PONE-D-24-06527In-Vivo and In-Vitro Toxicity Evaluation of 2,3-Dimethylquinoxaline: an Antimicrobial Found in a Traditional Herbal MedicinePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alfadil,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 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,

Ahmed E. Abdel Moneim

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 ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

4. 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.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Grant number IFPIP:1199-140-1443- 260449 from the Instructional Improvement Fund supported this study.  Saudi Arabian Moe and King Abdulaziz University, DSR in Jeddah.”

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.

6. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Grant number IFPIP:1281-140-1443 from the Instructional Improvement Fund supported this study. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Saudi Arabian Moe and King Abdulaziz University, DSR in Jeddah for their technical and financial aid”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“Grant number IFPIP:1199-140-1443- 260449 from the Instructional Improvement Fund supported this study.  Saudi Arabian Moe and King Abdulaziz University, DSR in Jeddah.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

9. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files

[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: The manuscript entitled “In-Vivo and In-Vitro Toxicity Evaluation of 2,3-Dimethylquinoxaline: an Antimicrobial Found in a Traditional Herbal Medicine” is worth publishing after applying some minor corrections. My comments are as following:

1. In the names and affiliations of the authors there are some mistakes that need to be corrected:

• The number of the author “Abdelbagi Alfadil13” as superscript is 13 please correct,

• There should be a comma between the second and the first author,

• The comma after the number of the 4th author “Huda Alkreathy2,” should be removed,

• There are dots after the numbers of the 5th and 6th authors which should be removed, also there should be a comma between their names.

• The font size and the and the font type should be uniform in the 1st page

2. Authors should start with general statements about the relevant subject in the introduction part,

3. Authors should extend the introduction part with explanatory and literary comments.

4. The title “2.9 Oral toxicity study with repeated doses in mice (28 days )” should be written with bold

5. Authors should write a more detailed conclusion

6. Please add the following related references in the introduction part

• Yener İsmail, Yilmaz Mustafa Abdullah, Tokul Ölmez Özge, Akdeniz Mehmet, Tekin Fethullah, Haşimi Nesrin, Alkan Mehmet Hüseyin, Öztürk Mehmet, Ertaş Abdulselam (2020). A Detailed Biological and Chemical Investigation of Sixteen Achillea Species’ Essential Oils via Chemometric Approach. CHEMISTRY & BIODIVERSITY, 17(3) e1900484, https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201900484.

• Selek Şehabettin, Koyuncu İsmail, Çağlar Hifa Gülru, Bektaş İbrahim, Yilmaz Mustafa Abdullah, Gönel Ataman, Akyüz Enes (2018). The evaluation of antioxidant and anticancer effects of Lepidium Sativum Subsp Spinescens L. methanol extract on cancer cells. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 64(3), 72-80., https://doi.org/10.14715/cmb/2018.64.3.12.

• Mehmet Akdeniz, Ismail Yener, Mustafa Abdullah Yilmaz, Sevgi Irtegun Kandemir, Fethullah Tekin, Abdulselam Ertas (2021). A potential species for cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries: Insight to chemical and biological investigation of naturally grown and cultivated Salvia multicaulis Vahl. Industrial Crops & Products, 168, 113566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113566.

• Mehmet Akdeniz, Ismail Yener, Abdulselam Ertas, Mehmet Firat, Baris Resitoglu, Nesrin Hasimi, Sevgi Irtegun Kandemir, Mustafa Abdullah Yilmaz, Asli Barla Demirkoz, Ufuk Kolak and Sevil Oksuz (2021). Biological and Chemical Comparison of Natural and Cultivated Samples of Satureja macrantha C.A.Mey. Records of Natural Products, 15 (6), 568-584, http://doi.org/10.25135/rnp.237.21.02.1957.

34. Ebubekir Izol, Hamdi Temel, Mustafa Abdullah Yilmaz, Ismail Yener, Ozge Tokul Olmez, Erhan Kaplaner, Mehmet Fırat, Nesrin Hasimi, Mehmet Ozturk, Abdulselam Ertas (2021). A Detailed Chemical and Biological Investigation of Twelve Allium Species from Eastern Anatolia with Chemometric Studies. Chemistry and Biodiversity, 18 (1), e2000560, https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.202000560.

Reviewer #2: The document submitted for our consideration is a scientific work of significance, providing information on the toxicological profile of 2,3-dimethylquinoxaline (DMQ), a broad-spectrum antimicrobial derived from plants.

Abstract

In vitro and in vivo remain a group of words which are necessarily italicised.

Introduction

Chromolaenaodorata is in two words Chromolaena odorata

Please update the references in the second paragraph of the introduction. The references used are too old.

Material and methods

You were right to specify in this study that the mice used were non-pregnant females. Are they nulliparous or multiparous? These are parameters to be taken into account for the tests.

This choice must be justified

Laboratory animals, particularly females, are more sensitive than males and when females are pregnant or nulliparous, the tests may be influenced by these physiological characteristics. Here are some of the reasons why it is important to specify the physiological characteristics of the animals tested

**********

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: Mustafa Abdullah YILMAZ

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lamine Baba-Moussa

**********

[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: REVIEWER COMMENTS.docx

In-Vivo and In-Vitro Toxicity Evaluation of 2,3-Dimethylquinoxaline: an Antimicrobial Found in a Traditional Herbal Medicine

PONE-D-24-06527R1

Dear Dr. Alfadil,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Ahmed E. Abdel Moneim

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 #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: All my concerns have been well adressed. The Paper could be published in Current form. Congratulations.

**********

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: Yes: 

**********