PONE-D-23-08082Effects of dietary aromatase inhibitors on masculinization of Rosy Barb, Pethia conchonius: evidences from the growth, coloration, gonado-physiological changesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Singh,

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 May 13 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

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.

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 (if provided):

The authors have attempted and rightly put the things in right way. However I recommend to revise the discussion and conclusion section and also whole MS for language and phrases mistakes and other shortfalls.

[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: No

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: This study shows the role of two aromatase inhibitors,17-methyltestosterone (MT) and letrozole, in enhancing reproduction, growth, coloration and physiological profile changes. I tried to connect the work to previous reports and noticed that many work on MT have been reported, whereas the second AI, letrozole, is a new entrant in fish studies. The work's novelty, in which gel-based diets are introduced as a delivery vehicle, is applauded. Earlier studies on

physiological consequences and coloration were also not well defined, as attempted in this work.

I reviewed the work presented and believe that it can be published after careful refinement of the

technical parameters and writing as detailed point by point as possible.

Title: "Effects of dietary aromatase inhibitors on Rosy Barb, Pethia conchonius, masculinization:

evidence from growth, coloration, and gonado-physiological changes."

Line 34, "for 90 days," can be removed.

Lines 39-42: Rewrite the sentence.

Introduction

Aromatase inhibitors' second mention in this section and elsewhere may be abbreviated.

Lines 83-93 may include recent reports on the use of gels in fish feed.

Materials and procedures:

Known units can be written in abbreviated form. Hours, for example, can be written as hr.

Line 207: Include a reference.

Section 2.9: Magnification is required.

Statistical evaluation: Were the results normalized? Mention the methods that were used.

Results:

P values can be written in a consistent manner. It has been noticed that it is written as "P" and

"p" in many places.

Discussion

The discussion is quite detailed. To explain the current finding, the authors must concentrate

solely on related works. To strengthen the findings, delete any redundant sentences in this

section. Rather than indicating and comparing with previous studies, present the most likely

reasons why this occurred. The use of words like "mild" is highly unscientific. Change all such

instances. Section 4.4 is quite lengthy. Try to condense this section because it deviates

significantly from the original work. The same is true for Section 4.5. The authors must also

explain why the gel-based diet was superior to previous studies. This serves as the foundation

and highlights the work's uniqueness. The conclusion could be improved. Present what you have,

the gaps that have been identified, and how future research can be used to fill them.

Rest is fine, and I strongly urge the authors to carefully amend the manuscript based on the

suggestions above, as the work has enormous potential for furthering research in the field of AI

use in feed for improved reproduction and growth.

Reviewer #2: • Research topic is highly recommended for publishing with standard english writing. The whole manuscript is to be rechecked for grammatical errors.

• Growth and coloration of fishes are very much influenced by tank dimensions and light availability. Authors are advised to mention the type of tanks used during the experiments and the light arrangement in the experimental aquarium.

• Explanations may be incorporated for the selection of particular doses of letrozole (LET) during the current experiment.

• The nutritional composition of feed used during the current experiment needs to be incorporated to substantiate the unique proposal of gel feed for fishes.

• The following paragraphs need to be revised for grammar corrections and for better clarity about the topics

• 253- 254- How minimum mortality can be 82.22 % ?

• 229 to 234 – Grammatical corrections with clear descriptions are needed.

• 281-291 - Rewrite the sentence.

• 297-301- Grammatical corrections are required.

• The discussion part is poorly written and needs revision. The following sentences are lacking in meaning.

• 310-313

• 365-374

• 379-428

Conclusion to be amended for impressive illustrations of experiment.

**********

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: Dr. Veerendra Singh

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Effects of dietary aromatase inhibitors on Rosy Barb, Pethia conchonius, masculinization: evidence from growth, coloration, and gonado-physiological changes

PONE-D-23-08082R1

Dear Dr. Singh

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,

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The article is recommended for acceptance for publication.

Reviewers' comments: