Distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illness

Jarukorn Sripradite; Varangkana Thaotumpitak; Edward R. Atwill; Woranich Hinthong; Saharuetai Jeamsripong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299987

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 13, 2023
13 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor PONE-D-23-29694Bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illnessPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jeamsripong, 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. ============================== Reviewers have identified number of gaps and raised many questions. Please address all reviewer comments. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 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, Iddya Karunasagar 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This study was supported by Thailand Science Research and Innovation Fund Chulalongkorn University (HEA663100108), National Research Council of Thailand (NTCT) (N42A660897), University of California Davis (A22-3754-S001), and Rachadapisek Sompote Fund Chulalongkorn University (GR_62_37_31_02) and College of Industrial Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok (Res-CIT0232/2019). We thank Sutida Chalee and Saran Anantavirun for sample collection and laboratory assistance." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments: The reviewers have raised very important questions. Please provide information on the positive controls used and justify the choice of virulence genes. Please provide information on the farm source of samples. Please address all reviewer comments point by point. [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: Partly 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: �Overall writing of the manuscript is good �Several similar reports have been published in recent years, hence the work has limited novelty �Focusing more on tilapia aquaculture without considering the farm source of the samples �The overall prevalence of targeted bacterial species was low compared to previous reports. Authors could have easily highlighted the safety of the fish samples comparative to fish from other markets. �The study observed no cholera causing vibrios among the isolates, which was not highlighted �It is good that the study concluded suggesting better cooking methods to avoid possible food borne infection. �It looks like the authors have ended the discussion abruptly. �The conclusion part of the manuscript not corroborating with the results of the study �As indicated by the authors the results of the study might be helpful to the Thailand’s National Action Plan of One Health Framework but dose-not advance the knowledge to the general reader. Reviewer #2: 1. The authors would have mentioned the details of positive controls used for the study. 2. What is the rationale behind the selection of three pathogens? The authors should emphasize this in the manuscript. 3. Why have authors restricted to only a few virulence genes in 3 pathogens? Especially in Salmonella and Aeromonas hydrophillaLine 198 rnase should be written as RNAase 4. Few typographical errors in the manuscript need to be taken care 5. It is better if the Authors use h or hr or hours in the manuscript ****** 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 ******** [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments.doc Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299987.r001
Revision 1
14 Nov 2023 Author Response Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-29694: Bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illness Review comments to the author Reviewer#1 1. Overall writing of the manuscript is good. Thank you for your reviewing. 2. Several similar reports have been published in recent years, hence the work has limited novelty This study offered an original contribution by demonstrating the safety of tilapia as a suitable food source for human consumption and establishing the extent of microbial contamination in tilapia. 3. Focusing more on tilapia aquaculture without considering the farm source of the samples While this study did not specifically address farms, it is worth noting that different farms in the study exhibited similar farm management systems and biosecurity measures. Therefore, further investigation into diverse farm management practices should be investigated. 4. The overall prevalence of targeted bacterial species was low compared to previous reports. Authors could have easily highlighted the safety of the fish samples comparative to fish from other markets. The safety of consuming fish in Thailand was found to be comparable with safety levels observed in other countries and indicated in lines 389-390. 5. The study observed no cholera causing vibrios among the isolates, which was not highlighted The sentences concerning the absence of cholera-causing vibrios were stated, "All isolates of V. cholerae lacked the ctx and tcpA genes, indicating the presence of non-cholera vibrios in these fish" indicating in line 462-463. 6. It is good that the study concluded suggesting better cooking methods to avoid possible food borne infection. Thank you for your comment. 7. It looks like the authors have ended the discussion abruptly. We have provided the discussion sentences to be added in lines 512-518. Here they are incorporated into the text: “A comprehensive monitoring program for AMR in the retail sales of aquatic products should be implemented on a national scale and mandated for all individuals engaged in the trade of aquatic products. To effectively address AMR challenges in fish, it is important to raise awareness among fishmongers and farmers regarding pathogens and the associated AMR risks. Furthermore, the active participation of various stakeholders is crucial for identifying gaps related to AMR and providing policymakers with essential insights to tackle AMR issues in the domain of fish consumption.” 8. The conclusion part of the manuscript not corroborating with the results of the study The conclusion has been modified to align with the findings of this study. 9. As indicated by the authors the results of the study might be helpful to the Thailand’s National Action Plan of One Health Framework but dose-not advance the knowledge to the general reader. In lines 524-528, these sentences have been adjusted in the conclusion to target general consumer education: “In retail markets, it is essential to enhance the overall hygiene of fish stalls, storage, and transportation, maintaining a consistent cooling temperature. Furthermore, fish advisories should aim to educate consumers about the proper evisceration of fish, thorough cleaning of fish skin and abdominal cavity, cooking at the appropriate time and temperature, and preventing cross-contamination during the cooking process.” 10. However, the study has required experimental design and the results have been analysed appropriately. Thanks for your comment. 11. Since the observed prevalence of the pathogenic bacteria are low in the study, change in the title may be considered. The title of this manuscript is revised as “Distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illness”. 12. After carefully addressing the suggestions the manuscript may be considered for publication in the any of the regional journals Thanks for your comment. Specific comments Introduction 1. Line no. 24-26: First two sentences are very generic in nature may be deleted from the abstract The initial two sentences have been removed. 2. Line no. 52-55: The bacteria isolated in the study and the identified AMR in the present study are not traced to farming system/production facilities. Hence, starting the manuscript with aquaculture intensification may not be appropriate. Instead highlights may be provided regarding the post harvest handling of fish and fishery products. Samples in the study are taken from markets and results suggest significant difference between the samples from fresh and supermarkets. The importance of post-harvest fish handling has been added in line 54-59as follows: “Fish consumption has been increased due to its perceived health benefits and affordability. However, it is important to note that microbial contaminants in fish have been identified as sources of foodborne outbreaks on a global scale. Additionally, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in aquatic products poses a novel human health risk, with improper storage and handling practices between fresh and supermarkets playing a significant role in this concern.” Materials and methods - Details of bacterial isolations are given in too details, unless any modifications in the standard protocols are made in the study, it is advisable to provide the references only. The isolation and serotyping methods of Salmonella have been concise. Results 1. Line no. 285: fish were displayed without ice??? The sentence "fish were displayed without ice" has been revised to "fish were preserved and sold without ice (26.8%). 2. Table 1 & 2: Since the primers are published earlier, mentioning the references may be sufficient. To ensure clarity, we have included all primer details and references in Supplementary Tables (S1 and S2), relocating them from Tables 1 and 2. 3. Table 4: This may be provided as supplementary information only, not in the main text. Table 4, which contains information on Salmonella serovars, has been relocated to S3 Table in the supplementary information. 4. Fig 1 &2: Classifying the prevalence of AMR and the genes based on the tissue origin of the isolates may not be appropriate. All the figures in this study have been newly created. The first figure illustrates the prevalence of these three pathogens in tilapia, while Fig 2 and 3 show the resistance phenotype and genotype of the pathogens, respectively. Discussion 1. Line No. 395-399: Since the farm source of the samples used in the study are not available, assuming that the AMR bacteria were due to unscientific use of antibiotics in the culture system may not be appropriate. The previous sentences have been removed, and the following sentences have been added to lines 437-444 for clarification: "The high resistance of Salmonella to tetracycline analogues observed in this study was consistency with the observed resistance in retail aquatic products in Nigeria [64]. Furthermore, resistance to these antimicrobials has been identified as a prevailing trend among bacteria isolated from retail meat [14, 64].” 2. Line No. 403-405: Correlating the presence of resistance gene against particular antibiotic in an isolate to its use in the farming system without actual information on the farm usage data may not be appropriate. The sentence providing information about antibiotic usage in farms has been removed. 3. Line No. 459-461: Since not data related to farming activity was collected in the study, it may not be appropriate to suggest the observations are due to usage of antibiotics in culture operations. The sentence indicating the usage of antibiotics in culture operations has been removed, and the following sentence has been added to lines 502-508: "The investigation of mechanisms contributing to this observation, such as the role of relevant plasmids or conjugative elements, would be valuable in mitigating the development of AMR in fish and aquatic products." 4. Line No. 459-464: first sentence indicate frequent use of antibiotics in farms while the next sentence suggest need for better handling practices to reduce the cross contamination. These two sentences are unrelated. The first sentence has been deleted, and the connecting sentence mentioned earlier in comment No. 3 has been added. References - Total number of references cited by be reduced substantially. The number of references is reduced as suggested. Reviewer#2 1. The authors would have mentioned the details of positive controls used for the study. The three positive control strains used in detection of bacteria and antimicrobial susceptibility test were mentioned in lines 251-252. 2. What is the rationale behind the selection of three pathogens? The authors should emphasize this in the manuscript. The rationale for selecting these pathogens has been identified in the following lines 68-70 and the below sentence was added for clarification in lines 138-140. “In a previous investigation on tilapia farming in Thailand, three pathogens showed unique profiles of AMR. However, this information has not been sufficiently recorded in tilapia available for human consumption in retail.” 3. Why have authors restricted to only a few virulence genes in 3 pathogens? Especially in Salmonella and Aeromonas hydrophilla The study focused on a limited number of virulence genes, as the chosen virulence genes are prevalent in bacteria isolated from Nile tilapia and have connections to clinical symptoms in human cases. This explanation has been added in lines 136-138: "Virulence genes (A. hydrophila: aero and hly; Salmonella: invA; V. cholerae: tcpA, ctx, and hlyA), were chosen based on their prevalence and linked to the pathogenesis of diseases in humans.”Ss 4. Line 198 rnase should be written as RNAase The errors have been corrected. 5. Few typographical errors in the manuscript need to be taken care The authors recheck all typographical errors throughout this manuscript. 6. It is better if the Authors use h or hr or hours in the manuscript The abbreviation "hr" has been consistently used in place of "hours" throughout this manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299987.r002
14 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor PONE-D-23-29694R1Distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illnessPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jeamsripong, 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 highlight the novelty of this study vs other published studies in the area. Please also address other comments of the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 28 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, Iddya Karunasagar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Please see reviewer comments. Please highlight the novelty of this study vs the article mentioned by the reviewer. Please address all comments of the reviewer. [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) ******** 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: Did the standard cultures of A. hydrophila, V. cholerae and Salmonella used in the study? if so please specify While writing the name of the genes, do not italicize the subunit only the name of the gene should be italic for ex. gyr A where gyr need to be italic not A highlight the novelity in the introduction section because we can find similar kind of work in the database https://doi.org/10.3389/frabi.2023.1156258 10.7717/peerj.14896 ****** 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: 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.0299987.r003
Revision 2
25 Jan 2024 Author Response 1. Did the standard cultures of A. hydrophila, V. cholerae and Salmonella used in the study? if so please specify. The standard cultures of A. hydrophila, V. cholerae, and Salmonella were indicated in materials and methods section (Line 212-213). “The reference stains used in this study were A. hydrophila DMST 2798, Salmonella Enteritidis DMST 15676, and V. cholerae DMST 2873.” 2. While writing the name of the genes, do not italicize the subunit only the name of the gene should be italic for ex. gyr A where gyr need to be italic not A The errors have been corrected throughout manuscript included Table2. 3. Highlight the novelity in the introduction section because we can find similar kind of work in the database https://doi.org/10.3389/frabi.2023.1156258 10.7717/peerj.14896 The novelty of this study is indicated in Line 130-135. “Few studies have conducted investigations into AMR pathogens among retail tilapia intended for human consumption, and the risk of AMR transmission from tilapia consumption has been insufficiently documented in Thailand.” Editor 1. Please highlight the novelty of this study vs other published studies in the area. Please also address other comments of the reviewer. The sentence relating to the novelty of this study is modified in Line 130-135. “Few studies have conducted investigations into AMR pathogens among retail tilapia intended for human consumption, and the risk of AMR transmission from tilapia consumption has been insufficiently documented in Thailand.” 2. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. All bacterial determination and confirmation, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and detection of AMR and virulence genes in this study followed standard methods, which are available in the manuscript. However, specific laboratory protocols are available upon request. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers letter 260124.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299987.r004
20 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor Distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in retail Nile tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) as potential sources of foodborne illness PONE-D-23-29694R2 Dear Dr. Jeamsripong, 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, Iddya Karunasagar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): All reviewer comments have been addressed. 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: (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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299987.r005
Formally Accepted
22 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor PONE-D-23-29694R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jeamsripong, 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. Iddya Karunasagar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299987.r006

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 .