Peer Review History
Original SubmissionOctober 10, 2023 |
---|
PONE-D-23-32985Comparative Analysis of Silver-Nanoparticles and Whey-Encapsulated Particles from Olive Leaf Water Extracts: Characteristics and Biological ActivityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. mansour, 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 Dec 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 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, Marwa Fayed 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. 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. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors Thanks for your interest in our journal. After careful evaluationfor your manuscript by expert reviewers and my own evaluation we came to the decision that your manuscript still need major revision to be suitable for publication. Kindly check the reviwers comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. Best wishes [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 Reviewer #4: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: This is an interesting study and may be considered for the publication after major revision. 1. There are many grammatical errors that need to be fixed 2. PDI, SEM, FTIR- they need to describe method in details and how it was carried out. 3. Cells (100 μL) were inoculated at a density of 1 X 105 cells/ mL into a 96-well tissue culture plate. What was the passage number of cells that were used in the seeding the cells. 4. Figure 4, why control values was not added, please add control value and redraw the figure 5. Figure 1 images are not clear provide better quality images Reviewer #2: Comments to author The current work focuses on the “Comparative Analysis of Silver-Nanoparticles and Whey-Encapsulated Particles from Olive Leaf Water Extracts: Characteristics and Biological Activity” is an interesting study, however major issues should be addressed. 1. Manuscript should be carefully revised for typographical, grammatical errors and long sentences that is difficult to interpret like in abstract. . 2. Add some more background information so that the readers can understand, and finally, summarize your main points. Some related references should be cited: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/14/10/2251 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-9190-4_10 3, what is this maintenance medium. Do you mean vehicle media? Was vehicle media tested separately? 5. Pls explain why annealing is necessary and why haven’t authors annealed the sample? 6. How did author confirm the formation of crystalline NPs? 7. How was inhibitory concentration (IC50) measured ? What was the method? At least a reference should be given on it. 8. It is mentioned” Cells were then examined for 229 physical signs of toxicity, such as partial or complete loss of the monolayer, rounding, 230 shrinkage, or cell granulation “. How do the authors see these things without any aid? 9 The authors are mentioning Real-time PCR “The HCT-116 cell line (as control) and HCT-116 cell lines treated with OLE, OL/Ag-NPs, 245 and OL/WPNs at nontoxic concentrations were subjected to RNA extraction following the 246 instructions of the RNA extraction kit (Qiagen; Hilden, Germany).” What is the purpose of treatment of cancer cells with nontoxic concentration ? rather it should have been a non cancer cells? Plz explain 10. Results and discussion section. This study has involved number of chemical constituents during the processing of nanoparticles; therefore authors need to discuss and compare the importance of this study with the previously reported green synthesis and other nanoparticles of biomedical applications. The English of the manuscript should be polished to remove any typographical and grammatical errors. Reviewer #3: The research executed by the author(s) was good and the results were exhibited well in the manuscript. The segregation of the methodology was written with detailed manner. Even though the author has to revise few comments for the manuscript. 1. In introduction part, write the research gap effectively. 2. Write the significance for the selection of olive plant for this research in- correlation with nanotechnology. 3. Check the complete literature for the work executed earlier by the researchers. 4. The section 2.6 can be merged together. 5. The assessment of phenolics and flavonoids can be written together and given with proper recent references. 6. The cytotoxicity protocol can be minimized and written with reference alone. The detailed explanation is not necessary. 7. Change the sub- heading of section 3 as Results and discussion. 8. The nanoparticle(s) can be denoted as NPs. 9. The line number 312 “SEM of Tofahy and Shemlali OL/WPNs extracts revealed semi-cube particles”- not necessary. The continuation of the SEM discussion can written and then in brackets the figure number can be denoted. 10. In FT- IR the similar results of recent research investigations can be discussed. 11. Check for grammatical errors in few discussion part. Reviewer #4: Comments to the Author In this article, the authors have presented the comparative analysis of silver-nanoparticles and whey-encapsulated particles from olive leaf water extracts and presented their characteristics and biological activity. The idea is interesting, however, some key points should be addressed before its publication in as below. 1. The abstract does not have a conclusion. 2. The important findings of this study need to be highlighted in the abstract. What are the innovations of this study and what makes this study different from similar studies in literature? This should be clarified in the introduction. 3. The section of the Introduction is too short. This section should be modified. More information should be added to show the importance of the study. The authors have to explain the green synthesis of metallic nanoparticles. The authors should mention the extracts containing phytochemicals, authors should further discuss the mechanism of secondary metabolites e.g., the formation of AgNPs as an alternative for chemical and physical approaches and plants as eco-friendly methods for the fabrication of metallic nanoparticles and their superiorities over traditional chemical and physical methods. Include a paragraph to explain. The following references should be cited in this section. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020301 https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217656 https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2022-0052 https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2022-0042 https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2022-0031 https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2021-0067 https://doi.org/10.1515/gps-2020-0025 https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt.2018.5133 4. Why were leaves dried in an oven instead of air drying? 5. in section 2.3 it is mentioned “Olive leaves from different cultivars were”. it would be better to mention “Olive leaves from two cultivars were” as only 2 are included in the study. 6. The author has mentioned that Silver nanoparticles were pellet down through centrifugation then washed three times with d.H2O, dried at 50ºC/24 h, and re-dissolved in d.H2O. Were particles dissolved in water? How? 7. The reason behind the selection of the African green monkey kidney (Vero) and colorectal carcinoma (HCT-116) should be justified. 8 The author should emphasize the novelty of the study. 9. The Olive leaves authentication and voucher number information is missing. How were leaves identified? 10 Exploring the functional groups in extract through Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy below references are useful and should be included a. Trigonella Foenum-Graecum L. Seed Germination Under Sodium Halide Salts Exposure. b. Biochemical and FT-IR profiling of Tritium aestivum L. seedling in response to sodium fluoride treatment. 11. Figure 1 is not clear. The quality of the Figures should be improved. In Figures 3 and 5, include the error bar. 12. Gene expression of Cox1 and TNF-α was only reported from the HCT-116 colorectal cell line why not from the green monkey kidney (Vero)? ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. V. Manon Mani Reviewer #4: 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. |
Revision 1 |
Comparative Analysis of Silver-Nanoparticles and Whey-Encapsulated Particles from Olive Leaf Water Extracts: Characteristics and Biological Activity PONE-D-23-32985R1 Dear Dr. Mansor 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, Marwa Fayed Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thanks for your efforts in revising your manuscript and now it is suitable for publication 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: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #4: 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: 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: 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: The revised manuscript has been improved and all the issues have been addressed in the revised manuscript and may be considered for the publication. Reviewer #2: All the comments have answered satisfactorily except: 5.The authors are mentioning Real-time PCR “The HCT-116 cell line (as control) and HCT-116 cell lines treated with OLE, OL/Ag-NPs, and OL/WPNs at nontoxic concentrations were subjected to RNA extraction following the instructions of the RNA extraction kit (Qiagen; Hilden, Germany).” What is the purpose of treatment of cancer cells with nontoxic concentration ? rather it should have been a non cancer cells? Plz explain: My question was that authors should have have used non cancerous cell line as control as it is one of the important parameter to take drug further for applicability. Reviewer #4: Author has addressed all the comments raised by reviewer . Manuscript is acceptable for publication. ********** 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: Yes: Firdos Alam Khan Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Suriya Rehman Reviewer #4: No ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-23-32985R1 Comparative Analysis of Silver-Nanoparticles and Whey-Encapsulated Particles from Olive Leaf Water Extracts: Characteristics and Biological Activity Dear Dr. Mansour: 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 customercare@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. Marwa Fayed 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 .