High cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model

Song Wen; Guifang Yuan; Cunya Li; Yang Xiong; Xuemei Zhong; Xiaoyu Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263762

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 9, 2021
19 May 2021 Decision Letter - Catherine Mounier, Editor PONE-D-21-07750 High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model PLOS 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. More specifically, the reviewer 3 raised several points that need to be adressed in order to validate your final results. Please see the comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by 16th of August 2021. 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, Catherine Mounier 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 including your ethics statement: "Experimental Animal Center of Chongqing Medical University [SCXK-(Chongqing) 2018-0003]". Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named ethics committee specifically approved this study. For additional information about PLOS ONE submissions requirements for ethics oversight of animal work, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). 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 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [We are grateful to The Innovation Lab,Chongqing Medical University.] 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 authors 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. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1, 2, 3 and in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. [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 Reviewer #3: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Overall, the paper is methodologically sound, the statistical analyses that are presented seem adequate, and the interpretations reasonable. For some reason, messages such as "(see Fig Error! Reference source not found.)" are scattered throughout the text, please edit. Were the mice used male,female, both? If only male or female, why was one sex chosen, and how may that affect results? Why was the number of mice chosen used? Was a power analysis or other statistical analysis done to ensure proper numbers of mice? Reviewer #2: The paper “High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model”, by Song Wen and colleagues, aimed to evaluate the role of a high-cellulose diet in a mouse model of asthma, detecting pathological manifestations in lungs, changes in the gut microbiome, and changes in intestinal SCFA in a murine model. The paper is well written and the results clear to the reader. Here you find my suggestions for this paper: • Table 1: I think that the readability of this table could be increased as follow: mean and SD could be put together (mean�SD) and you should add the p-value. Moreover, you can add a legend for this table. • Lines 165-167: you could also provide data for differences between N and HF. • Line 48: the term “asth ation” is unclear. Please amend it. • Many times (i.e. line 164, 181, 193, 206, etc.), in the paper there is reported the following “Error! Reference source not found”, in correspondence to references to Figures and Tables citations. Please amend it. Reviewer #3: SEE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS BELOW Introduction: a. Line 48, the reviewer is not familiar with asth ation, can the authors clarify what this word is and its meaning. Perhaps it is a typo. b. The introduction provides information about some background, but it is jumbled and would benefit from a reorganization and rewrite. Further there does not seem to be an overt purpose or hypothesis established for the study. Methods: c. The mice need a more complete description and location of the vendor purchased from. Microbiome/microbiota can vary greatly between vendors and thus influence results of the study. d. Given the perceived purpose is to examine the influence of fiber and asthma, the experimental design seems incomplete, there is no asthma-fiber group. Only normal, asthma and high fiber. e. There does not appear to the tables for dietary composition. How were diets altered to account for the high cellulose content? Protein, fat? There was a lot of time spent on the importance of fat in the introduction. This would be critical for understanding interpretation of the results. f. If all animals were challenged with OVA, then should the groups be renamed? g. The authors do not appear to have a scoring outline in place to understand how the IHC data was analyzed to note differences in staining. h. The authors have 16S rDNA in the V4-V5 regions, this should be rRNA. While one must extract the DNA it then must be prepared for rRNA analysis. i. SCFA in animal models are analyzed using cecal contents so that fecal pellets can be used for microbiota. j. The statistical analysis is very vague and does not employ appropriate techniques to analyze m data of this fashion. Based on these concerns any results that followed would be impossible to interpret given the methodological fatal flaws. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r001
Revision 1
2 Jun 2021 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter dated May 19. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of our manuscript entitled “High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model”. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. Responds to the reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: a: Response to comments: Messages such as "(see Fig Error! Reference source not found.)" are scattered throughout the text, please edit. Response: Thanks for your comment. We apologize for the incorrect writing errors in the manuscript, and we have corrected some of the spelling and formatting errors that have already been mentioned. b: Response to comments: Were the mice used male, female, both? If only male or female, why was one sex chosen, and how may that affect results? Response: Thanks for your comment. All the mice used in our experiments are male mice. The reason for this decision is that many studies have pointed out the influence of gender differences on the intestinal microbiome and our focus of research is not to explore the impact of gender differences on the results of the experiment. Therefore, to rule out the possible influence of sex difference, we all selected male mice as experimental subjects. c: Response to comments : Why was the number of mice chosen used? Was a power analysis or other statistical analysis done to ensure proper numbers of mice? Response: Thanks for your comment. For the number of mice, we did not do a power analysis to determine it before the experiment. However, we fully considered that only enough samples can reflect the overall level of change, and considering the ability of our laboratory staff, we finally chose the scheme of 10 mice in each group, a total of 30 mice. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: a: Response to comments: Table 1: I think that the readability of this table could be increased as follow: mean and SD could be put together (mean�SD) and you should add the p-value. Moreover, you can add a legend for this table. Response: Thank you for your advice on our Table, which makes it easier to read and clearer. We revised the expression of mean and SD and added P-values between the groups in the revised manuscript. b: Response to comments: Lines 165-167: you could also provide data for differences between N and HF. Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the P-value between groups at the end of the sentence. c: Response to comments: Line 48: the term “asth ation” is unclear. Please amend it. Many times (i.e. line 164, 181, 193, 206, etc.), in the paper there is reported the following “Error! Reference source not found”, in correspondence to references to Figures and Tables citations. Please amend it. Response: Thanks for your comment. We apologize for the spelling and formatting errors in the original version, all of which have been corrected in the new version. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #3: a: Response to comments: Line 48, the reviewer is not familiar with asth ation, can the authors clarify what this word is and its meaning. Perhaps it is a typo. Response: We apologize for the spelling and formatting errors in the original version, all of which have been corrected in the new version. b: Response to comments: The introduction provides information about some background, but it is jumbled and would benefit from a reorganization and rewrite. Further there does not seem to be an overt purpose or hypothesis established for the study. Response: Thank you for your comments. We rearrange the paragraphs in introduction, and describe the purpose and results of our experiment. c: Response to comments: The mice need a more complete description and location of the vendor purchased from. Microbiome/microbiota can vary greatly between vendors and thus influence results of the study. Response: Thank you for your comments. We clarified the mice strains and the location of the vendor in the revised manuscript. The laboratory animal center of Chongqing Medical university is the experimental animal center of Chongqing National Biological Industry Base and the experimental animal service platform of National Innovative Drug Incubation (Chongqing) Base. By the Chongqing Laboratory Animal Quality Inspection Center and the Chongqing Science and Technology Commission, the center have obtained the production and animal use license of SPF-grade rats and mice, and the animal use license of rabbits, guinea pigs, pigs, dogs, sheep, monkeys, and birds, etc. The quality of experimental animals can be fully guaranteed. d: Response to comments: Given the perceived purpose is to examine the influence of fiber and asthma, the experimental design seems incomplete, there is no asthma-fiber group. Only normal, asthma and high fiber. Response: Thank you for your comments. We mentioned the grouping of animals in line 91-92, “the 30 mice were divided into the normal group (N1-N10), asthma group (AS1-AS10), and high-fiber diet group (HF1-HF10).”, and the establishment of models in different groups in line 99-100, “All animals except normal mice were sensitized and challenged with ovalbumin (OVA) to induce airway allergic inflammation.” The HF group was established by high fiber diet intervention in the establishment period of the asthma model. e: Response to comments: There does not appear to the tables for dietary composition. How were diets altered to account for the high cellulose content? Protein, fat? There was a lot of time spent on the importance of fat in the introduction. This would be critical for understanding interpretation of the results. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. For the explanation of the feed formula, we put it in lines 96-97, but it lacks the explanation of other important ingredients in feed. Therefore, we decided to upload the complete formula of feed to the journal as a supplement material in the revised manuscript. f: Response to comments: If all animals were challenged with OVA, then should the groups be renamed? Response: Thanks for your comment. The grouping and modeling have been explained before. In order to make it easier for readers to understand different groups, we named the normal group N group, the asthma group AS group, and the asthma group with high fiber diet intervention, and we named it HF group based on the main intervention measures. g: Response to comments: The authors do not appear to have a scoring outline in place to understand how the IHC data was analyzed to note differences in staining. Response: Thanks for your comment. In order to determine the infiltration of inflammatory cells in the lungs of mice, we used H&E staining instead of IHC, and then observed the morphology and structure of bronchioles and the changes of infiltration of inflammatory cells around them under light microscope. h: Response to comments: The authors have 16S rDNA in the V4-V5 regions, this should be rRNA. While one must extract the DNA it then must be prepared for rRNA analysis. Response: Thanks for your comment. We corrected the inaccurate expression in the method section i: Response to comments: SCFA in animal models are analyzed using cecal contents so that fecal pellets can be used for microbiota. Response: Thanks for your comment. We know that SCFAs are mainly absorbed in the cecum and enter the blood circulation. The content of cecum can reflect the changes of SCFAs in mice more directly. In our experiment, considering that SCFAs may be a potential biomarker in human body, and the most convenient way to detect SCFAs in human body is to detect the content of SCFAs in fresh feces. So in order to simulate this situation, we collected fresh feces of mice in the experiment, and immediately put them into the refrigerator at - 80 ℃ for storage, to minimize the possible volatilization of SCFAs. j: Response to comments: The statistical analysis is very vague and does not employ appropriate techniques to analyze m data of this fashion. Response: Thanks for your comment. We apologize for the vague expression in the data analysis section. In the revised manuscript, we redescribed different data analysis methods for different experimental contents. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r002
7 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Catherine Mounier, Editor PONE-D-21-07750R1 High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model PLOS 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. More specifically, small changes are still needed. Please submit your revised manuscript by the 2nd of August 2021. 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, Catherine Mounier Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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 #4: 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 #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: No ****** 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 #4: There are many small problems in the article which need to be carefully revised by the author.Authors should check their manuscripts carefully before submitting them (1)The author still hasn't corrected the "See Fig Error!". (2)The methods are not very detailed, such as how long it takes to build the mouse model and how long the mice will be intervening. (3)The picture is very blurry. ****** 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 #4: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r003
Revision 2
12 Jul 2021 Author Response Responds to the reviewer`s comments: Reviewer #4: There are many small problems in the article which need to be carefully revised by the author. Authors should check their manuscripts carefully before submitting them (1)The author still hasn't corrected the "See Fig Error!". Response: Thanks for your comment. We apologize for the errors in the manuscript, and we have corrected the formatting errors that have already been mentioned. (2)The methods are not very detailed, such as how long it takes to build the mouse model and how long the mice will be intervening. Response: Thanks for your comment. We added a detailed description of the steps to establish the mouse model in the method section. (3)The picture is very blurry. Response: Thanks for your comment. We replaced the unclear figures and adjusted them by Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE). Special thanks to you for your good comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r004
25 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Catherine Mounier, Editor PONE-D-21-07750R2High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse modelPLOS 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. I still observe a major problem with the figure which are impossible to read. Please increase the quality of the picture. This is absolutely necessary before the final acceptation Please submit your revised manuscript by the 4th of January. 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, Catherine Mounier Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0263762.r005
Revision 3
15 Dec 2021 Author Response Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we replaced all the figure files of the manuscript. We sincerely hope that the images uploaded this time will meet the requirements for publication in your magazine. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r006
27 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Catherine Mounier, Editor High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model PONE-D-21-07750R3 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, Catherine Mounier Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r007
Formally Accepted
1 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Catherine Mounier, Editor PONE-D-21-07750R3 High Cellulose dietary intake relieves asthma inflammation through the intestinal microbiome in a mouse model Dear Dr. Li: 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. Catherine Mounier Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263762.r008

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 .