Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2022
Decision Letter - Faisal Mamhood, Editor

PONE-D-22-01377Decolorization of Azo dyes by a novel aerobic bacterialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Naqvi,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 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,

Faisal Mamhood

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information about your sampling sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please find below the reviewers comments 

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: No

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: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Decolorization of azo dyes by a novel bacterial' has been reviewed and I found it an interesting piece of research; however, a lot of flaws have been indicated and are necessary to be taken care of before the further consideration.

Comments:

The title of the paper is not complete ‘bacterial isolate………..name…..?? What is the novel in the bacterial strain, a huge number of bacillus species have been reported to decolorize the dyes. The word Novel is confusing here.

Abstract………azo dyes…not azo- dyes

Introduction contain a lot of grammar and structural mistakes. Please take care of…

Methodology

All chemicals and reagents of analytical grade…..this is not a complete sentence

What is the rational to select 37 C temperature and why the aerobic conditions were provided especially when it is established that the azo dye decolorization is an anaerobic process?

16S rRNA gene….should be written correctly….Which primers were used?.....the mention the protocol description

Phylogenetic tree should be correctly drawn. All the bacterial strain should be italicized. The isolated bacterial strain should be indicated as bold or red. A control group should be added in the tree

In decolorization graphs, if decolorization was not measured at 0, then 0 time should not be added in the graphs. There is no need to add 0

There should be an accession number of the identified strain

The discussion is all over the place. The mere repetition of results should not be the part. Discussion should logically narrate the results by comparting with relevant literature.

The manuscript should be checked with the native English speaker to improve the grammar, syntax, sentence structure etc.

Reviewer #2: This is a well designed and clearly written study. The authors have performed that experiments in a logical manner and reported the results with comparison to the available studies in the literature. The quality of English language is also adequate. Therefore, this study has my recommendation for publication as such.

I have a minor question though. Did the authors test the growth potential of the isolated strain against the azo dyes at concentrations levels higher than the 250 mg/l? If not, why?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Respond to Reviewers

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

Manuscript was checked thoroughly and follow the instructions provided by the journal site.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service

Professor Colin Jackson who is a coauthor in this research article, has reviewed this manuscript for scientific as well as for English errors, whose native language is English.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information about your sampling sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

The required information is given on Page #7, line # 145-146.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

The information is given on page #7, line # 146-148.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Decolorization of azo dyes by a novel bacterial' has been reviewed and I found it an interesting piece of research; however, a lot of flaws have been indicated and are necessary to be taken care of before the further consideration.

Comments:

1. The title of the paper is not complete ‘bacterial isolate………..name…..?? What is the novel in the bacterial strain, a huge number of bacillus species have been reported to decolorize the dyes. The word Novel is confusing here.

Answer: The name of the bacterial isolate is added in the title Page # 1, 2, line # 2, 23. The word novel is used for this strain as it decolorize the dyes aerobically.

2. Abstract………azo dyes…not azo- dyes

Answer: It has been corrected in the abstract. Page # 2, line # 29

3. Introduction contain a lot of grammar and structural mistakes. Please take care of…

Answer:

Methodology

4. All chemicals and reagents of analytical grade…..this is not a complete sentence

Answer: The sentence has been revised. Page # 7 , line #119

5. What is the rational to select 37 C temperature and why the aerobic conditions were provided especially when it is established that the azo dye decolorization is an anaerobic process?

Answer: Optimization of azo dyes degradation was done at various temperature i.e., 25,32,37ºC and 45ºC. but maximum decolorization with short period of time was observed at 37ºC.

Although the azo dyes are extremely stable under aerobic conditions and the spontaneous reduction of the azo bond under anaerobic conditions leads to highly carcinogenic and mutagenic colorless aromatic amines so the present study focused on the degradation of azodyes under aerobic conditions.

6. 16S rRNA gene….should be written correctly….Which primers were used?.....the mention the protocol description

Answer: The protocol has been described. Page # 8, Line #143, 144, 145

7. Phylogenetic tree should be correctly drawn. All the bacterial strain should be italicized. The isolated bacterial strain should be indicated as bold or red. A control group should be added in the tree

Answer:

8. In decolorization graphs, if decolorization was not measured at 0, then 0 time should not be added in the graphs. There is no need to add 0

Answer: The decolorization was also measured at 0, that’s why the 0 time is added in the graphs.

9.There should be an accession number of the identified strain

Answer: The accession number of the strain has been added. Page # 12, Line # 232.

10. The discussion is all over the place. The mere repetition of results should not be the part. Discussion should logically narrate the results by comparting with relevant literature.

Answer:

11. The manuscript should be checked with the native English speaker to improve the grammar, syntax, sentence structure etc.

Answer:

Reviewer #2: This is a well designed and clearly written study. The authors have performed that experiments in a logical manner and reported the results with comparison to the available studies in the literature. The quality of English language is also adequate. Therefore, this study has my recommendation for publication as such.

1. I have a minor question though. Did the authors test the growth potential of the isolated strain against the azo dyes at concentrations levels higher than the 250 mg/l? If not, why?

Answer: The growth potential of the isolated strain against the azo dyes at concentrations levels higher than 250 mg/l was also tested but no degradation was observed it is not mentioned in the article.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Faisal Mamhood, Editor

PONE-D-22-01377R1Decolorization of Azo dyes by a novel aerobic bacterial strain Bacillus cereus strain ROCPLOS ONE

Dear author

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.

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,

Faisal Mamhood

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):

Some answers are not given in the revised version, e.g, question raised by reviewer 1 as mentioned by the author as question number 10 and 11 in file response to reviewers comments. Give the answers of these questions.

Moreover make a separate file regarding response to reviewers comments for both reviewers, in which question raised by reviewers and answer of that question should be clearly readable

In the manuscript also highlight the text which is added regarding the answers of the reviewers comments throughout the manuscript

[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.

Revision 2

Respond to Reviewers

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

Manuscript was checked thoroughly and follow the instructions provided by the journal site.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service

Professor Colin Jackson who is a coauthor in this research article, has reviewed this manuscript for scientific as well as for English errors, whose native language is English.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information about your sampling sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

The required information is given on Page #7, line # 145-146.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

The information is given on page #7, line # 146-148.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Decolorization of azo dyes by a novel bacterial' has been reviewed and I found it an interesting piece of research; however, a lot of flaws have been indicated and are necessary to be taken care of before the further consideration.

Comments:

1. The title of the paper is not complete ‘bacterial isolate………..name…..?? What is the novel in the bacterial strain, a huge number of bacillus species have been reported to decolorize the dyes. The word Novel is confusing here.

Answer: The name of the bacterial isolate is added in the title Page # 1, 2, line # 2, 23. The word novel is used for this strain as it decolorize the dyes aerobically.

2. Abstract………azo dyes…not azo- dyes

Answer: It has been corrected in the abstract. Page # 2, line # 29

3. Introduction contain a lot of grammar and structural mistakes. Please take care of…

Answer:

Methodology

4. All chemicals and reagents of analytical grade…..this is not a complete sentence

Answer: The sentence has been revised. Page # 7 , line #119

5. What is the rational to select 37 C temperature and why the aerobic conditions were provided especially when it is established that the azo dye decolorization is an anaerobic process?

Answer: Optimization of azo dyes degradation was done at various temperature i.e., 25,32,37ºC and 45ºC. but maximum decolorization with short period of time was observed at 37ºC.

Although the azo dyes are extremely stable under aerobic conditions and the spontaneous reduction of the azo bond under anaerobic conditions leads to highly carcinogenic and mutagenic colorless aromatic amines so the present study focused on the degradation of azodyes under aerobic conditions.

6. 16S rRNA gene…should be written correctly….Which primers were used?.....the mention the protocol description

Answer: The protocol has been described. Page # 8, Line #143, 144, 145

7. Phylogenetic tree should be correctly drawn. All the bacterial strain should be italicized. The isolated bacterial strain should be indicated as bold or red. A control group should be added in the tree

Answer:

8. In decolorization graphs, if decolorization was not measured at 0, then 0 time should not be added in the graphs. There is no need to add 0

Answer: The decolorization was also measured at 0, that’s why the 0 time is added in the graphs.

9.There should be an accession number of the identified strain

Answer: The accession number of the strain has been added. Page # 12, Line # 232.

10. The discussion is all over the place. The mere repetition of results should not be the part. Discussion should logically narrate the results by comparting with relevant literature.

Answer: Discussion has been improved as according to the suggestions made by the reviewer (Section: Results and Discussion). But as the section is Results along with discussion so we make try our best to not repeat results during discussion and solely discuss results after showing the results of the experiments.

11. The manuscript should be checked with the native English speaker to improve the grammar, syntax, sentence structure etc.

Answer: Professor Dr. Colin Jackson who belongs to Australia (Native English speaker) has checked the whole manuscript and improve the language as well as technical errors if there is any. He has read the manuscript thoroughly and incorporate the changes as shown in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes

Reviewer #2: This is a well-designed and clearly written study. The authors have performed that experiments in a logical manner and reported the results with comparison to the available studies in the literature. The quality of English language is also adequate. Therefore, this study has my recommendation for publication as such.

1. I have a minor question though. Did the authors test the growth potential of the isolated strain against the azo dyes at concentrations levels higher than the 250 mg/l? If not, why?

Answer: The growth potential of the isolated strain against the azo dyes at concentrations levels higher than 250 mg/l was also tested but no degradation was observed it is not mentioned in the article.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (Reviewer 1).docx
Decision Letter - Faisal Mamhood, Editor

Decolorization of Azo dyes by a novel aerobic bacterial strain Bacillus cereus strain ROC

PONE-D-22-01377R2

Dear authors

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,

Faisal Mamhood

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Faisal Mamhood, Editor

PONE-D-22-01377R2

Decolorization of Azo dyes by a novel aerobic bacterial strain Bacillus cereus strain ROC

Dear Dr. Naqvi:

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. Faisal Mamhood

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 .