PONE-D-21-29715Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda SchrenkPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

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

The authors have presented the whole manuscript in a rather indistinct fashion, gaps in the content are visible and the whole text lacks flow. Moreover, there are numerous places in the M&M section as well as in Results containing inconsistent methodology and vaguely presented results and conclusions. The manuscript would hugely benefit if being proofread by a senior researcher of the similar expertise, which would steer the authors how to properly present their experiments. It is also highly recommended to have the manuscript copyedited by a native English speaker or a professional editing agency towards gaining clarity and better readability. The authors are strongly encouraged to meticulously read and analyze Reviewers' reports and to complement or rectify the text where needed. The authors should also provide point-by-point reply to Reviewers' reports along with manuscript resubmission. Please be aware of additional comments of Reviewer #1 provided in the attachment.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 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: 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,

Branislav T. Šiler, Ph.D.

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. 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

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1  to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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: Manuscript No. PONE-D-21-29715

Manuscript Title: Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda

Schrenk

Comments: The study discussed in this manuscript explains the major nutrients and antioxidant properties of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruits. Berberis plants are reported to possess antimicrobial, antiemetic, antipyretic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-arrhythmic, sedative, anti-cholinergic, cholagogic, anti-leishmaniasis, and anti-malaria, and thus are important plants to provide bioactive secondary metabolites.

The present findings revealed that plant material under study is rich in phenolics which are considered as strong antioxidant, and can be part of nutraceuticals or functional foods.

In ABSTRACT, RESULTS: ……. in Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruits were 75.22, 0.506, 2.55, 1.31, and 17.72 g100 g fresh fruit, probably it is 16.72g/100 g…?????

Similarly, …. The total phenol, flavonoid, and anthocyanin 34

contents of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruits were 68.55 mg gallic acid equivalentsg, 108.42 mg quercetin equivalentsg, and 19.83 mg cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalentg, should it be equivalent/g ?????

…The UPLC-Q-TOF-MSE analysis of phenols revealed 32 compounds……, what is mean by analysis of phenols???

Introduction: …..shrub of the family Berberidaceae and is distributed in… it should be …which is distributed in Altai, ……

Don’t use full name of the plant every time, for example …..and fruits of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk…. Can be written as and fruits of B. heteropoda…….

In introduction, language composition is not good, some parts are deleted, some are under lined please address this issue carefully. Several notes are not clear due to poor language

Introduction Line 66 states about ..recent study…, the reference quoted at 67 is of 2014, so it is not recent….

Provide voucher specimen No.????

Extraction: Line 125….. The samples were extracted using a modification method…extracted using reported method with modification….

Rewrite extraction part: it is again language problem

Determination of TPC: Line 136….Pure water means?? Distilled or deionized???

Nutritional Composition of the Berberis heteropoda Schrenk Fruit: Lines 237 and 238; Water content was the highest (75.22±1.75 g/100 g),…… Remove the word highest, just provide value.

Table 1: column composition per unit, ….remove repeated word “fresh fruit” and add in table caption.

Line 290 and onward… The details of 32 kinds of compounds are listed as follows….. Since all these compounds are listed in Table 4, it is just repetition in the text, so remove it, and better to add comments on percentage of components and their possible role in bioactivities.

Chromatograms and mass spectra of 32 compounds should be provided as supplementary material.

There are serious grammatical errors, language should be improved, repetition should be avoided

Reviewer #2: while going through the manuscript, the manuscript did not have much interesting finding and lacking novelty as far as my knowledge is concerned. The manuscript should include some biological activities like antimicrobial activity, anticancer etc.

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-21-29715. Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk

The subject of this manuscript falls within the general scope of the journal, and the study of Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk is relevant.

Keywords: the words Berberis heteropoda Schrenk; nutritional composition and antioxidant properties are in the title too. These keywords must be replaced by other ones.

Abstract: the precise units for the total content of phenol, flavonoid, and anthocyanin are not found this section, i.e. “…68.55 mg gallic acid equivalentsg…”. g of fresh fruit weight or dry fruit weight?

Introduction: this section contains the information that justifies this work. The antecedents on B. heteropoda Schrenk fruits are described, although briefly. The objective of the manuscript is correctly stated.

Line 47: “…The roots, bark, stems, and fruits of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk…”. Delete the term Schrenk in this sentence and in the following ones.

Materials and Methods: even though this section includes details about the methods employed, several topics remain unclear.

Line 74: “…Mature Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruits were collected…”. The correct term is ripe rather than mature.

Line 76: “…Fig. 1 shows its distribution in Xinjiang…”. Show the site where the fruits were collected. Site 1, 2 or 3 or all? This Figure must show the geographical position.

Line 79: “…High-quality Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruit were selected…” The term “High quality” must be more precise. Nothing is said about the sample size and the number of shrubs selected for the fruit harvest.

