Protective effect of sucrose esters from cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in TNBS-induced colitis

Yanet C. Ocampo; Jenny P. Castro; Indira B. Pájaro; Daneiva Caro; Elena Talero; Virginia Motilva; Luis A. Franco

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299687

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 6, 2023
6 Oct 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editorial Board with annexes.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299687.r001
19 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Mathilde Body-Malapel, Editor PONE-D-23-23074Protective effect of sucrose esters from Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in TNBS-induced colitisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Franco, 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 Feb 02 2024 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, Mathilde Body-Malapel 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. We note that this submission includes NMR spectroscopy data. We would recommend that you include the following information in your methods section or as Supporting Information files: 1) The make/source of the NMR instrument used in your study, as well as the magnetic field strength. For each individual experiment, please also list: the nucleus being measured; the sample concentration; the solvent in which the sample is dissolved and if solvent signal suppression was used; the reference standard and the temperature. 2) A list of the chemical shifts for all compounds characterised by NMR spectroscopy, specifying, where relevant: the chemical shift (δ), the multiplicity and the coupling constants (in Hz), for the appropriate nuclei used for assignment. 3)The full integrated NMR spectrum, clearly labelled with the compound name and chemical structure. We also strongly encourage authors to provide primary NMR data files, in particular for new compounds which have not been characterised in the existing literature. Authors should provide the acquisition data, FID files and processing parameters for each experiment, clearly labelled with the compound name and identifier, as well as a structure file for each provided dataset. See our list of recommended repositories here: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories" 3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Introduction: Line 87. Remoe the accent sign in the word Peru. Methods: 2.1 Plant material. Add lattitude and longitude information. Add date collection. The legends are not self-explaied. They should be more elaborated. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, The study is very current. IBD is a big problem in human medicine. The disease affects people in North America and in Europe. Many researchers look at new drugs and/or substances to treat these diseases. They are looking for substances of a natural origin, from plants. Phytotherapy is an attractive strategy to treat IBD. In my opinion a perfect idea. Many scientific articles described plant substances as a new method for, among other, civilizations diseases. These included bowel disease -ulcerative colitis (IC) and Crohn`s disease (CD). This well-written manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revision, after the question answers. In this study, the Authors describe sucrose esters - peruvioses A and B from Physalis peruviana in different doses as substances with beneficial effects for TNBS-induced colitis All described methods and results with figures, bar graphs, and microphotographs are legible and clear. In the manuscript is a lack of scale bar in microphotographs of intestine. In supplementary file in description or on S1 Fig 1 is a lack of magnification or scale bar. The results and conclusions are very attractive but with some restrictions – the sucrose esters from Physalis peruviana as an alternative in IBD treatment. The intraperitoneal dosage must be determined in another model and/or in another study and animal species. Are the intraperitoneal injections safe for long-term treatment? Best regards ****** 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: Amílcar Sabino Damazo 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299687.r002
Revision 1
1 Feb 2024 Author Response Cartagena, January 29th 2024 Doctor Emily Chenette Editor-in-chief Plos-One Dear Dra. Chenette, we are resubmitting our manuscript, “Protective effect of sucrose esters from Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in TNBS-induced colitis” by Yanet Ocampo et al. I inform you that we have accepted the changes suggested by the referees and the editorial office, and prepared a new version of our manuscript. Following, we detailed the responses to the reviewers' comments and questions: Editor Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We revised and corrected the manuscript as suggested by the editorial office according to Plos One style templates. Comment 2: We note that this submission includes NMR spectroscopy data. We would recommend that you include the following information in your methods section or as Supporting Information files. 1) The make/source of the NMR instrument used in your study, as well as the magnetic field strength. For each individual experiment, please also list: the nucleus being measured; the sample concentration; the solvent in which the sample is dissolved and if solvent signal suppression was used; the reference standard and the temperature. This information was included In Section 1.5 of the Supplementary Information. 2) A list of the chemical shifts for all compounds characterized by NMR spectroscopy, specifying, where relevant: the chemical shift (δ), the multiplicity and the coupling constants (in Hz), for the appropriate nuclei used for assignment. 3) The full integrated NMR spectrum, clearly labelled with the compound name and chemical structure. Full integrated NMR spectrum was included in S2 Fig. Supplementary Information. On the other hand, about the suggestion to include the list of the chemical shifts for all compounds characterized by NMR spectroscopy, specifying, where relevant, the chemical shift (δ), the multiplicity, and the coupling constants (in Hz) for the appropriate nuclei used for assignment, we believe it is neither necessary nor proper to include this information since this data was published in Planta Med 2014; 80(17): 1605-1614 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1383192, including the compound's molecular structures. Nevertheless, to provide clarity on the comparative structural analysis performed in this work, we include below a comparison of the two spectra, the one previously published and the one taken to ensure the identity of Peruviose A and B: As can be observed, the spectra are practically identical; the only differences correspond to a residue of ethyl acetate, which was the elution solvent of the chromatographic column used for the separation and purification of Peruviose A and B. Additionally, the absence of a signal between 1.5 and 2.0 ppm corresponding to residual water of the deuterated solvent can be observed, probably because a deuterated solvent without humidity was used on this occasion. We also strongly encourage authors to provide primary NMR data files, in particular for new compounds which have not been characterised in the existing literature. Authors should provide the acquisition data, FID files and processing parameters for each experiment, clearly labelled with the compound name and identifier, as well as a structure file for each provided dataset. See our list of recommended repositories here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories" According to your suggestion, we include the FID file obtained in the repository of our data. Comment 3: Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). All data from the experiment, including photos, tables, spectra, and all files related to the research, are incorporated in the repository of the University of Cartagena and can be accessed through this link or QR code: https://repositorio.unicartagena.edu.co/handle/11227/5014. 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. We checked our reference list, ensuring that it is complete and correct. Additionally, it was adjusted to the format of the journal. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer 1 - Comment 1: Introduction: Line 87. Remove the accent sign in the word Peru. The accent in the word Peru was removed. Line 49 in the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes. Reviewer 1 - Comment 2: Methods: 2.1 Plant material. Add latitude and longitude information. Add date collection. The information on latitude, longitude, and date collection was included. Line 88 in the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes. Reviewer 1 - Comment 3: The legends are not self-explained. They should be more elaborated. All legends were revised, and we consider they contain the necessary information to be self-explained. No modifications were made. Reviewer 2 - Comment 1: The study is very current. IBD is a big problem in human medicine. The disease affects people in North America and in Europe. Many researchers look at new drugs and/or substances to treat these diseases. They are looking for substances of a natural origin, from plants. Phytotherapy is an attractive strategy to treat IBD. In my opinion a perfect idea. Many scientific articles described plant substances as a new method for, among other, civilizations diseases. These included bowel disease -ulcerative colitis (IC) and Crohn`s disease (CD). This well-written manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revision, after the question answers. In this study, the Authors describe sucrose esters - peruvioses A and B from Physalis peruviana in different doses as substances with beneficial effects for TNBS-induced colitis All described methods and results with figures, bar graphs, and microphotographs are legible and clear. In the manuscript is a lack of scale bar in microphotographs of intestine. In supplementary file in description or on S1 Fig 1 is a lack of magnification or scale bar. Figures 1 and 2 were adjusted, including a ruler in centimeters in microphotographs of the intestine. In S1 Fig, the magnification used was 10X, and it is included in the corresponding legend. Reviewer 2 - Comment 2: The results and conclusions are very attractive but with some restrictions – the sucrose esters from Physalis peruviana as an alternative in IBD treatment. The intraperitoneal dosage must be determined in another model and/or in another study and animal species. Are the intraperitoneal injections safe for long-term treatment? We agree with the reviewer's assessment, and therefore, the safety of the sucrose esters (Peruviose A and B) was tested at doses of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg/Kg/day for 28 consecutive days in mice of both sexes administered intraperitoneally following the Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD - Test 407. This study was published in 2017 and is available in Biomedicine Pharmacotherapy, 90, 850-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.04.046 Regarding whether intraperitoneal injections are safe for long-term treatment? Repeated intraperitoneal administration of substances may produce non-specific adverse effects, which may be due to the substance administered, the vehicle used, or the administration process, so this administration in humans should be avoided. In experimental animals and especially rodents, the intraperitoneal route is widely used as a route of drug administration due to its simplicity, rapid absorption, and high bioavailability. This route was chosen in our case since sucrose esters (Peruviose A and B) are degraded orally. Considering the limitations of this route of administration (IP), we are currently working on developing a pharmaceutical formulation that allows oral administration, protecting the Peruvioses from gastrointestinal conditions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Prof. LUIS FRANCO OSPINA, Ph.D. Corresponding author Biological Evaluation Group Director Universidad de Cartagena - Colombia. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - Rebuttal Letter.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299687.r003
15 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Mathilde Body-Malapel, Editor Protective effect of sucrose esters from Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in TNBS-induced colitis PONE-D-23-23074R1 Dear Dr. Franco, 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, Mathilde Body-Malapel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: All suggestions have been adressed. No further questions are needed. I agree with the publication of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Thank You very much for all corrections, answers and scale bar in figures. In my opinion, this manuscript well-written after the corrections is suitable for publication Best regards ****** 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: Amílcar Sabino Damazo Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299687.r004
Formally Accepted
13 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mathilde Body-Malapel, Editor PONE-D-23-23074R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Franco, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 Dr. Mathilde Body-Malapel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299687.r005

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 .