PONE-D-23-13386Acute thermal stress increased enzyme activity and muscle energy distribution of yellowfin tunaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ma,

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 Jul 28 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,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

  "FUNDING

This work was supported by Hainan Major Science and Technology Project 

(ZDKJ2021011); Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund, 

CAFS (2020TD55); Central Public-Interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund 

South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, CAFS (2021SD09); the Project of 

Sanya Yazhou Bay Science and Technology City (SKJC-2022-PTDX-015)."

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This work was supported by Hainan Major Science and Technology Project (ZDKJ2021011); Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund, CAFS (2020TD55); Central Public-Interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, CAFS (2021SD09); the Project of Sanya Yazhou Bay Science and Technology City (SKJC-2022-PTDX-015)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

6. 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:

I recommend using the following paragraph at the beginning of this section:

Aquaculture has become one of the most viable strategies to extend depleted aquatic and endangered species and terminate the gap between supply and demand for aquatic seafood [1–3]. Aquaculture productivity is altered by several interconnected aspects, including the aquatic environment, diet, and the farmed stock [4–6]. Boosting these aspects is the base of sustainable aquaculture [7].

1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2022.03.014

2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172219

3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101460

4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32507794/

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32001349/

6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32173664/

7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101373

[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 experiment was well designed and the paper is very information. The significant and application of the study quite lucid. The following comments should however be noted for minor revision:

1. A sentence or two describing methodology should be inserted in the Abstract

2. Line 107- the intestines, pancreas, liver and blood were removed (not are removed from the fish).

3. Bulk of the discussion is a recapitulation of the results and methodology. Discussion should be majorly interpretation of results and inferences!

4. Why is cell division phase (prophase ) brought in here?

5. Lates calcarifer being a species should be italicised, also Pelodiscus sinensis and Pelodiscus sinensi.

6. Chlamys Farreri should be written in italics-Chlamys ferreri, Gasterosteus aculeatus

7. In this study, intestinal amylase activity in the high temperature group decreased significantly over time and was lower than that in the control group, which was the same as the result of this study, trypsin increased significantly- recast this statement.

Reviewer #2: This article entitled “Acute thermal stress increased enzyme activity and muscle energy distribution of yellowfin tuna” by Liu et al. is focused on impact of heat stress on enzyme activity of yellowfin tuna. Heat is a powerful stressor for fish living in natural and artificial environments. Understanding the effects of heat stress on the physiological processes of fish is essential for better aquaculture and fisheries management. The 24 h experiment was conducted to study the changes in cellular energy allocation (CEA) and energy metabolism-related enzyme activities of juvenile yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) under acute temperature stress, which significantly reduced energy reserve (Ea) in muscle from 2 °C/h to high temperature (34 °C) from control (28 °C). It also increases energy expenditure (ETS). At 6 h, CEA decreased slightly in the high-temperature group, but, the difference in CEA between 24 h and 0 h decreased. After heat stress for 6 h, the activities of acid phosphatase (ACP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and glutamic oxalacetic transaminase (AST) increased, indicating that the metabolic rate was accelerated. After heat stress for 24 h, the activity of ALT decreased, indicating that with time elapsed, the activities of some protein metabolizing enzymes increased, and some decreased. In this study, digestive enzymes, trypsin and lipase increased gradually. After heat stress, Ea and Ec change significantly. Yellowfin tuna muscles use lipids in response to sharp temperature increases at high temperatures, red muscles respond to temperature changes by increasing energy in the early stages, but not nearly as much, and white muscles reduce lipids.

Overall, the article is very well written and describes all the important aspects comprehensively.

However, I have some suggestions:

1. Please explain the reason of selecting 0, 6 and 24 hours for data collection, and why not 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours.

2. Please explain the importance of trypsin, amylase and lipase etc. in the introductory part

3. Line 192: Figure 1, Please properly abbreviate the “LT group”

4. Line 192: Figure 1, Why the results vary at 0 hour between the LT and HT groups? Please explain properly at what time exactly you recorded the data in minutes for 0 hour.

5. Explain why the amylase activity was lower as compared to other enzymes after 24 hours.

6. Figure 2: why there is huge difference among the enzymatic activity of different enzymes in liver. Please explain it properly in the results section. Why lactase dehydrogenase activity is higher than the rest?

7. Please correct the title of Figure 3 (L) as White muscle CEA. It would be better if you arrange the graphs A-D for red muscles, E-H as White muscles.

Reviewer #3: The paper is well written and adds to existing literature on the subject. The introduction is well composed and has been developed on the right lines. Most appropriate methodology has been used for analysis of data and information. The results have been reported well. Logical sequence of interpretation has been followed and developed scientifically. The discussion has been well brought out and the cogency of arguments are well thought out. The discussion is comprehensive and complete. References are as required. May be accepted for publication

**********

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: Professor Daniel Ama-Abasi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Muhammad Adnan

Reviewer #3: 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.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Acute thermal stress increased enzyme activity and muscle energy distribution of yellowfin tuna

PONE-D-23-13386R1

Dear Dr. Ma,

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,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We’re delighted to let you know your manuscript has now been accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. The authors have made a reasonable and adequate revision to the manuscript. As such, we can accept your manuscript for publication. Congratulations

Reviewers' comments:

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>