https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6303-4767
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 1, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-38093Vocalization during agonistic encounter in Mongolian gerbilsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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. As you see, all reviewers are positive about your study. Nevertheless, they have concerns with the present manuscript. It would be best if you clear the aim of the study up. It would help to formulate a hypothesis for each task and reorganize the text accordingly. You could use subheadings. In the Methods, follow Reviewer 1’s suggestions regarding determining who is who in the encounter and how you categorized the spectrograms. Will you complete citations for individual elements of agonistic behaviour? Is there any reason you used virgins for the intruders’ test? Could you consider the structure of vocalizations before and after the attack? Will you be more specific when saying “for at least one week“, “many of the residents”, “the vast majority”, etc.? It seems to me you used the subjects repeatedly on the tests. If not, you should clearly say it. If so, however, what was the order of the type of tests? How did you measure the number of high-frequency vocalizations per minute and the number of low-frequency vocalizations per minute? Please consider multifactorial tests rather than non-parametric simple test statistics. Your analysis did not show the interrelationships between the factors, such as the age of the subjects, their sexual experience, the number of animals kept in one plexiglass cage, the latency and duration of aggressive behaviours, etc. The uncategorized correlation in Fig. 2 is misleading. You present a negative correlation. However, it seems the case for MF-VF, not that much for EM-VM, and it is unlikely for the rest of the categories. (Similarly, in Fig. 6 B, C, and D.) A multifactorial approach would help. It would also help if you strictly separated the Methods, Results and Discussion throughout the text. Scientific names in the first mentioning of the species are missing. You should transfer part of the Figure captions into the main text where appropriate. Captions should not contain the results at all. Be so kind and also consider the Reviewers’ detailed suggestions. Please use the line numbers throughout the text if you decide to submit the revision. Not the numbering for each page. It might also help to understand better if you used conventional division to ultrasonic calls (over 20 kHz) rather than using your division (>25 kHz). Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 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:
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, Ludek Bartos 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 2. 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. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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: This MS is focused on relationship between agonistic behaviour and the number of high-frequency (above 25 kHz) and low-frequency (below 25 kHz) vocalizations during same-sex dyad encounters of sexually experienced and unexperienced (virgin) male and female Mongolian gerbils. The call rate of high-frequency vocalizations was negatively correlated with the duration of aggressive behavior, while the call rate of low-frequency vocalizations was negatively correlated with the latency of aggressive behavior and positively correlated with the duration of aggressive behavior. I found the following main problems with MS. The aim of this study not well formulated and should be re-written. Introduction is focused on the Mongolian gerbils and does not provide the understanding the place of this particular study within the investigated problem, although many similar studies have been conducted on rats, mice and other rodents, including the gerbils. In Methods, the authors do not indicate, how it was determined who is the caller during aggression, the resident (attacker) or intruder (defender). These limitations should be clearly explained. The authors should indicate, on what they based their separation to the aggressive/agonistic and non-agonistic behaviors. The authors should indicate how they classified the calls to the high- and low-frequency. Was it done based on visual inspection of spectrograms or measuring fundamental frequency? The Results often represent mix of results and discussion; this should be clearly separated in the revised version. Discussion is looking as some draft of literature review rather than discussing own results, and should be re-written concisely and logically, in relation to the obtained results. Discussion also contains and discusses the conclusions which are not supported by the results of this study. The MS is difficult to read, although English is mostly appropriate. In the revised version, the authors should provide line numbers throughout the text, because numeration of each paper separately complicates enormously the work of Reviewer, Editor and Authors themselves. Abstract L. 9-10 We also confirmed two types of vocalisations: high-frequency (>25 kHz) and low-frequency (<25 kHz) This is strange subdivision. Commonly, classifying calls in the Mongolian gerbil is to ultrasonic calls over 20 kHz and human-audible calls below 20 kHz. L. 10 with multiple harmonics This has not sense. Harmonics are integer multiples of fundamental frequency (the lowest frequency band). If the fundamental frequency is low, they are spaced more densely, if the fundamental frequency is high, they are spaces more rarely. So, you just do not see the harmonics of high-frequency calls. L. 10-14 The call rate of high-frequency vocalizations was negatively correlated with the duration of aggressive behavior, while the call rate of low-frequency vocalizations was negatively correlated with the latency of aggressive behavior and positively correlated with the duration of aggressive behavior. Who vocalized during the aggressive encounters: the victim, the victor, both fighters? Introduction L. 14-15 As it is well known, laboratory rodents such as mice or rats rarely exhibit this extent of aggression. This statement needs in references, please provide them. L. 1-6. Although several studies cited in the previous paragraph have reported aggression-specific vocalizations, it remains unclear how sex and sexual experience affect the call rate of various vocalizations in Mongolian gerbils. Thus, we analyzed vocalizations between four different pairs (virgin male–virgin male; experienced male– virgin male; virgin female–virgin female; multiparous female–virgin female) of Mongolian gerbils through the same-sex resident-intruder test. The aim of the study is poorly formulated and does not reflect the content of the paper. Did you analysed vocalizations, call rates and behaviour latencies? For what? Please re-write the aim accordingly to you real results. Methods Same-sex resident-intruder test L 16 We conducted resident-intruder tests Добавьте 26 перед resident-intruder tests L 29 - 04 The observed behaviors were classified as follows: alert posture, ano-genital sniff, approach, attack, clinch, chase, dig, explore, fight, flee, jump, move away, nasal sniff, push, self-groom, stop moving, and watch. ‘attack’, ‘chase’, ‘clinch’, ‘flee’, and ‘push’ were scored as aggressive/agonistic behaviors. The rest was scored as non-agonistic interaction. It is necessary to provide the references to papers (they are numerous) and/or short descriptions of the forms of aggressive and non-aggressive behaviour of rodents, to make clear for the reader, on what you based your separation to the aggressive/agonistic and non-agonistic behaviors. Why fight is not assigned to the aggressive/agonistic behaviors? Recording and analysis of vocalizations L. 24 Sonograms Thereafter you use more correct term “spectrogram”. Use it here too. L 1 Delete total duration after F0 L 16-17 Thus, we identified nine calls in this paper; U-shape, UFM-s, UFM, AFM, DFM-l, DFM, QCF, NB, and QCF-NB Please provide here as an illustration Fig.3A as Fig. Please make it clear, whether these nine call types could be only low-frequency or only high-frequency or both low- and high-frequency? The authors should indicate how they classified the calls to the high- and low-frequency (for example, if F0max=30 kHz and F0min=20 kHz). Was it done based on visual inspection of spectrograms or measuring fundamental frequency? Statistical analysis L 8-9 number of high-frequency vocalizations per minute; latency of aggressive behavior and the number of low-frequency vocalizations per minute; Please explain in the previous section, how did you measure the number of high-frequency vocalizations per minute and number of low-frequency vocalizations per minute. From the entire test duration or only from the duration after the first aggression? Results Same-sex resident-intruder test L 3-4 We conducted resident-intruder tests to assess the extent of territorial aggression in gerbils. All intruders were virgin and of the same sex as the resident. Delete, these are not the results L 4-7 Many of the residents expressed aggressive behaviors toward the intruder for several minutes and frequently emitted calls. The vast majority of aggressive behaviors were initiated by residents, thus basically we focused on the behaviors of residents in this study. Please decode what are Many of the residents and The vast majority. In the Results, you should provide the digits, not judgements. L 4-5 Many of the residents expressed aggressive behaviors toward the intruder for several minutes and frequently emitted calls How the authors determined who is calling, the resident or the intruder? In gerbils, both can call. The low-frequency calls produce the fleeing animals during aggressive contacts (Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2012, cited in MS). This is a key question, which should be addressed in the Methods. Analysis of vocalizations of gerbils during the same-sex resident-intruder tests L. 14-15. Analysis of vocalizations of gerbils during the same-sex resident-intruder tests Delete “Analysis of”. Here, you describe the results of analysis rather than analysis itself. L 16 Gerbils frequently emitted calls during the resident-intruder test Delete this sentence L. 18. We detected nine calls of vocalizations This sounds senseless. Do you mean “we detected nine call types”? L 20-23 The spectral shapes of calls (Fig. 3A; except the U-shape call, which was newly defined in this study) in all pairs during the resident-intruder test were similar to those reported in previous studies [17, 18]. Alert calls described in the same study [17] were not observed in our resident-intruder tests. This belongs to Discussion. Data from previous studies should not be discussed in the Results section. L. 20 spectral shapes This sounds unclear and imprecise. Replace with “contour shapes”. L. 17-18 It has been reported that the frequency of vocalizations bears semantic significance with a dividing line at 25 kHz [17, 18]. Vocalizations with a maximum fundamental frequency above 25 kHz were observed during non-agonistic interactions, whereas those below 25 kHz were observed during agonistic interactions. The separation at 25 kHz is consistent with our observations (Fig. 3B). This part of text represents a mix of Methods, own Results and Discussion. It should be separated accordingly to these sections. Please substantiate the separation to the low-frequency and high-frequency calls in Introduction. Please provide the criteria for separation to these categories in Methods. Otherwise, Statistical analysis remains perfectly unclear. L. 3-5 high-frequency with short duration (U-shape, UFM-s, and UFM; 32.7 ± 2.0 kHz, 25.9 ± 14.7 ms), and low-frequency with long duration (AFM, DFM-l, DFM, QCF, NB, and QCF-NB; 12.1 ± 2.9 kHz, 160.4 ± 73.3 ms) Please indicate that the fundamental frequency (maximal?) and the duration are provided for all high-frequency and low-frequency криков. Please indicate the numbers of the high-frequency and low-frequency calls. Fig. 3 legend Replace “submitted to” with “in” Fig. 3 legend MF-VF pairs seemed to have a different composition of syllables from the other pairs. Transfer this from the figure legend to main text. Table 1. Spectro-temporal features of nine calls. Replace “nine calls” “nine call types” here and in the sentence under the Table 1. Please add to the legend designations/ decoding of all acoustic variables presented in the column headings. Table 1. Spectro-temporal features of nine calls. Please indicate n (call number) for each call type Table 1. UFM Mean Min. freq. for UFM is 21.34±9.00 kHz. This means that most UFM calls have the mean fundamental frequency lower 25 kHz, what is the criterion for separation between the low-frequency and high-frequency calls. Please substantiate, why you assign all calls of this type to the high-frequency calls. It seems that, in this study you conduct the border between the low-frequency and high-frequency calls at 20 kHz. L 3 between the four pairs. Please replace “four pairs” with four tests. L 16-17 In addition, there was a negative correlation between the numbers of high- and low-frequency calls Please add for the duration of a test after calls Fig 4. Numbers of two types of calls by pairs during resident-intruder tests. Please consider re-writing to “Numbers of two call types by resident-intruder pairs. Relationship between vocalizations and aggressive interactions during the same-sex resident-intruder tests L. 2-3. Relationship between vocalizations and aggressive interactions during the same-sex resident-intruder tests Please re-write this heading to make it clear for the reader. What relationship you look, during (along) the test or between tests? L. 4-5. We then examined the relationship between vocalizations and behaviors, with an emphasis on aggressive behaviors. Delete, these are not the Results L. 5 First, we created the ethograms for each pair You use “pair” for designations of particular tests (one of 26), and also for designations of one of the four test categories (MF-VF etc.). This makes understanding the text impossible. Please correct terminology throughout the MS. L. 5-7 First, we created the ethograms for each pair (examples shown in Fig. 5A) and categorized the behaviors into two categories, non- agonistic or agonistic (indicated by blue or red in Fig. 5A). Then, we quantified the type of behavior at the timing of high- or low-frequency calls emitted This is repetition (first sentence) and amendments to Methods. If the authors provide in the Results something that was not indicated in the Methods, this should be transferred to Methods. How the authors confronted type of behavior at the timing of high- or low-frequency calls emitted? Behaviour was recorded by video, whereas the calls by UltraSoundGate in the form of ultrasonic files. How it was synchronized? Please described this in detain in the Methods. L. 8 Replace Fig. 5B with Fig. 5A. Discussion P.21 L. 24-26 Furthermore, we defined males who experienced both mating and parenting as sexually experienced. If parenting is not a part of the criteria in other studies, this might cause differences between the previous and present findings. Was it really part of your results? At least, it is lacking in the aim of MS. L 9-12 bank voles [33] and Syrian hamsters .... Siberian hamsters [36]. Add Latin names P. 22 L. 20-21 These nine calls are categorized into two types; high-frequency vocalization and low-frequency vocalization with harmonics. This belongs to Methods, delete this. L 3 California mice [41]. Add Latin name L 19-21 These correlations strongly suggest that low-frequency calls would represent aggression or serve as a threat and warning consistent with the idea implied in previous reports [17, 18]. This conclusion is not supported with results of this study. Indeed, you do not know who emits the low-frequency calls, aggressor or defender. Delete this. L 26-01 Low-frequency calls emitted in MF-VF gerbil interactions would be a good characteristic behavior to study multiple aspects of the expression of aggression in rodents. In addition, there is a possibility that low-frequency vocalizations could be linked to not only aggression but also important characteristics of a vocalizer, such as sex, reproductive state, or social experiences. Again, your data do not show which animal is vocalizer, the winner or defender. During encounters of rodents, as a rule, the defender produces the human-audible (below 20 kHz) calls. The defender attacks silently. In rats, human-audible (below 20 kHz) calls are emitted by the defending individuals during agonistic interactions (squeal, Watts, 1980), during tail-clamp (Chen et al. 2017) and in response to electrical nociceptive stimuli (Jourdan et al., 1995). Watts, 1980. Vocalizations of nine species of rat (Rattus; Muridae). J. Zool., 191:531-555. Chen et al., 2017. Call divergence in three sympatric Rattus species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142:29-34. Jourdan et al., 1995. Audible and ultrasonic vocalization elicited by single electrical nociceptive stimuli to the tail in the rat. Pain, 63:237-249. L 6-8 MFs (resident) most likely emitted low-frequency calls during the resident-intruder test since low-frequency calls were rarely observed in VF-VF interactions Please indicate in Methods in detail, how did you determine, who emitted the low-frequency calls during the resident-intruder test. This is important thing, as your conclusions that low-frequency calls belong to aggressor rather than defender contradict to data by Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2012 (cited in MS) on Mongolian gerbils, as well as with data on other species of gerbils (see below). Volodin et al., 1994. Situational changes in vocalization of Great gerbils (Rhombomys opimus Licht.) during defensive behavior. Doklady Biological Sciences, 334:65-68. Volodin I.A., Goltsman M.E., 2000. Acoustic activity displayed in the agonistic behavior of Great and Light gerbils. Doklady Biological Sciences, 371:176-178. L 10-12 However, given that low-frequency calls were recorded even during the period before the resident started attacking the intruder, it would be reasonable to consider that the majority of low-frequency calls were emitted by MF residents. This is unsupported claim. The animal introduced on the territory of resident afraid of it and start calling. Reviewer #2: Comments to the Author Behaviors and vocalizations associated with aggression are essential for animals to survive, reproduce, and maintain their community. This study reported that high- and low-frequency vocalizations relate to non-agonistic and agonistic interactions during encounters in Mongolian gerbils, respectively, which related to the sexual experience. These findings provide new insights into the modulatory effects of sex and sexual experience on vocalizations during agonistic encounters. I have some major comments: 1) Why do intruders only use virgin gerbils ？ 2) Whether or not there are difference between the structure of vocalizations before the attack and the after the attack? It might be possible that fighting has been expressed in voice before the beginning of physical conflict, which is a characteristic of vocalizations in the aggressive strategy. 3) It should be added to some explanations on the ecological function of the high- and low-frequency vocalizations related to non-agonistic and agonistic interactions in the discussion. The minor comments: 1) Is it more appropriate to change the title to“ Vocalization during agonistic encounter in Mongolian gerbils：impact of sexual experience.” 2) Result Lines 3-7 should belong to the method behavior observation part，that is part of“same-sex resident-intruder test” , and it is recommended to adjust. 3) Page 23 line 13 “These results indicate that vocalizations….” should revised” These results indicated that vocalizations….” Reviewer #3: This is a fantastic publication exploring not only vocalization production in Mongolian gerbils but also how sex and sexual experience effects aggression and the expression of these calls. I have a few minor points and questions to be addressed, some areas that require clarification or a better explanation, my comments are below. Abstract Line 3 – maintain their community, does aggression do this? Or would it be more appropriate to say maintain their social hierarchy? Line 12 – perhaps spilt these sentences Introduction Line 5 – define clinching, and make sure the references cover this behaviour (1,2 don’t cover clinching, I couldn’t find clinching in 3, but of it is defined in reference 3 then ignore this comment) Methods Page 1 – line 29 what software was used to score the videos? Page 2 – line 1-4 a table describing these behaviours would be helpful. Additionally, are these behaviours arbitrarily selected or have they been previously used/described? Page 3 – If the calls were selected using a MATLAB script was this program 100% accurate at distinguishing calls? Also was this checked by an experimenter? Further, were the calls classified by an experimenter or was this also performed by the MATLAB script? Page 4 – chi square symbol isn’t showing up Page 4 – please explain why a non-parametric test was used instead of an ANOVA Results Page 1 - line 3 – in the gerbils Page 2 – line 18 – nine calls of vocalizations should be nine types of vocalizations Page 3 – line 1 – why were the calls grouped in those parameters? Discussion Page 1 – line 20 – territorial sentence could be re-worded so it flows better Page 2 – line 24 – rats actually make 50-khz USV when they are in aggressive situations as well as play (but 22kHz calls are fairly unique to aggression, just like what you saw!) see Burke et al., 2017 (Avoiding escalation from play to aggression in adult male rats: The role of ultrasonic calls) Page 3 – I think that these are great points, again the rat literature really mimics your findings so potentially a comparison to this literature would really make your point a bit stronger (recent publications from Pellis/Burke; Wohr/Schwarting/Kisko) This is just a suggestion, and is not at all necessary for the publication. ********** 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-21-38093R1Vocalization during agonistic encounter in Mongolian gerbils: impact of sexual experience.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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’m sorry you haven’t received a decision yet. We have a somewhat delayed promised third review on your revision. It takes time to write a qualified review. If I have a forthcoming review, I prefer a delayed decision to the disappointment of a volunteer opponent who has already invested her/his time in reading the manuscript. However, I agree that the matter is already considerably delayed. I am sending you my decision without a third review. As you see, two reviewers are quite happy with your revision. However, they suggested some minor changes, Reviewer 1 in particular. If you changed the details as instructed, I would accept it. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 26 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:
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, Ludek Bartos 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: 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: The authors addressed most of my comment and the revised MS was substantially improved. However, there are some minor points which should be resolved before publishing, as they confuse the reader. L 30. We also confirmed two types of vocalizations during the encounters Replace "two types" with "two groups of vocalizations" (as in L 176). Otherwise, types of vocalizations confuse with nine call types (see also L 256 and L 405). L 31. high-frequency (>24.6 kHz) and low-frequency (<24.6 kHz) with multiple harmonics Delete "with multiple harmonics" after "low-frequency". The high-frequency vocalizations also have multiple harmonics. Create the spectrum up to 300 kHz, increase the intensity, and you will see them clearly. L 106 Aggressive behaviors were initiated by residents in the vast majority (20/24) of tests Why 24, not 26? You have in total 26 tests. L 163. we identified nine calls Replace "nine calls" with "nine call types" L 224 gerbil groups submitted to resident-intruder tests. Replace "submitted to" with "during". L 254-256 the nine call types could be categorized into two groups. From the fitting functions of two normal distributions, the separation at 24.6 kHz was determined. Thus, for further analysis, we categorized the quantified nine calls of vocalizations into two types Nine call types (L 254) cannot be categorized to the two call types. Replace with "we categorized the nine types of vocalizations into two groups" L 262-263 High-frequency syllables are represented by bluish symbols and low-frequency syllables Replace "syllables" with "groups" (as earlier in L 176). Avoid synonyms. L 402-406 We found that gerbils emitted nine types of vocalizations during the resident-intruder test. The spectral shapes of these calls were basically consistent with those reported in previous studies [17, 18]. Alert calls described in the same study [17] were not observed in our resident-intruder tests. The nine calls are categorized into two types; high-frequency vocalization and low-frequency vocalization with harmonics. Nine types of vocalizations (L 402) cannot be categorized to the two call types. Using consistently own terms throughout the text is important for understanding the content by the readers. Replace with "The nine call types are categorized into two groups" L 406 low-frequency vocalization with harmonics. Delete "with harmonics". Presence of visible harmonics is not exclusively attributive to low-frequency vocalizations, but depends on the size of the used for analysis spectral window. L 444 resident intruder Replace with resident-intruder L 443-456 This paragraph do not provides useful information and is very far from the results of this study. Delete it. L 464-467 However, given that low-frequency calls were recorded even during the period before the resident started attacking the intruder in MF-VF pairs (this was not observed in the other groups), it would be reasonable to estimate that the majority of low-frequency calls were emitted by MF residents. This not an argument. Avoid speculations. In rodents, a lot of information comes from olfactory channel. It is easy to propose that VF-intruders placed on territory of MF-residents, perceive the smell of adult females and start calling of fear before the first aggressive interaction. A few more opposite arguments can be advanced. L 473-476 However, it remains unknown why MF gerbils (or MF-VF pair) emitted more low-frequency calls compared with those in the other three pairs. We hypothesize that vocalizations are influenced by hormonal changes induced by parenting experiences in female Mongolian gerbils. In the preceding paragraph, you write that it is impossible to establish, who is calling the low-frequency calls, MF or VF. However, here you attribute the calls to one of females of the pair. Please re-write to make the content consistent with the text above. Reviewer #2: This revised version has revised and supplemented the necessary information, and if the minor comments were revised, it could be considered to accept. I think the descriptions of several behaviors that were scored should be more specific and detailed. We cannot define a target behavior with itself, for example, dig was defined by digging, and what is dig?. Jump Jumping vertically Move away Moving away from the another Dig Digging beddings on the floor Explore Exploring the cage Stop Stop moving Approach Approaching within one body length of another Maybe can refer to the reference: Hurtado-Parrado C, Gonzalez CH, Moreno LM, Gonzalez CA, Arias M et al., 2015. Catalogue of the behaviour of Meriones unguiculatus f. dom. (Mongolian gerbil) and wild conspecies, in captivity and under natural conditions, based on a systematic literature review. J Ethol 33:65–86 ********** 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: 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 2 |
|
Vocalization during agonistic encounter in Mongolian gerbils: impact of sexual experience. PONE-D-21-38093R2 Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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, George Vousden Staff Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please accept our apologies for the delay in processing this decision. 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: (No Response) 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: The authors addressed all my comments. I suggest minor changes, consistent to previous corrections. L. 259 Delete “and multi-harmonics” L. 264 Replace “syllable” with “group” L. 446 Please corrects the typo; replace “repertories” with “repertoires” L. 481 Consider replacing "Acknowledgment" with "Acknowledgement" Reviewer #2: no major recommendation, but Ethical Note need to be added the Ethical Inspection License No:XXX,if you have. ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-38093R2 Vocalization during agonistic encounter in Mongolian gerbils: impact of sexual experience. Dear Dr. Yamamoto: 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. George Vousden Staff 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 .