https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9278-1534
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 23, 2023 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-02023The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Rabbits BucksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, 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. ============================== Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment 1- Please authors do make data available. 2- The title of the manuscript does not express the goal of the experiment well. It is suggested that the address (The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on semen quality for Rabbits Bucks(. 3- The abstract needs to write a one or two line at most explaining the economic importance of this research (the negative effect of heat stress on fertility and the decline in semen quality). 4- The Material and methods need write in more detail (environment, managerial and hygienic conditions for rabbits during the experiment). 5- Experimental design need write more clearly. 6- The results in general need more deep discussion. 7- Clarification of the economic importance and the economic and environmental return of this experiment in all parts of the manuscript (summary, introduction, discussion of results and conclusion will strengthen the manuscript and clarify the goal of the experiment. Reviewer1 The part of Materials and methods needs more clarification about design, were the all groups reared in the same building? cages type and dimensions, type of building, the period of the year you performed the experiment, have you treated all groups (except control) to heat stress treatment?. Reviewer2 The manuscript represents a thorough and detailed research conducted by the researchers. Its highly commendable, though few grammatical errors were cited. If effected and published, it will stimulate readership. It also address a global challenge of mitigating adverse effects of global warming. Reviewer3 Title needs modification. It’s not clear what the authors wanted study; a) Does they wanted to study effect of spirulina on HS and nano Selenium on HS alone or in combination? b) If authors wish to study the interaction then why there is not combination supplementation in the positive control group (non-heat stress exposed group). c) How the combination will be better than the individual ones? The experimental design is not correct. Introduction The authors failed to highlight the need for study or impact of heat stress on the semen/reproductive performance in bucks. Authors further failed to explain why spirulina and nano Se has been selected for the study? As there is various polyphenolic compounds and nano forms of other minerals (Zn, Cr); why these nutrients or additives has been not used in the study? Why combination study is needed? Materials and methods What is the selenium content in the CPD? What is the NRC recommended level of Selenium in rabbit diets? What is the duration of supplementation or experiment period? How semen physical quality was assessed? Was manual method or CASA was used? The authors did not presented/exhibited the heat stress in bucks by exposing to cyclic HS. No information about feed consumption since, the HS first affects the intake. No data on feed consumption, body weight change or water intake as indicator of HS induction in bucks. The results seems contradictors as HS could results in haemo-concentration then the blood parameters should be increased in negative control group compared to the TNZ or positive control. No discussion about the blood parameters were presented. Why post-thaw semen quality was assessed? How HS is correlated with post-thaw semen quality? Discussion is not clear and supplementing the findings. Needs major improvement. The authors failed to explain the synergism between the spirulina and Se. The manuscript needs major revision before considering for further processing. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 30 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:
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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, 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 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. Please make sure that all information entered in the 'Ethics Statement' section regarding ethics approval is also included in the Methods section of the manuscript. 4. 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. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment 1- Please authors do make data available. 2- The title of the manuscript does not express the goal of the experiment well. It is suggested that the address (The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on semen quality for Rabbits Bucks(. 3- The abstract needs to write a one or two line at most explaining the economic importance of this research (the negative effect of heat stress on fertility and the decline in semen quality). 4- The Material and methods need write in more detail (environment, managerial and hygienic conditions for rabbits during the experiment). 5- Experimental design need write more clearly. 6- The results in general need more deep discussion. 7- Clarification of the economic importance and the economic and environmental return of this experiment in all parts of the manuscript (summary, introduction, discussion of results and conclusion will strengthen the manuscript and clarify the goal of the experiment. Reviewer1 The part of Materials and methods needs more clarification about design, were the all groups reared in the same building? cages type and dimensions, type of building, the period of the year you performed the experiment, have you treated all groups (except control) to heat stress treatment?. Reviewer2 The manuscript represents a thorough and detailed research conducted by the researchers. Its highly commendable, though few grammatical errors were cited. If effected and published, it will stimulate readership. It also address a global challenge of mitigating adverse effects of global warming. Reviewer3 Title needs modification. It’s not clear what the authors wanted study; a) Does they wanted to study effect of spirulina on HS and nano Selenium on HS alone or in combination? b) If authors wish to study the interaction then why there is not combination supplementation in the positive control group (non-heat stress exposed group). c) How the combination will be better than the individual ones? The experimental design is not correct. Introduction The authors failed to highlight the need for study or impact of heat stress on the semen/reproductive performance in bucks. Authors further failed to explain why spirulina and nano Se has been selected for the study? As there is various polyphenolic compounds and nano forms of other minerals (Zn, Cr); why these nutrients or additives has been not used in the study? Why combination study is needed? Materials and methods What is the selenium content in the CPD? What is the NRC recommended level of Selenium in rabbit diets? What is the duration of supplementation or experiment period? How semen physical quality was assessed? Was manual method or CASA was used? The authors did not presented/exhibited the heat stress in bucks by exposing to cyclic HS. No information about feed consumption since, the HS first affects the intake. No data on feed consumption, body weight change or water intake as indicator of HS induction in bucks. The results seems contradictors as HS could results in haemo-concentration then the blood parameters should be increased in negative control group compared to the TNZ or positive control. No discussion about the blood parameters were presented. Why post-thaw semen quality was assessed? How HS is correlated with post-thaw semen quality? Discussion is not clear and supplementing the findings. Needs major improvement. The authors failed to explain the synergism between the spirulina and Se. The manuscript needs major revision before considering for further processing. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 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: The part of Materials and methods needs more clarification about design, were the all groups reared in the same building? cages type and dimensions, type of building, the period of the year you performed the experiment, have you treated all groups (except control) to heat stress treatment? Reviewer #2: The manuscript represents a thorough and detailed research conducted by the researchers. Its highly commendable, though few grammatical errors were cited. If effected and published, it will stimulate readership. It also address a global challenge of mitigating adverse effects of global warming. Reviewer #3: find in the attachment. Title needs modification. It’s not clear what the authors wanted study; a) Does they wanted to study effect of spirulina on HS and nano Selenium on HS alone or in combination? b) If authors wish to study the interaction then why there is not combination supplementation in the positive control group (non-heat stress exposed group). c) How the combination will be better than the individual ones? The experimental design is not correct. Introduction The authors failed to highlight the need for study or impact of heat stress on the semen/reproductive performance in bucks. Authors further failed to explain why spirulina and nano Se has been selected for the study? As there is various polyphenolic compounds and nano forms of other minerals (Zn, Cr); why these nutrients or additives has been not used in the study? Why combination study is needed? Materials and methods What is the selenium content in the CPD? What is the NRC recommended level of Selenium in rabbit diets? What is the duration of supplementation or experiment period? How semen physical quality was assessed? Was manual method or CASA was used? The authors did not presented/exhibited the heat stress in bucks by exposing to cyclic HS. No information about feed consumption since, the HS first affects the intake. No data on feed consumption, body weight change or water intake as indicator of HS induction in bucks. The results seems contradictors as HS could results in haemo-concentration then the blood parameters should be increased in negative control group compared to the TNZ or positive control. No discussion about the blood parameters were presented. Why post-thaw semen quality was assessed? How HS is correlated with post-thaw semen quality? Discussion is not clear and supplementing the findings. Needs major improvement. The authors failed to explain the synergism between the spirulina and Se. The manuscript needs major revision before considering for further processing. ********** 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: Yes: Dr Jimoh Olatunji Abubakar Reviewer #3: Yes: Marappan Gopi ********** [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-23-02023R1The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits BucksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. El Basuini, 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment I found your manuscript interesting and fit the journal scope. It has also improved well after the first revision round, but there are still some revisions that need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Please make the modifications requested by the reviewers shown below Reviewer 4 Dear Authors, I found your MS interesting and fit the journal scope. It has also improved well after the first revision round, but there are still some revisions need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Introduction: There are some important recent related references that can be added as a background to support your introduction such as: - Effect of selenium nanoparticles and/or Spirulina Platensis on growth, hematobiochemical, antioxidant status, hormonal profile, immunity, and apoptosis of growing rabbits exposed to thermal stress. - Impacts of selenium nanoparticles and spirulina alga to alleviate the deleterious effects of heat stress on reproductive efficiency, oxidative capacity, and immunity of doe rabbits. - Zinc and/or Selenium enriched Spirulina as antioxidants in growing rabbit diets to alleviate the deleterious impacts of heat stress during summer season. - Effect of rearing system and season on behavior, productive performance and carcass quality of rabbit: a review. L.49: “[2-5]”: How you started your references' sequence with number 2! L.58: Change “Also” to “Additionally”. L.60: “ROS”: Define it (expand) as it is mentioned for the first time in your text. L.63: “8–11”: Please, add the following reference to support your statement: - Effect of bee venom on reproductive performance and immune response of male rabbits. L.72: “so”: Add “therefore,” instead. L.410-414: Try to go deeper in the scientific explanation. You can also refer to my suggested reference titles mentioned for the introduction to enrich your discussion as a general. L.416: “[7]”: Please, add the following related references to support your current statement and your conclusion (as you mentioned "artificial insemination under heat stress"): - Soliman, F. and El-Sabrout, K. (2020). Artificial insemination in rabbits: Factors that interfere in assessing its results. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology, 8, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.20016 - Elkomy, A.; El-Hanoun, A.; Abdella, M.; El-Sabrout, K. Improving the reproductive, immunity and health status of rabbit does using honey bee venom. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13552 Reviewer 5 Manuscript title: The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Rabbits Bucks The manuscript addresses a novel and vital topic for researchers, breeders, and others interested in the field. However, the following comments, inquiries, and suggestions may help improve the manuscript's quality. 1- How do you judge that the conditions in the positive group are thermal-neutral? 2- The hypothesis is not clear in the introduction. (See the comment (P:2) of the comments L:82-83). 3- I recommend calculating the change caused by the combination of Spirulina (SP) and two levels of selenium nanoparticles (SP-SeNPs) in a new table. - Values that have already exceeded the average value = SP value + SP-SeNPs value/2 are placed. Keeping in mind that only the superior values are placed in the new table, and the values that are placed have a positive meaning, regardless of whether the values are + or -. - Reference should be made to the new table which you will do with the results and discussion to clarify the meaning of the synergy between the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs. - Indicate which of the two levels is the best or both according to the results in the new table and refer to this in the abstract and in the conclusion - To obtain the change % in the following 1- Calculating the average value of the (SP + SP-SeNPs). 2- Calculating the value of the change in the value when the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs in both the two levels; The change = recorded value - (1). 3- Calculate the change as a percentage; Change % = (2) / (1) X 100. Line:28, 112 ……in the 1st group Comment: a superscript letter Line 57-58:….. Comment: It is necessary to specify the type of change that occurred, whether by increase or decrease, rather than writing a change in general. In addition to I attached the comments ============================= Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 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:
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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr. El Basuini, 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment I found your manuscript interesting and fit the journal scope. It has also improved well after the first revision round, but there are still some revisions that need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Please make the modifications requested by the reviewers shown below Reviewer 4 Dear Authors, I found your MS interesting and fit the journal scope. It has also improved well after the first revision round, but there are still some revisions need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Introduction: There are some important recent related references that can be added as a background to support your introduction such as: - Effect of selenium nanoparticles and/or Spirulina Platensis on growth, hematobiochemical, antioxidant status, hormonal profile, immunity, and apoptosis of growing rabbits exposed to thermal stress. - Impacts of selenium nanoparticles and spirulina alga to alleviate the deleterious effects of heat stress on reproductive efficiency, oxidative capacity, and immunity of doe rabbits. - Zinc and/or Selenium enriched Spirulina as antioxidants in growing rabbit diets to alleviate the deleterious impacts of heat stress during summer season. - Effect of rearing system and season on behavior, productive performance and carcass quality of rabbit: a review. L.49: “[2-5]”: How you started your references' sequence with number 2! L.58: Change “Also” to “Additionally”. L.60: “ROS”: Define it (expand) as it is mentioned for the first time in your text. L.63: “8–11”: Please, add the following reference to support your statement: - Effect of bee venom on reproductive performance and immune response of male rabbits. L.72: “so”: Add “therefore,” instead. L.410-414: Try to go deeper in the scientific explanation. You can also refer to my suggested reference titles mentioned for the introduction to enrich your discussion as a general. L.416: “[7]”: Please, add the following related references to support your current statement and your conclusion (as you mentioned "artificial insemination under heat stress"): - Soliman, F. and El-Sabrout, K. (2020). Artificial insemination in rabbits: Factors that interfere in assessing its results. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology, 8, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.20016 - Elkomy, A.; El-Hanoun, A.; Abdella, M.; El-Sabrout, K. Improving the reproductive, immunity and health status of rabbit does using honey bee venom. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13552 Reviewer 5 Manuscript title: The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Rabbits Bucks The manuscript addresses a novel and vital topic for researchers, breeders, and others interested in the field. However, the following comments, inquiries, and suggestions may help improve the manuscript's quality. 1- How do you judge that the conditions in the positive group are thermal-neutral? 2- The hypothesis is not clear in the introduction. (See the comment (P:2) of the comments L:82-83). 3- I recommend calculating the change caused by the combination of Spirulina (SP) and two levels of selenium nanoparticles (SP-SeNPs) in a new table. - Values that have already exceeded the average value = SP value + SP-SeNPs value/2 are placed. Keeping in mind that only the superior values are placed in the new table, and the values that are placed have a positive meaning, regardless of whether the values are + or -. - Reference should be made to the new table which you will do with the results and discussion to clarify the meaning of the synergy between the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs. - Indicate which of the two levels is the best or both according to the results in the new table and refer to this in the abstract and in the conclusion - To obtain the change % in the following 1- Calculating the average value of the (SP + SP-SeNPs). 2- Calculating the value of the change in the value when the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs in both the two levels; The change = recorded value - (1). 3- Calculate the change as a percentage; Change % = (2) / (1) X 100. Line:28, 112 ……in the 1st group Comment: a superscript letter Line 57-58:….. Comment: It is necessary to specify the type of change that occurred, whether by increase or decrease, rather than writing a change in general. In addition to I attached the comments [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 #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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 #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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 #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Dear Authors, I found your MS interesting and fit the journal scope. It has also improved well after the first revision round, but there are still some revisions need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Introduction: There are some important recent related references that can be added as a background to support your introduction such as: - Effect of selenium nanoparticles and/or Spirulina Platensis on growth, hematobiochemical, antioxidant status, hormonal profile, immunity, and apoptosis of growing rabbits exposed to thermal stress. - Impacts of selenium nanoparticles and spirulina alga to alleviate the deleterious effects of heat stress on reproductive efficiency, oxidative capacity, and immunity of doe rabbits. - Zinc and/or Selenium enriched Spirulina as antioxidants in growing rabbit diets to alleviate the deleterious impacts of heat stress during summer season. - Effect of rearing system and season on behavior, productive performance and carcass quality of rabbit: a review. L.49: “[2-5]”: How you started your references' sequence with number 2! L.58: Change “Also” to “Additionally”. L.60: “ROS”: Define it (expand) as it is mentioned for the first time in your text. L.63: “8–11”: Please, add the following reference to support your statement: - Effect of bee venom on reproductive performance and immune response of male rabbits. L.72: “so”: Add “therefore,” instead. L.410-414: Try to go deeper in the scientific explanation. You can also refer to my suggested reference titles mentioned for the introduction to enrich your discussion as a general. L.416: “[7]”: Please, add the following related references to support your current statement and your conclusion (as you mentioned "artificial insemination under heat stress"): - Soliman, F. and El-Sabrout, K. (2020). Artificial insemination in rabbits: Factors that interfere in assessing its results. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology, 8, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.20016 - Elkomy, A.; El-Hanoun, A.; Abdella, M.; El-Sabrout, K. Improving the reproductive, immunity and health status of rabbit does using honey bee venom. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13552 Reviewer #5: Manuscript title: The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Rabbits Bucks The manuscript addresses a novel and vital topic for researchers, breeders, and others interested in the field. However, the following comments, inquiries, and suggestions may help improve the manuscript's quality. 1- How do you judge that the conditions in the positive group are thermal-neutral? 2- The hypothesis is not clear in the introduction. (See the comment (P:2) of the comments L:82-83). 3- I recommend calculating the change caused by the combination of Spirulina (SP) and two levels of selenium nanoparticles (SP-SeNPs) in a new table. - Values that have already exceeded the average value = SP value + SP-SeNPs value/2 are placed. Keeping in mind that only the superior values are placed in the new table, and the values that are placed have a positive meaning, regardless of whether the values are + or -. - Reference should be made to the new table which you will do with the results and discussion to clarify the meaning of the synergy between the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs. - Indicate which of the two levels is the best or both according to the results in the new table and refer to this in the abstract and in the conclusion - To obtain the change % in the following 1- Calculating the average value of the (SP + SP-SeNPs). 2- Calculating the value of the change in the value when the combination of SP and SP-SeNPs in both the two levels; The change = recorded value - (1). 3- Calculate the change as a percentage; Change % = (2) / (1) X 100. Line:28, 112 ……in the 1st group Comment: a superscript letter Line 57-58:….. Comment: It is necessary to specify the type of change that occurred, whether by increase or decrease, rather than writing a change in general. In addition to I attached the comments ********** 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Abdelazeem S. Abdelazeem ********** [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 |
|
PONE-D-23-02023R2The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits BucksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. El Basuini, 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. ============================== Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Minor Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment I found your manuscript interesting and fit the journal's scope. It has also improved well after the second revision round, but there are still some revisions that need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Please make the modifications requested by the reviewers shown below (Reviewers, 2 and 6) Reviewer 1 Regarding the manuscript entitled "The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits Bucks" Abstract: Heat stress has a detrimental effect on animal fertility, particularly testicular functions, including reduced sperm output and quality, which causes an economic loss in the production of rabbits. The present trial investigated the efficacy of dietary Spirulina (SP) (Arthrospira platensis), selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs), and their combination (SP-SeNPs) on semen quality, haemato-biochemical, oxidative stress, immunity, and sperm quality of heat-stressed (HS) rabbit bucks. Sixty mature bucks (APRI line) were distributed into 6 groups of ten replicates under controlled conditions. Bucks in the 1st group (control-NC) were kept under normal conditions (11-22 oC; 40 - 45% RH% = relative humidity), while the 2nd group (control-HS) was kept under heat stress conditions (32±0.50 °C; 60-66% RH %). The control groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet and the other four heat-stressed groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet with 1 g SP, 25 mg SeNPs, 1 g SP+25 mg SeNPs, and 1 g SP+50 mg SeNPs per kg diet, respectively. The dietary inclusion of SP, SeNPs, and their combinations significantly increased hemoglobin, platelets, total serum protein, high-density lipoproteins, glutathione, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, and seminal plasma testosterone while decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, urea, creatinine, and malondialdehyde compared with the control-HS. Red blood cells, packed cell volume, serum albumin, and testosterone significantly increased, while SeNPs, SP+SeNPs25, and SP+SeNPs50 significantly decreased low-density lipoproteins, aspartate, and alanine amino transferees. Total antioxidant capacity substantially increased in serum and seminal plasma, while seminal plasma malondialdehyde decreased in 25 or 50 mg of SeNPs+SP/kg groups. All supplements significantly improved libido, sperm livability, concentration, intact acrosome, membrane integrity, total output in fresh semen, and sperm quality in cryopreserved semen. SP-SeNPs50 had higher synergistic effect than SP-SeNPs25 on most different variables studied. In conclusion, the dietary inclusion of SP plus SeNPs50 has a synergistic effect and is considered a suitable dietary supplement for improving reproductive efficiency, health, oxidative stress, and immunity of bucks in the breeding strategy under hot climates. all comments have been addressed in the revised version nu authors. Reviewer 2 All comments have been addressed Please look the attached file Reviewer 4 Dear Authors, I am pleased to inform you that I accepted your manuscript in the current form. Regards Reviewer 5 All of my suggestions were incorporated into the revised manuscript. Reviewer 6 The following corrections need to be made: Line 74….Se is a crucial component in …….Comment:… The Se is a crucial component in Response: Corrected as requested. Kindly check line 87. My comment: Above correction was not done Line 82-83: SeNPs and/or Spirulina (SP) were incorporated to mitigate the negative impacts on the heat-stressed growing rabbit by improving the antioxidant status. Comment: Rewrite this sentence to be the research hypothesis. Response: Done as requested. Kindly check lines 101-103. My comment: L 98-99: The phrase “may affect the performance of male rabbits” is too general. Will the effect be positive or negative? What kind of performance in male rabbits will be affected? ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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:
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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Minor Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment I found your manuscript interesting and fit the journal's scope. It has also improved well after the second revision round, but there are still some revisions that need to be fixed before accepting this paper. Please make the modifications requested by the reviewers shown below (Reviewers, 2 and 6) Reviewer 1 Regarding the manuscript entitled "The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits Bucks" Abstract: Heat stress has a detrimental effect on animal fertility, particularly testicular functions, including reduced sperm output and quality, which causes an economic loss in the production of rabbits. The present trial investigated the efficacy of dietary Spirulina (SP) (Arthrospira platensis), selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs), and their combination (SP-SeNPs) on semen quality, haemato-biochemical, oxidative stress, immunity, and sperm quality of heat-stressed (HS) rabbit bucks. Sixty mature bucks (APRI line) were distributed into 6 groups of ten replicates under controlled conditions. Bucks in the 1st group (control-NC) were kept under normal conditions (11-22 oC; 40 - 45% RH% = relative humidity), while the 2nd group (control-HS) was kept under heat stress conditions (32±0.50 °C; 60-66% RH %). The control groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet and the other four heat-stressed groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet with 1 g SP, 25 mg SeNPs, 1 g SP+25 mg SeNPs, and 1 g SP+50 mg SeNPs per kg diet, respectively. The dietary inclusion of SP, SeNPs, and their combinations significantly increased hemoglobin, platelets, total serum protein, high-density lipoproteins, glutathione, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, and seminal plasma testosterone while decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, urea, creatinine, and malondialdehyde compared with the control-HS. Red blood cells, packed cell volume, serum albumin, and testosterone significantly increased, while SeNPs, SP+SeNPs25, and SP+SeNPs50 significantly decreased low-density lipoproteins, aspartate, and alanine amino transferees. Total antioxidant capacity substantially increased in serum and seminal plasma, while seminal plasma malondialdehyde decreased in 25 or 50 mg of SeNPs+SP/kg groups. All supplements significantly improved libido, sperm livability, concentration, intact acrosome, membrane integrity, total output in fresh semen, and sperm quality in cryopreserved semen. SP-SeNPs50 had higher synergistic effect than SP-SeNPs25 on most different variables studied. In conclusion, the dietary inclusion of SP plus SeNPs50 has a synergistic effect and is considered a suitable dietary supplement for improving reproductive efficiency, health, oxidative stress, and immunity of bucks in the breeding strategy under hot climates. all comments have been addressed in the revised version nu authors. Reviewer 2 All comments have been addressed Please look the attached file Reviewer 4 Dear Authors, I am pleased to inform you that I accepted your manuscript in the current form. Regards Reviewer 5 All of my suggestions were incorporated into the revised manuscript. Reviewer 6 The following corrections need to be made: Line 74….Se is a crucial component in …….Comment:… The Se is a crucial component in Response: Corrected as requested. Kindly check line 87. My comment: Above correction was not done Line 82-83: SeNPs and/or Spirulina (SP) were incorporated to mitigate the negative impacts on the heat-stressed growing rabbit by improving the antioxidant status. Comment: Rewrite this sentence to be the research hypothesis. Response: Done as requested. Kindly check lines 101-103. My comment: L 98-99: The phrase “may affect the performance of male rabbits” is too general. Will the effect be positive or negative? What kind of performance in male rabbits will be affected? [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #6: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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: Regarding the manuscript entitled "The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits Bucks" Abstract: Heat stress has a detrimental effect on animal fertility, particularly testicular functions, including reduced sperm output and quality, which causes an economic loss in the production of rabbits. The present trial investigated the efficacy of dietary Spirulina (SP) (Arthrospira platensis), selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs), and their combination (SP-SeNPs) on semen quality, haemato-biochemical, oxidative stress, immunity, and sperm quality of heat-stressed (HS) rabbit bucks. Sixty mature bucks (APRI line) were distributed into 6 groups of ten replicates under controlled conditions. Bucks in the 1st group (control-NC) were kept under normal conditions (11-22 oC; 40 - 45% RH% = relative humidity), while the 2nd group (control-HS) was kept under heat stress conditions (32±0.50 °C; 60-66% RH %). The control groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet and the other four heat-stressed groups were fed a commercial pelleted diet with 1 g SP, 25 mg SeNPs, 1 g SP+25 mg SeNPs, and 1 g SP+50 mg SeNPs per kg diet, respectively. The dietary inclusion of SP, SeNPs, and their combinations significantly increased hemoglobin, platelets, total serum protein, high-density lipoproteins, glutathione, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, and seminal plasma testosterone while decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, urea, creatinine, and malondialdehyde compared with the control-HS. Red blood cells, packed cell volume, serum albumin, and testosterone significantly increased, while SeNPs, SP+SeNPs25, and SP+SeNPs50 significantly decreased low-density lipoproteins, aspartate, and alanine amino transferees. Total antioxidant capacity substantially increased in serum and seminal plasma, while seminal plasma malondialdehyde decreased in 25 or 50 mg of SeNPs+SP/kg groups. All supplements significantly improved libido, sperm livability, concentration, intact acrosome, membrane integrity, total output in fresh semen, and sperm quality in cryopreserved semen. SP-SeNPs50 had higher synergistic effect than SP-SeNPs25 on most different variables studied. In conclusion, the dietary inclusion of SP plus SeNPs50 has a synergistic effect and is considered a suitable dietary supplement for improving reproductive efficiency, health, oxidative stress, and immunity of bucks in the breeding strategy under hot climates. all comments have been addressed in the revised version nu authors. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Dear Authors, I am pleased to inform you that I accepted your manuscript in the current form. Regards Reviewer #5: All of my suggestions were incorporated into the revised manuscript. Reviewer #6: The following corrections need to be made: Line 74….Se is a crucial component in …….Comment:… The Se is a crucial component in Response: Corrected as requested. Kindly check line 87. My comment: Above correction was not done Line 82-83: SeNPs and/or Spirulina (SP) were incorporated to mitigate the negative impacts on the heat-stressed growing rabbit by improving the antioxidant status. Comment: Rewrite this sentence to be the research hypothesis. Response: Done as requested. Kindly check lines 101-103. My comment: L 98-99: The phrase “may affect the performance of male rabbits” is too general. Will the effect be positive or negative? What kind of performance in male rabbits will be affected? ********** 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 Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Abdelazeem Sayed Abdelazeem Reviewer #6: Yes: Kwaku Adomako ********** [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 3 |
|
PONE-D-23-02023R3The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on Semen Quality of Rabbits BucksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. El Basuini, 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. ============================== Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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.<o:p></o:p> Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Minor Revision.<o:p></o:p> Kind regards,<o:p></o:p> Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p> Academic Editor<o:p></o:p> PLOS ONE<o:p></o:p> Editor Comment<o:p></o:p> Must be make the modifications requested by the reviewer 2.<o:p></o:p> Please look the attached file and make all modified required. <o:p></o:p> Reviewer 1<o:p></o:p> All comments have been addressed<o:p></o:p> Reviewer 2<o:p></o:p> The authors did not address comments and review suggestions from my earlier review. i cannot suggest the publications of this manuscript in its current form.<o:p></o:p> ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 06 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:
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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr., Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Minor Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Editor Comment Must be make the modifications requested by the reviewer 2. Please look the attached file and make all modified required. Reviewer 1 All comments have been addressed Reviewer 2 The authors did not address comments and review suggestions from my earlier review. i cannot suggest the publications of this manuscript in its current form. [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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #6: 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #6: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #6: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #2: No Reviewer #6: 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 #2: The authors did not address comments and review suggestions from my earlier review. i cannot suggest the publications of this manuscript in its current form. Reviewer #6: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes: Dr Jimoh Olatunji Abubakar Reviewer #6: Yes: Kwaku Adomako ********** [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 4 |
|
The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on the Physiology of Rabbits Bucks PONE-D-23-02023R4 Dear Dr. Mohammed Fouad El Basuini 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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): That manuscript was reviewed by 4 reviewers. Three reviewers gave accept for publication, and now the reviewer 4 has given Accept 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 #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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: The manuscript has been squarely improved. however, little amendments are required as poited out in the reviewed file ********** 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 #2: Yes: Dr Jimoh Olatunji Abubakar ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-02023R4 The Synergistic Impact of Spirulina and Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigates the Adverse Effects of Heat Stress on the Physiology of Rabbits Bucks Dear Dr. El Basuini: 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 Prof. Dr. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan 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 .