Evaluation of dietary selenium methionine levels and their effects on growth performance, antioxidant status, and meat quality of intensively reared juvenile Hypophthalmichthys molitrix

Maida Mushtaq; Mahroze Fatima; Syed Zakir Hussain Shah; Noor Khan; Saima Naveed; Muhammad Khan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274734

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 25, 2022
19 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad A.B. Siddik, Editor PONE-D-22-20867Optimization of Organic Selenium Requirement for Intensively Reared Hypophthalmichthys molitrix by Using Broken Line Regression on Growth PerformancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maida Mushtaq, 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 October 3, 2022. 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, Muhammad A.B. Siddik, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The work is interesting. Relevant results have been obtained with a perspective for implementation in practice. I have some observation to the authors. 1. The toxic effects of selenium should be discussed. As well as the effects of insufficient selenium intake by the population should be discussed. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11081572 2. Author should provide a justification of choosing selenium levels of 0 mg/kg (0.0),0.3 mg/kg (0.3), 0.6 mg/kg (0.6), 0.9 mg/kg, (0.9) and 1.2 mg/kg. 3. The conclusion should be written in more detail and reflect the results obtained in the study. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Comment #1: Abstract should be more informative Comment #2: Revise the English writing Comment #3: The introduction section suggested to summarized Comment #4: In case of data in tables, decimal should be the same Comment #5: The keywords should have different words from the title Comment #6: The authors should update the list of references to contain recent publications in 2020 and 2021 Comment #7: The manuscript needs thorough English proofreading for grammatical mistakes and run-on sentences. Comment #8: When write fish name for the first time, add scientific name along with common name. Comment #8: title suggested to be revised Comment #9: Line 28: revise the written Comment #10 provide weight as mean = - S.D Comment #11: in abstract results must be written with statistical view and P value should be provided Comment #11: better conclusion must be proved at the end of abstract Comment #12-line 90 , provide reference Comment #15: Line 33: average fish weight ± SD or SE Comment #16: Line 55-61: This part is unnecessary, the authors should consider to revise it Comment # 17: The up to date references would make the discussion part better. Comment #18: The authors should follow the journal format ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Ehab El-Haroun ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274734.r001
Revision 1
31 Aug 2022 Author Response 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Revised and the manuscript is updated by following the given guidelines to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Revised and updated please see the track changes in materials and methods. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Revised and updated please see the track changes in growth performance results. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The work is interesting. Relevant results have been obtained with a perspective for implementation in practice. I have some observations to the authors. 1. The toxic effects of selenium should be discussed. As well as the effects of insufficient selenium intake by the population should be discussed. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11081572 The relevant information regarding the effects of Se overdosage, and deficiency is included in the introduction section please see the tract changes in the second paragraph. 2. Author should provide a justification of choosing selenium levels of 0 mg/kg (0.0),0.3 mg/kg (0.3), 0.6 mg/kg (0.6), 0.9 mg/kg, (0.9) and 1.2 mg/kg. This work is from a Ph.D. thesis that contained a series of experiments. In the first experiment, published in aquaculture reports, as detailed in the introduction we evaluated three Se sources () and two levels (0.5 and 1 mg/kg of the diet). As results predicted Se methionine as the best source, we aimed this experiment to narrow down the requirements by selecting 0 mg/kg (0.0),0.3 mg/kg (0.3), 0.6 mg/kg (0.6), 0.9 mg/kg, (0.9) and 1.2 mg/kg levels. Moreover, literature also in support of these dietary levels as similar levels of nano-selenium was investigated in grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella fed with a high-fat diet. Here is a link for detail https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.13016 3. The conclusion should be written in more detail and reflect the results obtained in the study. Revised and updated please see the track changes in the conclusion section. 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 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 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 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: Comment #1: Abstract should be more informative Revised according to required information please find the track changes in the abstract section Comment #2: Revise the English writing Revised and Grammarly software was used to detect grammar mistakes. Comment #3: The introduction section suggested to summarized Revised, updated, and summarized. Please see the track changes. Comment #4: In case of data in tables, decimal should be the same Revised, and updated, Please check all the tables. Comment #5: The keywords should have different words from the title Thank you for enhancing our knowledge about it. We revised and updated please according to your worthy suggestions please find. Comment #6: The authors should update the list of references to contain recent publications in 2020 and 2021 Comment #7: The manuscript needs thorough English proofreading for grammatical mistakes and run-on sentences. Revised and Grammarly software was used to detect grammar mistakes. Comment #8: When write fish name for the first time, add scientific name along with common name. Please check it at the last of the abstract section line 14-15. Comment #8: title suggested to be revised Revised please find the track changes Comment #9: Line 28: revise the written Revised please find the track changes Comment #10 provide weight as mean = - S.D Initial body weight and lengths are updated in both abstract as well as material method mean with S.D. Please check lines 16, 81-82. Comment #11: in abstract results must be written with statistical view and P value should be provided Revised according to required information please find the track changes in the abstract section Comment #11: better conclusion must be proved at the end of abstract Revised according to required information please find the track changes in the abstract section Comment #12-line 90 , provide reference Comment #15: Line 33: average fish weight ± SD or SE Revised and corrected ± SD please find the track changes Comment #16: Line 55-61: This part is unnecessary, the authors should consider to revise it Revised and updated please check the track changes. Comment # 17: The up to date references would make the discussion part better. Updated and some more recent references are included in the introduction and discussion sections. Please see the track changes. Comment #18: The authors should follow the journal format. Revised and updated please check it. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274734.r002
5 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad A.B. Siddik, Editor Evaluation of dietary selenium methionine levels and their effects on growth performance, antioxidant status, and meat quality of intensively reared juvenile Hypophthalmichthys molitrix PONE-D-22-20867R1 Dear Dr. Maida Mushtaq, 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, Muhammad A.B. Siddik, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274734.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad A.B. Siddik, Editor PONE-D-22-20867R1 Evaluation of dietary selenium methionine levels and their effects on growth performance, antioxidant status, and meat quality of intensively reared juvenile Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Dear Dr. Mushtaq: 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. Muhammad A.B. Siddik Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274734.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .