PONE-D-21-29239Title-Effects of Catha Edulis Forsk on Spatial Cognition and correlation with serum electrolytes in Wild- type Male White Albino RatsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Limenie,

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 Jan 07 2022 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: https://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,

Michelle Melgarejo da Rosa

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported by Addis Ababa University and the Department of Physiology.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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. 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

**********

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: No

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: GENERAL COMMENTS

- Please carefully revise language throughout the manuscript.

TITLE

- Correct to “Catha edulis Forsk” (Forsk should not be in italics)

ABSTRACT

- Line 2: “Forsk” should not be in italics

- Lines 4-5. The sentence indicating the objectives (“The present study was aimed to evaluate the effects of khat on cognitive functions and its correlation with serum electrolytes”) can be revised to be more specific about the cognitive functions evaluated. As it stands, it is almost a repeat of the previous sentence in the Abstract.

- Line 7. The information about the total number and weight of the animals can be removed of the Abstract. On the other hand, I consider important mentioning the solvent in which the crude khat extract was obtained and what is “khat juice”.

- Make clearer how long “subchronical” and “subacute” treatments last.

- Please mention what electrolytes were evaluated.

- The sentence “The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 and Microsoft Excel” should be removed.

- I suggest putting sample/treatments abbreviations in capital letters: KESC, KESA, KHJ (here in Abstract and along all the manuscript)

INTRODUCTION

- How is khat popularly used as a psychostimulant?

- Have the authors tried to investigate the presence of Cathinone in the samples?

- The role of serum electrolytes on cognitive functions should be more explored in introduction.

- Please be clearer in the sentence: “Regardless of its adverse effect (8 and 9), misperceptions of its learning and memory effects are reflected among students”.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

- Section 2.3. Please revise the sentence “The khat juice (khJ) was prepared from 12g/kg body weight (b.w) of fresh leaves”. I did not understand it.

- Please also revise “The amount of T80W in distilled water used to extract the given weight of leaves…”

- Section 2.4. Is there an approval number/protocol by the ethics committee?

- Section 2.5. What really means “during the experiment”?

- Revise the sentence “The dose of the extract administered in each rat was calculated from the selected doses”

RESULTS

- The lack of analysis of the chemical composition of the samples is an important negative point. Authors should try to characterize the extract and juice evaluated.

- Quality of the images seem bad in the version sent for review.

- Many of the figures can be merged in one.

DISCUSSION

- Please avoid extensive repeat of the results.

- Again, the lack of chemical analysis makes the discussion little in-depth and very descriptive.

- There are several comparisons with other studies performed with khat. However, it should be clarified the samples evaluated in all these studies. Extracts? What types? Compounds?

Reviewer #2: The subject of the manuscript is interesting. The authors focused one of the psychostimulants widely consumed in Ethiopia and East African countries - Catha edulis Forsk (khat).

The novelty of the present manuscript results from the fact that no studies have been conducted on the cognitive effects of khat and its correlation with serum electrolytes.

The authors evaluated the effects of Catha edulis on cognitive functions and its correlation with serum electrolytes.

The text is clear and easy to read.

The design research is appropriate.

The results are consistent and clearly presented.

The presented data are supported by the conclusions.

The reference list is variously.

At the reference list the name of species Catha edulis is not written with italic (example: reference numbers 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 38, 42, 43). Please to correct!

**********

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.

Effects of Catha Edulis Forsk on Spatial L earning, Memory and Correlation with Serum Electrolytes in Wild- Type Male White Albino Rats

PONE-D-21-29239R1

Dear Dr. Limenie,

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,

Michelle Melgarejo da Rosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors, We appreciate the effort in following the suggestions from reviewers. After the final revision, we are glad to inform that the present manuscript is accept from Plos One Journal. Best Regards.

Reviewers' comments: