PONE-D-22-35645Assessing the potential of packed cell volume for deducing hemoglobin: Cholistani camels in perspectivePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lashari,

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 Apr 15 2023 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,

Muhammad Mazhar Ayaz, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

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

“The authors are thankful to the ‘Pakistan Science Foundation’ for provision of research fund under research grant No. PSF/NSLP/P-IUB-931 titled “Devising and Validating Pen-side 10 Hematological Tests as an Enhanced Approach to the Diagnosis of Anemia in Cholistani Livestock (Camels and Cattle)”.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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:

“the authors received funding/award”

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

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“the authors received funding/award”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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 the Competing Interests section:

“I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests

it will helpful to manage the health of animals, and also helpful for professionals”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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: Partly

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: No

**********

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: Manuscript evaluation (ID PONE-D-22-35645)

Overall assessment

I have reviewed a research article entitled ‘Assessing the potential of packed cell volume for deducing hemoglobin: Cholistani camels in perspective)’ submitted to PLOS ONE by Farooq et al. Overall the title of the manuscript is useful in context of monitoring the health of the fish. In general, the purpose and procedure of the experiment and the experimental data are written clearly and performed through appropriate experimental methods, which supporting a coherent conclusion in the study. However, there are several questions, so I suggest a major overhaul of the MS before its further consideration.

Under Abstract

The section is well written, however, the statement “A good agreement between HbD and CHb and there was no proportional bias on the distribution of data around the mean difference line (Mean= 0.1436, 95%CI= 3.00—2.72).” needs to be rephrased.

Under Introduction

Comments

The first few lines of the introductory paragraph seem to simply define the PCV which is not required, rather the authors must through light on the functional role of PCV and its existing relationship with Hb with reference to the species under study.

Authors must cite the research showing the existing relationship of PCV and Hb as deduced in human and other animal subjects.

Under Methodology

The methodology employed is robust, however information about following points is lacking Time of blood collection, type and volume of syringe used for blood collection, type of anti-coagulant used, storage temperature etc.

The sample size is ambiguous. Have you sub classed the data in terms of gender and age? How many replications were performed?

Under statistical analysis

As per the authors, the data did observe the normal distribution and use of non-parametric tests is understood. However, when the going for regression analysis, have you gone for data transformation? and what type of post hoc test was performed?

Under results

Comments

Table titles must be appropriate. Make sure, the use of uniform terminology across the manuscript. Use either Colistani camels or cattle in both of the tables 1 and 2.

In table 2, the information is little and needs more clarification. Authors must add the equations of both the regression analysis performed (HbD vs PCV and HbD vs HbC) and later on show the changes in adjusted r2.

Under discussion

The discussion is written very poorly and needs thorough revision. Authors should take into consideration the following key points

Specific comments

The first paragraph of the discussion section is giving information which is not supported by the results of the study. You should limit such information to the introduction portion.

There is a very little information about the hematology of camels in the discussion section so the authors must include good number of comparisons citing the previous reports on other camel species.

Results of the study have been very poorly discussed. The authors must discuss their results, and provide valid grounds such as intrinsic physiological/species- specific, gender, age, body size, basis of the significant differences observed. Furthermore the study needs validation in terms of the statistical methodology which is being recommended and widely used in the studies with similar reports.

There are several contradictory statements in the discussion. On the one hand authors indicate that there are reports about high infection of cattle in the region of study which limit the power of PCV to predict the accurate Hb content, as you have cited about malaria settings in human medicine. But on the other hand the discussion does not give any idea about whether the formula that is being endorsed here has some kind of operator which undoes the effect of disease, particularly in cases where PCV might not get significantly altered.

The overall discussion needs to revise thoroughly to make it scientifically convincing and additionally there are several spelling mistakes, throughout the discussion section which should be corrected.

In my opinion that authors should reframe the manuscript as per suggestions and quarries raised in the manuscript. Presentation needs to be improved in the methodology results and discussion sections. The manuscript should be re-considered for publication after major revision.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript, submitted as a technical note, “Assessing the potential of packed cell volume for deducing hemoglobin: Cholistani camels in perspective” by Dr. Lashari and colleagues presents a methodology to estimate hemoglobin concentration, based on PCV values for camels.

The formula proposed: Hb concentration (g/dL)= 0.18(PCV)+5.4 could be very useful for a field evaluation of anemia, mainly for camels, that have a more limited source of references.

Initially, since one of the goals was to develop tools to improve Cholistani camels health and productivity, I would suggest to explore a little bit more about the camels in the manuscript. For instance: are the results found for PCV values in the normal range for camels? Was the higher correlation coefficient between HbD and PCV found for young camels expected? Many references from the discussion are from cattle. It would be nicer to have more information about camels in the discussion. Otherwise, this manuscript will be very similar to the ones published by the group (Ahmad et al. 2022a and Ahmad et al. 2022b). The authors should consider rewriting some parts, to avoid self-plagiarism.

Other doubt is about the term: “pen-side”. Usually, when we use “pen-side” analysis is for something that could be done at the moment an animal is examined. In this case, since it is necessary to go to a laboratory (or at least, to have the hematocrit done) to estimate the hemoglobin concentration, can we say it is pen-side?

Other issues:

Materials and methods

More information about the camels could be given, like: are they from a specific breed? What are they purpose? The camels were from how many herds?

It would also be nice to explain the age groups. When is a camel considered adult? With what age?

“All the animals were being reared under similar management and feeding conditions of pastoral- ism. Split-herding is normally exercised for livestock by the pastoralists, according to which the young ones (calves in this case) are kept at their pens near the “Tobas” (natural or man-mad water reservoirs of the desert), while the adults are sent for grazing till night-time (Farooq et al., 2010).”

Is this about the camels? Because it is the same explanation in the cattle article.

Results

Table 2 –Cholistani Camels?

Discussion

….the livestock population is on the boom with the succession of years (Farooq et al., 2010). Maybe here we need recent reference, that could confirm this boom in livestock populations.

The parasitic infestation is one of the most important reasons of disease and production loss in the livestock by causing anemia and mostly death in heavily infected animals (Grace et al., 2007).

This is a reference for cattle. It would be interesting to have more references like this, but for camels.

References:

Ahmad, S., Farooq, U., Lashari, M.H., Idris, M., Ur-Rehman, Z., Khan, N. & Sajjad, N. (2022). Devising and validating a pen-side hematological formula for hemoglobin estimation in Cholistani cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 54, pp.1-6.

It should be (2022b)

**********

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: Imtiaz Ahmed

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.

Investigating the potential of packed cell volume for deducing hemoglobin: Cholistani camels in perspective

PONE-D-22-35645R1

Dear Dr. Lashari,

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 Mazhar Ayaz, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: