Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 27, 2024
Decision Letter - Taye Beyene Demissie, Editor

PONE-D-24-02018Assessing antioxidant, antidiabetic potential and GCMS profiling of ethanolic root bark extract of Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Roxb.) DC: Supported by in vitro, in vivo and in silico molecular modelingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. HOSSAIN,

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.

In addition, The literature review needs further work and the authors should adequately make proper literature review. 

Please make sure that the manuscript formatting, especially the references, follows the journal requirements. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 06 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,

Taye Beyene Demissie, PhD

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

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

[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

Reviewer #1: Comments

1) The work is very interesting and studied for pre-clinical aspects. It will be useful for further research in the development of clinical studies.

2) It would be better to mention as anti-diabetes in the keywords instead of other words.

3) In silico should be in italics. In some instances, it is missing. It has to be checked and correct them.

4) In vivo should be corrected into italics.

5) References should be rechecked again according to the journal guidelines.

Report

The manuscript is well written and finds significance through in vitro, in vivo and in silico studies. My decision is ‘minor comments or revisions’. Therefore, I would strongly recommend the manuscript to be published in the Plos One Journal, after the above comments are addressed.

Reviewer #2: 

1. What is the rationale behind the selection of target proteins for anti diabetic potential? The diabetes Meletus involves complex pathogenesis and so many molecular pathways.

2. In, introduction the authors mentioned that there are no in-silico studies related to the anti oxidant activity. According to my opinion the authors should have gone for any significant protein/gene related to anti oxidant potential.

**********

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 letter.docx
Revision 1

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reading through our manuscript and for the constructive feedback. Please find below a detailed breakdown of your comments and suggestions. Please also find attached the updated manuscript with the amended sections and track change versions.

Academic editor

We thank the editor very much for their kind comments with regard to our work. We appreciate all the points raised, which we address below:

Academic editor

#1. The literature review needs further work and the authors should adequately make proper literature review.

Author Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. As per your concern, we have reviewed the relevant literatures in detail and included it in the introduction section of this revised manuscript (marked as track change).

#2. Please make sure that the manuscript formatting, especially the references, follows the journal requirements.

Author Reply: As per the journal reference guidelines, we have carefully formatted the references.

Reviewer 1:

We are very grateful for the kind and constructive comments of the reviewer. The points raised by the reviewer 1 are addressed below:

#1. The work is very interesting and studied for pre-clinical aspects. It will be useful for further research in the development of clinical studies.

Author Reply: Thanks a lot for your nice comments regarding further research.

#2. It would be better to mention as anti-diabetes in the keywords instead of other words.

Author Reply: We have included anti-diabetes in the keywords (marked as track change).

#3. In silico should be in italics. In some instances, it is missing. It has to be checked and correct them.

Author Reply: We have used In silico in italics in the manuscript as per your suggestion (marked as track change).

#4. In vivo should be corrected into italics.

Author Reply: We have used In vivo in the manuscript as in italics.

#5. References should be rechecked again according to the journal guidelines.

Author Reply: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have formatted the references according to the journal guidelines.

Reviewer 2:

We greatly appreciate the kind comments of the reviewer about the quality of our work. We address the points raised by the reviewer 2.

#1. What is the rationale behind the selection of target proteins for anti-diabetic potential? The diabetes Mellitus involves complex pathogenesis and so many molecular pathways.

Author Reply: Thank you for your query. We do agree that diabetes mellitus involves complex pathogenesis and so many molecular pathways but in a single article, it is not possible to investigate too many mechanistic pathways. The rationale behind the selection of target proteins for anti-diabetic potential typically involves several factors including pathophysiological relevance, druggability, clinical need, market potential and existing therapeutic targets.

Studies conducted by Pacifici F et al., and Abbasi A et al., indicate that human peroxiredoxin family proteins play a critical role in the overt hyperglycemia that results from Type 2 Diabetes pathogenesis. Zhang H et al., discovered a link between the genotype of sulfonylurea receptor 1 protein and the type 2 diabetes treatment response to gliclazide. Besides, numerous investigations have demonstrated that the phytochemical substances found in medicinal plants with alpha-amylase inhibitory activity may be useful in treating certain conditions and that protein may serve as a biomarker for type 2 diabetes diagnosis. From the literature search, we have found that our targeted three proteins may reveal many important insights about diabetes mellitus management. And that’s why the mentioned three receptor proteins were selected.

#2. In the introduction the authors mentioned that there are no in-silico studies related to the anti-oxidant activity. According to my opinion, the authors should have gone for any significant protein/gene related to anti-oxidant potential.

Author Reply: Thank you for your comment. Along with other significant proteins/genes (UCP2, RAGE, PPAR-γ and NRF2) related to anti-oxidant potential, our investigated peroxiredoxin 5 protein and alpha-amylase protein have a significant role in antioxidant potential. Previously, other researchers such as Raju L et al., Pacifici F et al., and Alminderej F et al., reported about the involvement of this protein with oxidative stress. This rationality has now been mentioned in the introduction part of the revised manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Taye Beyene Demissie, Editor

Assessing antioxidant, antidiabetic potential and GCMS profiling of ethanolic root bark extract of Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Roxb.) DC: Supported by in vitro, in vivo and in silico molecular modeling

PONE-D-24-02018R1

Dear Dr. HOSSAIN,

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,

Taye Beyene Demissie, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Taye Beyene Demissie, Editor

PONE-D-24-02018R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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

Prof. Taye Beyene Demissie

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 .