Line 125-132. The different solvents used for the fruit extraction is not described in this section, i.e. methanol, acetone and ethanol. It is necessary to add this information here.

Line 140: “…TPC was denoted as milligram of gallic acid equivalent per gram of plant mass…”. Plant mass must be replaced by fruit mass. Fresh or dry fruit weight?

Line 149-150: The same comment for Line 140.

Results: this section is presented in 2 Figures and 3 Tables. Legends of Figures 2 and 3 do not content sufficient information about the statistical analysis of the results, i.e. the meaning of the asterisks above the bars.

Line 266-267: “…The regression equations used were y = 0.0109x + 0.0157 and y = 0.067x - 0.0173…”. Rewrite as “…The regression equations used were y = 0.0109x + 0.0157 and y = 0.067x - 0.0173, respectively…”.

Line 270: “…the TFC, TPC, and TAC values were 108.42, 68.55, and 19.83 mg/g fruit, 271 respectively…” Please add the term of expression referred, i.e. mg/g fresh fruit weight.

Discussion:

Lines 317-318: this sentence is more suitable for the Introduction section.

Lines 327-328: the term “this study” means the study of reference 3 or the study of this manuscript? Please, be clearer.

Lines 362-364: “…The anthocyanin content of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk fruit found in this study was slightly inconsistent with a prior study, possibly because the previous samples were obtained from Yili, Xinjiang [3]…”. The meaning of this sentence must be clearer.

As a general comment of the Discussion section, the authors do not discuss the obtained results with other Berberis fruits species, in particular with respect to TPC, TFC and TAC.

Conclusions: the conclusions are well stated.

References: the inclusion of references of other Berberis fruit species is suggested to be discussed.

Final comment: this manuscript needs to incorporate the corrections suggested before its publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

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

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-29715_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-21-29715R1Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda SchrenkPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

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

The authors need to thoroughly reorganize the Discussion section, since some Reviewers' concerns were not properly addressed. Up-to-date literature that deals with the same topic, basically with bioactivity of other Berberis taxa must be consulted. Moreover, the authors probably missed to see the Academic Editor's comments in the previous round, since they were left unaddressed as well. I will repeat them:

"The authors have presented the whole manuscript in a rather indistinct fashion, gaps in the content are visible and the whole text lacks flow. Moreover, there are numerous places in the M&M section as well as in Results containing inconsistent methodology and vaguely presented results and conclusions. The manuscript would hugely benefit if being proofread by a senior researcher of the similar expertise, which would steer the authors how to properly present their experiments. It is also highly recommended to have the manuscript copyedited by a native English speaker or a professional editing agency towards gaining clarity and better readability."

Therefore, language polishing is much needed throughout the text.

In L27 please do not introduce the abbreviated plant species name in parenthesis. It is a common scientific practice to abbreviate the genus name once being introduced in full.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 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,

Branislav T. Šiler, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors need to thoroughly reorganize the Discussion section, since some Reviewers' concerns were not properly addressed. Up-to-date literature that deals with the same topic, basically with bioactivity of other Berberis taxa must be consulted. Moreover, the authors probably missed to see the Academic Editor's comments in the previous round, since they were left unaddressed as well. I will repeat them:

"The authors have presented the whole manuscript in a rather indistinct fashion, gaps in the content are visible and the whole text lacks flow. Moreover, there are numerous places in the M&M section as well as in Results containing inconsistent methodology and vaguely presented results and conclusions. The manuscript would hugely benefit if being proofread by a senior researcher of the similar expertise, which would steer the authors how to properly present their experiments. It is also highly recommended to have the manuscript copyedited by a native English speaker or a professional editing agency towards gaining clarity and better readability."

Therefore, language polishing is much needed throughout the text. In L27 please do not introduce the abbreviated plant species name in parenthesis. It is a common scientific practice to abbreviate the genus name once being introduced in full.

[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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: 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: nothing special, ,most of the corrections are addressed but language still needs serious revision. In my first review, I strongly suggested to edit language by a native English speaker.

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-21-29715R1. Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Fruit of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk

The authors have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. However the following items must be improved:

Discussion:

Lines 344-346: “…Our study found the anthocyanin content in B. heteropoda fruit was inconsistent with a prior study [3], which indicated the TAC was 20.37 mg/g fresh weight of B. heteropoda...".Are the differences between 19.83 and 20.37 mg cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalent/g fresh weight significant?

As a general comment of the Discussion section, the authors do not discuss the obtained results with other Berberis fruits species, in particular with respect to TPC, TFC and TAC. New bibliography on other Berberis species were not included in the revised manuscript.

Final comment: this manuscript needs to incorporate the corrections suggested before its publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #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.

Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the  Fruit of Berberis heteropoda Schrenk

PONE-D-21-29715R2

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Branislav T. Šiler, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: