Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 23, 2022
Decision Letter - Chun Wie Chong, Editor

PONE-D-22-08057Effect of Zanthoxylum bungeanum essential oil on rumen enzyme activity, microbiome, and metabolites in lambsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 Aug 11 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,

Chun Wie Chong

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.pdfv

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

We thank for the financial support: No. 1760683; No.18YF1NA091; No. 18JR2RA032;

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

We thank for the financial support: No. 1760683; No.18YF1NA091; No. 18JR2RA032;

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: 

We thank for the financial support: No. 1760683; No.18YF1NA091; No. 18JR2RA032;

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. 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:

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: Figure 1D: ANOSIN (R na P) result are too small. Please provide a better figure.

Table 3. It would be best to standardize two digits after the dot

Line 277: How can you explain the predict genes of “Circulation system” , “Endrocne metabolic desease, Cytoesqueleton,....” if you provided the Microbial DNA sequencing?

LINE 285: The figure 4 legend needs to be improve.

Line 287: The same as before. Legend needs to better described.

Line 370: The same as before. Legend needs to better described

Reviewer #2: Line 20: The description "Subgroups:" sounds a bit strange, please check with the author.

Line 44: The numbers in the "CH4" area should be subscripts.

Line 72-74:What is the basis for the supplemental levels of EOZB of 0, 5, 10 and 15mg/kg in the experimental design? The trial lasted 52 days,why did choose this way?

Line 80-81: How was EOZB added? It is not stated in the dietary formula.

Line198-199:Which multiple-comparison is used?

Line213:Standard deviation rather than standard error should be used in Table 2.

Line 212,214:The P should be in italics.

Line 355, 342, 345, 351, 353, 354, 357, 359, 360: Spearman's analysis r value should be -0.5-0.5,please ask the authors to verify.

Line 377: References should be marked after "anti-inflammatory".

Line 388: References should be marked after the word "antioxidant".

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Figure 1D: ANOSIN (R na P) result are too small. Please provide a better figure.

Re: We have replaced the figure and it is a little bigger in the "R and P" section.

Table 3. It would be best to standardize two digits after the dot

Re: We have modified the two digits after the dot and marked it in Table 3.

Line 277: How can you explain the predict genes of “Circulation system” , “Endrocne metabolic desease, Cytoesqueleton,....” if you provided the Microbial DNA sequencing?

Re: After the OTU abundance tables were normalised, the relationships corresponding to each OTU were compared to the KEGG and COG libraries, using PICRUSt2 to obtain the KO information and COG family information corresponding to the OTU. And calculate the abundance of each KO and the abundance of COG. Based on the information compared to the KEGG database, KO, Pathway and EC information can be obtained and the abundance of each functional class can be calculated based on the OTU abundance.

LINE 285: The figure 4 legend needs to be improve.

Re: We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line 287: The same as before. Legend needs to better described.

Re: We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line 370: The same as before. Legend needs to better described

Re: We have modified and marked it in the article.

Reviewer #2: Line 20: The description "Subgroups:" sounds a bit strange, please check with the author.

Re: We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line 44: The numbers in the "CH4" area should be subscripts.

Re: We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line 72-74:What is the basis for the supplemental levels of EOZB of 0, 5, 10 and 15mg/kg in the experimental design? The trial lasted 52 days,why did choose this way?

Re: Four gradients were established with " In vivo study on the efficacy of essential oil of Zanthoxylum bungeanum pericarp in dextran sulfate sodium-induced murine experimental colitis" and the cost of EOZB in order to select the amount of addition that would be beneficial to the healthy growth of lambs while controlling the cost. The trial period of 52 days is set based on the time limit of local lambs fattening, which is easy to combine with production practice.

Line 80-81: How was EOZB added? It is not stated in the dietary formula.

Re: A specific dose of EOZB was mixed with the concentrate to make pellets. We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line198-199:Which multiple-comparison is used?

Re: We used Duncan's method for multiple comparisons of components. We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line213:Standard deviation rather than standard error should be used in Table 2.

Re: We have modified in Table 2 and marked.

Line 212,214:The P should be in italics.

Re: We have modified all P in the full article to italics and marked it.

Line 355, 342, 345, 351, 353, 354, 357, 359, 360: Spearman's analysis r value should be -0.5-0.5, please ask the authors to verify.

Re: The range of Spearman's analysis r value is indeed -0.5-0.5. We have modified and marked it in the article.

Line 377: References should be marked after "anti-inflammatory".

Re: We have added references and revised the numbering accordingly. "[24]" is marked in the article.

Line 388: References should be marked after the word "antioxidant".

Re: We have added references and revised the numbering accordingly. "[25]" is marked in the article.

Other questions

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

Re: We have revised the format according to the requirements.

2. 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.

Re: We have revised this section, and provided the funder's role statement.

Role of Funder statement: The funder, Cailian Wang, played an important role in the study design design. The funder, Guoshun Chen, played an important role in the decision to publish.

3. 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.

Re: We have modified the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS section.

Funding Statement:We thank for the financial support: No. 1760683; No.18YF1NA091; No. 18JR2RA032;

4. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

Re: We have modified the Conflicts of Interest section.

Author Statement: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

5. 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.

Re: We have completed this operation.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

Re: We have added the Supporting Information at the end of the article.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Re: We checked our references again and it was compliant.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Chun Wie Chong, Editor

Effect of Zanthoxylum bungeanum essential oil on rumen enzyme activity, microbiome, and metabolites in lambs

PONE-D-22-08057R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Chun Wie Chong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Chun Wie Chong, Editor

PONE-D-22-08057R1

Effect of Zanthoxylum bungeanum essential oil on rumen enzyme activity, microbiome, and metabolites in lambs

Dear Dr. Wang:

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. Chun Wie Chong

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 .