Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 18, 2022
Decision Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor

PONE-D-22-28249A potential marker of radiation based on 16S rDNA in the rat model: intestinal floraPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yongqi Liu,

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 March 20 2023, 23:59 pm. 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,

Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25600706/#:~:text=The%20gut%20microbiotas%20in%20control,intestines%20at%20the%20genus%20level.

- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2020/9017854/

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

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

“This study was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (NO. 20JR10RA332, 20JR10RA318). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 82260882, 82004094). China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Project (NO. 2021M693794). Lanzhou City Health Key Science and Technology Development Project (NO. 2021006).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. 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:

“NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

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

“NO authors have competing interests”

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.

7. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

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: 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: No

**********

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: Reviewer comments are attached in the manuscript pdf file. overall, authors performed a rigorous technic and methodology. A a further explanation and discussion are required. Additional figure to describ the study design is needed.

Reviewer #2: Recent study in microbiome is just providing insight into the composition, pattern, and predict functions of the intestinal microbiome in SD rats, and certain abundant genera and species could serve as a biomarker for diagnosis and treatment. in this regard this MS is timely and valuble.

1. Requires edition> Example: Abstract part (line 5. Microbiotas. Punctuation: line. 28 change .). Ethics statement: line 5. 222℃. EP tubes. it is not usual, to begin with, a number (5g of a mouse). (Five grams of…). SD rats. In its first use: Sprague Dawley rates.

2. Introduction. After irradiation, it can cause DNA double-strand or single-strand breaks and other biological effects. It has been shown that the gut microbiota regulates the efficacy of radiotherapy and chemotherapy through a "TIMER" mechanism, which suggests a reduction in translocation, immune regulation, metabolism, enzymatic degradation, and diversity. Requires citation.

. Casero found … David C et al in 2017 found...

. Zhang also shows…. Zhang A and Steen TY in 2017 also showed...

3. They act together on the body to play a total defense function, which is called a biological barrier. .... begin to play their pathogenic role. Citation Required.

4. Result From 16S rDNA sequencing: How many counts were generated and what % of proportion clustered with similarity indicated unique OTUs?

5. Your mention of the “metagenomic" intestinal flora is not clear for readers and requires further clear writing. As several previous studies on the mammalian gut have included humans and ratio [27] clarify.

6. These could be the limitations of the study

(1) There are only three samples in each group, so the sample size is too small. (2) how do specific bacterial species modulate inflammatory responses?

7. This could be your recommendation: (3) Whether these findings could translate into a therapeutic approach for the treatment of radiation-induced diseases in humans deserves further attention.

**********

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: Arif Sabta Aji

Reviewer #2: Yes: Gizachew Taddesse AKALU

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-28249_Comments.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments are attached in the manuscript pdf file. overall, authors performed a rigorous technic and methodology. A a further explanation and discussion are required. Additional figure to describ the study design is needed.

Due to the need to upload the reply to the reviewer separately, we have sorted out and answered the opinions of the reviewer below.

1.In the method section, please add the statistical method information that had been used in the study in concisely.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments. In the text, we introduce the statistical analysis. In order to prevent excessive abstract word count, the statistical analysis was not described in the abstract.

2.Please add one sentence for recommendation based on the findings of the study.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have been revised in the original text.

3.Grouping of SD rats should be shown in figure.

Hello reviewer, thank you for your opinion. The grouping here is consistent with the grouping in the following text.

4.What is EP stand for?

Hello reviewer, EP tubes means a microcentrifuge tube.

5.where this activity was performed?

Dear reviewer, thank you for your question. We operated in the professional animal materials room of Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

6.where the conclusion section is?

Hello reviewer, thank you for your question. Since our paper contains many results, we integrated the conclusion with the discussion. Written in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2: Recent study in microbiome is just providing insight into the composition, pattern, and predict functions of the intestinal microbiome in SD rats, and certain abundant genera and species could serve as a biomarker for diagnosis and treatment. in this regard this MS is timely and valuble.

1. Requires edition> Example: Abstract part (line 5. Microbiotas. Punctuation: line. 28 change.). Ethics statement: line 5. 222℃. EP tubes. it is not usual, to begin with, a number (5g of a mouse). (Five grams of…). SD rats. In its first use: Sprague Dawley rates.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have been revised in the original text.

2. Introduction. After irradiation, it can cause DNA double-strand or single-strand breaks and other biological effects. It has been shown that the gut microbiota regulates the efficacy of radiotherapy and chemotherapy through a "TIMER" mechanism, which suggests a reduction in translocation, immune regulation, metabolism, enzymatic degradation, and diversity. Requires citation.

. Casero found … David C et al in 2017 found...

. Zhang also shows…. Zhang A and Steen TY in 2017 also showed...

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have been revised in the original text.

3.They act together on the body to play a total defense function, which is called a biological barrier. .... begin to play their pathogenic role. Citation Required.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have been revised in the original text.

4.Result From 16S rDNA sequencing: How many counts were generated and what % of proportion clustered with similarity indicated unique OTUs?

Hello reviewer, our calculated number is 547.Such as different 16S rDNA sequences, is higher than 97%, it can be defined as an OTU.

5.Your mention of the “metagenomic" intestinal flora is not clear for readers and requires further clear writing. As several previous studies on the mammalian gut have included humans and ratio [27] clarify.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have been revised in the original text.

6. These could be the limitations of the study

(1) There are only three samples in each group, so the sample size is too small. (2) how do specific bacterial species modulate inflammatory responses?

Hello reviewer, thank you for your comments, (1) we wrote 3 for the 3 animals, but we had 9 mice in each group during the experiment.(2) The content of this part will be explored in the following experiment. Thank you for your advice, which is very helpful to us.

7. This could be your recommendation: (3) Whether these findings could translate into a therapeutic approach for the treatment of radiation-induced diseases in humans deserves further attention.

Hello, reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. We are also thinking about whether suitable natural drugs can be found to target the results of this paper. Your advice is very helpful to us, and we will think about it seriously and explore it in the following work.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor

A potential marker of radiation based on 16S rDNA in the rat model: intestinal flora

PONE-D-22-28249R1

Dear Dr. Yongqi Liu,

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,

Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your positive response to the reviewers' comments, I submitted final decision as accept, but two comments I requested you to revised them in the final document:

1. comment number 4 of reviewer 1, you answer the question but did not add the abbreviation meaning in the article. Kindly add them to the article, this will help readers to follow your methodology.

2. comment number 4 of reviewer 2, you added the percentage but not the counted number. Also, it will be helpful to readers if you add the counted number.

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor

PONE-D-22-28249R1

A potential marker of radiation based on 16S rDNA in the rat model: intestinal flora

Dear Dr. Liu:

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

Professor Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi

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 .