Biosurfactant producing multifarious Streptomyces puniceus RHPR9 of Coscinium fenestratum rhizosphere promotes plant growth in chilli

Polapally Ravinder; M. Manasa; D. Roopa; Najat A. Bukhari; Ashraf Atef Hatamleh; Mohamed Yahya Khan; Reddy M. S.; Bee Hameeda; Hesham Ali El Enshasy; Siti Zulaiha Hanapi; R. Z. Sayyed

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264975

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 4, 2022
26 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Humaira Yasmin, Editor PONE-D-21-41059Biosurfactant Producing Streptomyces puniceus RHPR9 of Coscinium fenestratum Rhizosphere Promotes Plant Growth in ChilliPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hameeda Bee, 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 needs to critically revise manuscript in the light of reviewer's comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 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, Humaira Yasmin, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Hesham Ali El Enshasy RMC-UTM through industrial grants No. R.J130000.7344.4C136 and R.J13000.7609.4C359" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/ [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: 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: 1) Glycolipid (rhamnolipid, trehalose lipid): include xylolipid here 2) The authors have used the terms both PGPM/PGPR, they can retain any one term 3) In 2.2 , A total of 60 bacterial colonies based on morphological features is written… the authors need to be specific is it bacteria or actinobacteria 4) In 2.4.2. A loopful of 4-day old culture….. 5) Explain which culture and lipase activity was screened but results are missing 6) After identification of the actinobacterial isolates, the authors can write strain when ever they mention the strain numbers for more clarity 7) There are typographical errors in general and also at chemical names in particular. Check all the chemical names and abbreviated forms throughly 8) In figure 3A, what is TLA/TLB, explain the legends clearly 9) Legends and table titles need to be more appropriate 10) Sixty morphologically distinict actinobacteria………spelling and typographical mistakes are there 11) What about the data about the sixty actinobacteria 12) The authors mention in the result as glycolipid, and in TLC as trehalose. Did the authors do any confirmative test for trehalose 13) Units mentioned in the tables need to be checked properly Reviewer #2: The authors have reported glycolipid biosurfactant producing S. puniceus for plant growth promotion. Preliminary screening of PGP and biosurfactant was done in vitro. The paper is scientifically sound and well written but needs the following corrections before it is further processed - 1) At few places the authors used abbreviated which are not explained. Line 39 EI and FTIR, Line 94- MSM, Line 101 and other places- GYE 2) Line 93 - spp- should not be italics 3) English needs to be improved throughout the MS 4) How the authors correlated biosurfactant and PGP of Streptomyces 5) The authors mention 60 actinobacteria and explain only MS about only 4 of them. Write only 4 potent bacteria that were retained for the studies. 6) In results 3.1 Actinobacterial isolates exhibited pink color pigmentation in GYE medium, Do the authors mean all four actinobacteria showed pink color pigmentation or only one 7) Why only GYE medium was used, does it enhance pigment production 8) In Table 1, what do the authors mean by +, ++ and +++, need to be clear when written 9) The authors report glycolipid in title and trehalose by TLC, was any more confirmation done to elucidate the presence of trehalose. If not done, the authors can mention it as glycolipid. 10) Authors can add recent relevant references in the area of work done ****** 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:** Yuriv Enakiev 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: Reviewer Report.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264975.r001
Revision 1
4 Feb 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1 1) Glycolipid (rhamnolipid, trehalose lipid): include xylolipid here Authors’ Response: Now included in the MS in introduction part (line 56, page 3) 2) The authors have used the terms both PGPM/PGPR, they can retain any one term Authors’ Response: PGPM term is only mentioned in the introduction (line 63-64, page 3) and retained as such. 3) In 2.2 , A total of 60 bacterial colonies based on morphological features is written… the authors need to be specific is it bacteria or actinobacteria Authors’ Response: Actinobacteria term is now mentioned in the manuscript (line 100, page 5). 4) In 2.4.2. A loopful of 4-day old culture….. Authors’ Response: Now edited in the MS (line 117, page 6) Explain which culture and lipase activity was screened but results are missing Authors’ Response: Now the details are written in the MS (line 122, page 6) 5) After identification of the actinobacterial isolates, the authors can write strain when ever they mention the strain numbers for more clarity Authors’ Response: Now the strain is mentioned wherever necessary (line 423, page 20). 6) There are typographical errors in general and also at chemical names in particular. Check all the chemical names and abbreviated forms thoroughly Authors’ Response: All the typographical errors and chemical names are now thoroughly checked and edited in the manuscript wherever necessary (Line 98, 304, 326 and Table 1) 7) In figure 3A, what is TLA/TLB, explain the legends clearly Authors’ Response: Now the image is modified and details of the biosurfactant identified is mentioned as glycolipid 8) Legends and table titles need to be more appropriate Authors’ Response: Table titles and legends are now changed wherever necessary (Table 1) 9) Sixty morphologically distinict actinobacteria………spelling and typographical mistakes are there Authors’ Response: The whole MS is revised thoroughly for spell check and typographical mistakes. 10) What about the data about the sixty actinobacteria Authors’ Response: Data on sixty actinobacteria is now submitted as supplementary information (S1). 11) The authors mention in the result as glycolipid, and in TLC as trehalose. Did the authors do any confirmative test for trehalose Authors’ Response: No confirmative test was performed for trehalose. So the result of TLC is changed to glycolipid and the word trehalose lipid is removed from the image and result of TLC (line 296, page 14). 12) Units mentioned in the tables need to be checked properly Authors’ Response: Units were checked in all the tables and necessary modifications were made (Table 1) (line 272-275). Reviewer #2 The authors have reported glycolipid biosurfactant producing S. puniceus for plant growth promotion. Preliminary screening of PGP and biosurfactant was done in vitro. The paper is scientifically sound and well written but needs the following corrections before it is further processed – 1 At few places the authors used abbreviated which are not explained. Line 39 EI and FTIR, Line 94- MSM, Line 101 and other places- GYE Authors’ Response: Now the abbreviations are mentioned clearly, wherever necessary and also in abstract 2 Line 93 - spp- should not be italics Authors’ Response: Italics is now removed. 3 English needs to be improved throughout the MS Authors’ Response: Now the English is thoroughly improved throughout the MS 4 How the authors correlated biosurfactant and PGP of Streptomyces Authors’ Response: Now explained in discussion based on previous reports (Sachdev et al. 2013), line 377-379. Page 18. 5 The authors mention 60 actinobacteria and explain only MS about only 4 of them. Write only 4 potent bacteria that were retained for the studies. Authors’ Response: Data of 60 actinobacterial isolates is now submitted as supplementary information along with MS 6 In results 3.1 Actinobacterial isolates exhibited pink color pigmentation in GYE medium, Do the authors mean all four actinobacteria showed pink color pigmentation or only one Authors’ Response: Pink color pigmentation was observed only for RHPR9. Hence the sentence is removed from result section. The image of all four actinobacterial isolates is now given 7 Why only GYE medium was used, does it enhance pigment production Authors’ Response: GYE medium is known to enhance glycolipid production (Konishi et al. 2011) according to previous reports. Reference is now added in the text. 8 In Table 1, what do the authors mean by +, ++ and +++, need to be clear when written Authors’ Response: Meaning of +, ++ and +++ is now included in legend of the table 1. 9 The authors report glycolipid in title and trehalose by TLC, was any more confirmation done to elucidate the presence of trehalose. If not done, the authors can mention it as glycolipid. Authors’ Response: No confirmative tests were performed to test trehalose. Hence, the identification of biosurfactants is retained as glycolipid in results. 10 Authors can add recent relevant references in the area of work done. Authors’ Response: Recent references are now added in the text (Rani et al. 2020, Tian et al. 2021, Manasa et al. 2021, Sehrawat et al.2022) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264975.r002
21 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Humaira Yasmin, Editor Biosurfactant Producing Streptomyces puniceus RHPR9 of Coscinium fenestratum Rhizosphere Promotes Plant Growth in Chilli PONE-D-21-41059R1 Dear Dr. Hameeda Bee, 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, Humaira Yasmin, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: Yes 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: Thanks for incorporation my suggestions and revising the manuscript as per my comments. The paper is now scientifically good Reviewer #2: Dear Authors Thanks so much for considering all my comments and revising the manuscript as per my suggestions ****** 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:** Yuriv Enakiev Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264975.r003
Formally Accepted
1 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Humaira Yasmin, Editor PONE-D-21-41059R1 Biosurfactant Producing Multifarious Streptomyces puniceus RHPR9 of Coscinium fenestratum Rhizosphere Promotes Plant Growth in Chilli Dear Dr. Hameeda: 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. Humaira Yasmin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264975.r004

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 .