financial support provided by the Thailand Science Research and 13 Innovation (TSRI) Fund (CU_FRB640001_01_61_1), and the Center of Excellence on 14 Medical Biotechnology (CEMB), S&T Postgraduate Education and Research 15 Development Office (PERDO), Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), 16 Thailand (SN-63-009-01). The assistance provided by the aforementioned bodies has made 17 this research possible." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please upload a copy of Figure 8, to which you refer in your text on page 32. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 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: 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 have presented a process of enzymatic hydrolysis of salmon bone with trypsin for production of ACE inhibitory peptides. Authors should correct some of the mistakes in the English of the manuscript. Authors should discuss the similar studies (e.g., Fu-Yuan Cheng et al., 2009; Fatemeh Mahmoodani et al., 2014; Isabel Rodríguez Amado et al., 2014, etc.) on bone hydrolysis for peptide production, and difference from the present findings should be emphasized. Conclusion should be more concise. Reviewer #2: Journal: PLOS ONE Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-03572 Title: A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins General Comments Thanakrit, et al., extracted a novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins. The objectives of manuscript are clear but needs extensive details on its background of the research and goal. As well, some points in the results and discussion part are incomprehensible and require an in-depth explanation. Authors should answer following questions before publication 1. The manuscript title not providing informative details on the study carried out 2. English polishing is required before publishing this manuscript 3. Introduction is too vague and descriptive; it must be concise and informative considering aims and objectives of the study 4. For proximate analysis provide AOAC updated methods from 2000 onwards. 5. In every section the authors provided too much descriptive information on each study point, they should provide specific and concrete details on each parameter studied. 6. Some data must provide as supplementary files ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r001
Revision 1
14 May 2021 Author Response List of changes or point rebuttals We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in yellow highlights). 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 - The suggested correction has been made. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. 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. - The suggested correction has been made. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Furthermore, the authors would also like to make clear their 12 gratitude for the financial support provided by the Thailand Science Research and 13 Innovation (TSRI) Fund (CU_FRB640001_01_61_1), and the Center of Excellence on 14 Medical Biotechnology (CEMB), S&T Postgraduate Education and Research 15 Development Office (PERDO), Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), 16 Thailand (SN-63-009-01). The assistance provided by the aforementioned bodies has made 17 this research possible." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. - The suggested correction has been made. 4. Please upload a copy of Figure 8, to which you refer in your text on page 32. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. - The suggested correction has been made. 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: 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 have presented a process of enzymatic hydrolysis of salmon bone with trypsin for production of ACE inhibitory peptides. Authors should correct some of the mistakes in the English of the manuscript. Authors should discuss the similar studies (e.g., Fu-Yuan Cheng et al., 2009; Fatemeh Mahmoodani et al., 2014; Isabel Rodríguez Amado et al., 2014, etc.) on bone hydrolysis for peptide production, and difference from the present findings should be emphasized. Conclusion should be more concise. - Additional discussion is in the response surface and contour plots section Reviewer #2: Journal: PLOS ONE Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-03572 Title: A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins General Comments Thanakrit, et al., extracted a novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins. The objectives of manuscript are clear but needs extensive details on its background of the research and goal. As well, some points in the results and discussion part are incomprehensible and require an in-depth explanation. Authors should answer following questions before publication 1. The manuscript title not providing informative details on the study carried out. - The manuscript title is appropriate for this article and representative of the content. It also enables readers outside the subject to understand the purpose. 2. English polishing is required before publishing this manuscript. - Dr. Robert Douglas John Butcher for reviewing this manuscript. 3. Introduction is too vague and descriptive; it must be concise and informative considering aims and objectives of the study. - The suggested correction has been made. 4. For proximate analysis provide AOAC updated methods from 2000 onwards. - The AOAC methods were updated in 2005. 5. In every section the authors provided too much descriptive information on each study point, they should provide specific and concrete details on each parameter studied. - The suggested correction has been made. 6. Some data must provide as supplementary files. - The suggested correction has been made. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (PLOS ONE).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r002
29 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Shashi Kant Bhatia, Editor PONE-D-21-03572R1 A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Karnchanatat, 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 Sep 12 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, Shashi Kant Bhatia Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Authors need to address the reviewers' comments more appropriately. Authors are advised to answer the comments describing the changes made in the manuscript. I can see in response to some of the comments any changes have not been done. Some examples are: 2.English polishing is required before publishing this manuscript. -Dr. Robert Douglas John Butcher for reviewing this manuscript. 3.Introduction is too vague and descriptive; it must be concise and informative considering aims and objectives of the study. -The suggested correction has been made. ********** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r003
Revision 2
31 Jul 2021 Author Response List of changes or point rebuttals We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in yellow highlights). 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 - The suggested correction has been made. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. 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. - The suggested correction has been made. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Furthermore, the authors would also like to make clear their 12 gratitude for the financial support provided by the Thailand Science Research and 13 Innovation (TSRI) Fund (CU_FRB640001_01_61_1), and the Center of Excellence on 14 Medical Biotechnology (CEMB), S&T Postgraduate Education and Research 15 Development Office (PERDO), Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), 16 Thailand (SN-63-009-01). The assistance provided by the aforementioned bodies has made 17 this research possible." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. - The suggested correction has been made. 4. Please upload a copy of Figure 8, to which you refer in your text on page 32. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. - The suggested correction has been made. 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: 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 have presented a process of enzymatic hydrolysis of salmon bone with trypsin for production of ACE inhibitory peptides. -Authors should correct some of the mistakes in the English of the manuscript. The current version has been carefully revised to improve the grammar and readability by Chulalongkorn University Language Institute. -Authors should discuss the similar studies (e.g., Fu-Yuan Cheng et al., 2009; Fatemeh Mahmoodani et al., 2014; Isabel Rodríguez Amado et al., 2014, etc.) on bone hydrolysis for peptide production, and difference from the present findings should be emphasized. In this work, similar studies such as the work by Rasli H. and Sarbon N., 2018; Chen J., et al., 2009.; Zhu Z., et al., 2010 have been discussion in the optimization of salmon bone hydrolysis section. - Conclusion should be more concise. The current version has been modified. Reviewer #2: Journal: PLOS ONE Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-03572 Title: A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins General Comments Thanakrit, et al., extracted a novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins. The objectives of manuscript are clear but needs extensive details on its background of the research and goal. As well, some points in the results and discussion part are incomprehensible and require an in-depth explanation. Authors should answer following questions before publication 1. The manuscript title not providing informative details on the study carried out. - The manuscript title is appropriate for this article and representative of the content. It also enables readers outside the subject to understand the purpose. 2. English polishing is required before publishing this manuscript. - The current version has been carefully revised to improve the grammar and readability by Chulalongkorn University Language Institute. 3. Introduction is too vague and descriptive; it must be concise and informative considering aims and objectives of the study. - The current version has been modified (in yellow highlights). 4. For proximate analysis provide AOAC updated methods from 2000 onwards. - The AOAC methods were updated in 2005. 5. In every section the authors provided too much descriptive information on each study point, they should provide specific and concrete details on each parameter studied. - The current version has been modified 6. Some data must provide as supplementary files. - The suggested correction has been made. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r004
11 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Shashi Kant Bhatia, Editor A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins PONE-D-21-03572R2 Dear Dr. Karnchanatat, 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, Shashi Kant Bhatia Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Shashi Kant Bhatia, Editor PONE-D-21-03572R2 A novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptide derived from the trypsin hydrolysates of salmon bone proteins Dear Dr. Karnchanatat: 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. Shashi Kant Bhatia Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256595.r006

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 .