Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 28, 2021
Decision Letter - Tushar Kanti Dutta, Editor

PONE-D-21-34459Multi-omics Approaches for Comprehensive Analysis and Understanding of Immune Response in the Miniature Pig BreedPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: As suggested by both the reviewers the MS in its current from is full of grammatical and syntactical errors. Authors are instructed to edit the MS for English language with the help of either a native English speaker or a reputed English editing service provider (in both cases certificate/proof has to be attached while uploading the revised MS). In addition, provide figures of acceptable quality as suggested by one of the reviewers.  

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 06 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,

Tushar Kanti Dutta, 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.  To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

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

(This work was supported by Korea Post-Genome Project (Project title: Deciphering the reference genome and the discovery of trait-associated genes in Nanchukmacdon and mini pigs). Project No. PJ013343 of the National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This study was supported by 2021 the RDA Fellowship Program of National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This funding helped in successfully performing all the sample analysis and provides the financial assistance to D.A.)

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: 

(This funding helped in successfully performing all the sample analysis and provides the financial assistance to D.A Korea Post-Genome Project (Project No. PJ013343) and RDA Fellowship Program of National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. No: 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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Additional Editor Comments:

As suggested by both the reviewers the MS in its current from is full of grammatical and syntactical errors. Authors are instructed to edit the MS for English language with the help of either a native English speaker or a reputed English editing service provider (in both cases certificate/proof has to be attached while uploading the revised MS). In addition, provide figures of acceptable quality as suggested by one of the reviewers.

[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: 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: General comments # 1: There are issues with the usage of English

General comments # 2: The text does not flow logically in the introduction, results and discussion, thereby greatly hampering the readability.

General comments # 3: The authors have not been careful and critical while drafting the manuscript. This is indicated by the spelling mistakes, undefined abbreviations and grammatical errors etc.

General comments # 4: All the figures should be replaced with good quality images

Reviewer #2: Article entitled, “ Multi-omics approaches for comprehensive analysis and understanding of immune response in the immature pig breed” is an unique study and is helpful for future approach for biomedical research. Therefore, I recommend this MS for publication after incorporating very minor corrections:

Line 44: Due to different size …..(the sentence needs correction). In my opinion this should be written as “ Due to different size and varied immune response, the test result is not mimicked in rodents which is otherwise possible in pig models. This has popularized pig for feasible use in biomedical research (6,7).

Line 49: Please delete the word dramatic

Line 50: “Furthermore, the immune system of minipig………preclinical trials.” Please make it two sentences.

Line 56: Why unnecessarily after genetic engineering “Hominidae” has been mentioned in bracket. Authors please justify.

The author is requested to correct the MS by an English speaking person specifically for Discussion and Result part.

**********

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: Yes: Sadeesh E.M

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comment.docx
Revision 1

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We are thankful to the editor for highlighting the formatting issue. We have made changes in the manuscript as per PlosOne standard.

Comment 2: To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Response: Method section has been updated with the added information and provided the supporting reference used to perform the experiment.

Comment 3: 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.

Response: We have removed the funding statement from the main manuscript and provided the same with the cover letter.

Comment 4: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Response: Done as suggested.

Comment 5: Additional Editor Comments:

As suggested by both the reviewers the MS in its current from is full of grammatical and syntactical errors. Authors are instructed to edit the MS for English language with the help of either a native English speaker or a reputed English editing service provider (in both cases certificate/proof has to be attached while uploading the revised MS). In addition, provide figures of acceptable quality as suggested by one of the reviewers.

Response: We have critically evaluated and used English editing service to improve grammatical errors in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: General comments # 1: There are issues with the usage of English

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for highlighting the concern issue. We have taken this as critical issue and consulted with English expert to fix all the issue related with manuscript writing.

Comment 2: General comments # 2: The text does not flow logically in the introduction, results and discussion, thereby greatly hampering the readability.

Response: In the revised manuscript we have taken all precaution and re-write the mention section for easy to understand and maintaining the continuity of work flow.

Comment 3: The authors have not been careful and critical while drafting the manuscript. This is indicated by the spelling mistakes, undefined abbreviations and grammatical errors etc.

Response: Done as suggested.

Comment 4: General comments # 4: All the figures should be replaced with good quality images

Response: All the figure quality has been updated and replaced.

Reviewer #2:

Article entitled, “ Multi-omics approaches for comprehensive analysis and understanding of immune response in the immature pig breed” is an unique study and is helpful for future approach for biomedical research. Therefore, I recommend this MS for publication after incorporating very minor corrections:

We are grateful to the reviewer for critically examine the manuscript and providing the positive feedback for the same. We have incorporated all the changes as suggested by the reviewer in the revised submission.

Comment 1: Line 44: Due to different size …..(the sentence needs correction). In my opinion this should be written as “ Due to different size and varied immune response, the test result is not mimicked in rodents which is otherwise possible in pig models. This has popularized pig for feasible use in biomedical research (6,7).

Response: Done as suggested.

Comment 2: Line 49: Please delete the word dramatic

Response: Done as suggested.

Comment 3: Line 50: “Furthermore, the immune system of minipig………preclinical trials.” Please make it two sentences.

Response: We re-wrote the mention section for clear and understanding.

Comment 4: Line 56: Why unnecessarily after genetic engineering “Hominidae” has been mentioned in bracket. Authors please justify.

Response: We agreed with the reviewer comment and remove the same from the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Tushar Kanti Dutta, Editor

Multi-omics Approaches for Comprehensive Analysis and Understanding of the Immune Response in the Miniature Pig Breed

PONE-D-21-34459R1

Dear Dr. Park,

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,

Tushar Kanti Dutta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am provisionally accepting it to save time. However, at proof reading stage, kindly check figure legend details in page number 22. The information about S1 Fig and S2 Fig should go to supplementary file/data.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tushar Kanti Dutta, Editor

PONE-D-21-34459R1

Multi-omics Approaches for Comprehensive Analysis and Understanding of the Immune Response in the Miniature Pig Breed

Dear Dr. Park:

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. Tushar Kanti Dutta

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 .