Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 20, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-33624CView: A network based tool for enhanced alignment visualizationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Archer, 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. Specially take into account the comments related to fasta pre-processing, visualisation tips and configuration paramenters. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 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:
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, Eduardo Andrés-León 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 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 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: 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 manuscript describes CView, a new software for visualising multiple sequence alignments using a graph-based approach. The text is easy to follow and I was able to install and run the software. However, I am not sure I fully understand how to use CView to its full potential, and although I agree with the authors that a new software such as CView could be useful to understand complex alignments, without extensive documentation and tutorials the users are unlikely to adopt the tool for their work. Major comments I struggled with the interface and found that the software requires additional context-specific documentation in the user interface, such as tooltips or popups. For example, the manuscript explains that a black circle is a holding structure that is used for visualisation purposes only when there are more than six clusters in the window. However, the user interface does not seem to explain why some nodes look like black circles and what is the meaning behind it. There are other examples along the same lines, for example, the red circles or the significance of colours in the network chart. These should be better explained in the program itself so that the users do not have to constantly refer to the paper to use CView. Have the authors considered providing a video walkthrough or a tutorial for CView? As this is a new concept, it would be very useful to see an expert use the software, as I am not sure I am able to take full advantage of it having read the paper and the help section of the website. I may have missed it, but as far as I can tell the use case does not take advantage of the network view, which I found surprising given that the graph aspect is the key strength of the method. Minor comments It would be useful to support importing alignments in Stockholm format to enable direct import from major alignment databases like Pfam and Rfam. Would it be possible to add an option to restore defaults for all parameters? After tinkering with the sliders I quickly lost track of what the recommended values were. Have the authors considered performing user testing to see how novice users or those experienced with other software (for example Jalview) interact with CView? Reviewer #2: This article provides CView, a software for visualization of multiple sequence alignments (DNA/RNA and amino-acids). This software application favors small sequences, such as viral genomes or proteomes. The novelty is centered on the network analysis and additional components that interactively allow an easier data summarization. The tool provides variant summarization, per-site character and kmer frequency matrixes, clustered sequences, pairwise-distance matrixes, and consensus sequence generation. The visualization is divided into four panels, the sequence view, network view, navigation and control, and menu-driven options. Generally, the article is well written. Regarding the software, I have successfully "installed" and tested it on a Linux machine using the HIV viral sequences example. Then, I went to the NCBI and downloaded the B19V sequences in FASTA format. When I loaded these sequences into the CView, the following error emerged: "Exception occurred in newAlignment()". Then, I looked into the sequences and saw that the example had "-" instead of "N" symbols (which exist in some FASTA files but do not in the majority of the FASTA files). I changed the "N" to "-" using a Linux tr command and got the same error. Finally, I've tried it with other sequences and got the same error. Therefore, further than this action, I've not been able to test the software. This error is an obvious problem that must be fixed before any deeper review. Minor subjects: Once the bugs are fixed, please consider adding this software to bioconda and biootools; Please, state the license type in the manuscript; It would be nice to select some of the sequences by "mouse selection" to perform further actions; Please, consider stating the existence of alignment-free methodologies (for example, to visual applications with larger viral genomes, such as Herpesvirus) and Galaxy; Please, state clearly in the main manuscript (perhaps in the abstract) if this tool is open-source or not. ********** 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
CView: A network based tool for enhanced alignment visualization PONE-D-21-33624R1 Dear Dr. Archer, 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, Eduardo Andrés-León Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: N/A 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: I would like to thank the Authors for addressing my comments and including a video tutorial which I found very helpful. I was able to run the updated version of the software without any problems and I don't have any further comments. I look forward to the future versions of the software that would support the Stockholm format. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my concerns. I'm happy to see that this software is open-source, a significant advantage over other software. Also, the video significantly improved the easiness of learning about this tool. Below are some points that could improve the manuscript and/or software. Another advantage of using alignment methods is the enhanced local resolution. In my view, alignment-free and alignment methodologies are complementary. Convincing a researcher to learn and use software intensely depends on multiple characteristics, including flexibility, simplicity, novelty, and communication. The video has dramatically improved the communication (Please, consider using Github for the next time - it offers much more features than Sourceforge; for example, the inclusion of a video online on the provided website, improved visualization of the repository, and custom characteristics). The simplicity and novelty are achieved with the good visualization usability and features it provides (great networking synchronized with the view of the alignment). The flexibility is perhaps the only feature that could contain an enhanced feature. Allowing CView to perform alignments would enable it to avoid multiple tools and provide a comprehensive offer. Please, consider in the future to add this option. It would be great to have the option to change the default colors (perhaps in the main menu tab). This feature would enable a customized version of the software (also for the generation of the image prints) and please different individuals. ********** 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: Yes: Anton Petrov Reviewer #2: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-33624R1 CView: A network based tool for enhanced alignment visualization Dear Dr. Archer: 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. Eduardo Andrés-León 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 .