Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 16, 2023
Decision Letter - Muhammad Hanif, Editor

PONE-D-23-42394In vivo pharmacokinetics of ginsenoside compound K mediated by gut microbiotaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wang,

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,

Muhammad Hanif

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. 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 (a) methods of sacrifice, (b) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

This research was supported by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (82074000, 81903784), the Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2023JJ4971), the Scientific Research Program of Furong laboratory (2023SK2083), the Scientific Research Project of Department of Education of Hunan Province (20K136).

Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

mentioned as above

[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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 authors have presented a pharmacokinetic study of Ginsenoside Compound K (GCK) in rats and the effect of microbiota on the pharmacokinetics of said compound.

The manuscript needs major revision before further consideration for publication. Key information is missing without which the study has no credibility. Occasionally, the methodology is weak and does not fully justify the presented results.

1. In the section ‘Instruments and condition’ MRM transitions of drug molecules were not mentioned. No quantification can be done without this information.

2. Collision gas and its flow rate not mentioned.

3. No re-equilibration time has been provided to the system which is essential for a gradient elution program.

4. Calibration standards and quality control: analytical range not mentioned for QCs and calibration standards.

5. System suitability parameters (tailing factor, theoretical plates) have not been mentioned.

6. The chromatograms are not legible. No information about Molecular ion peaks or daughter ions has been provided.

7. English usage is not up to the standard. Phrases like ‘all animals were intra-gastric administration’ and ‘The peak areas near all the analytes in the blank plasma were satisfied less than 20% of all the analytes’ are few examples.

**********

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

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Responses to Editor’s and Reviewers’ Comments

Dear Editor-in-chief,

We are submitting a revised manuscript entitled “In vivo pharmacokinetics of ginsenoside compound K mediated by gut microbiota” by Deng et al. for publication as a full paper in the PLOS ONE. We have carefully considered your comments in preparing the revised manuscript. We would like to give a point-by-point response to the concerns. The main manuscript has been revised accordingly. Here, we have enclosed the replies to the reviewers’ comments,

Reviewer’s comments,

1. In the section ‘Instruments and condition’ MRM transitions of drug molecules were not mentioned. No quantification can be done without this information.

R: Thanks for your comments. The MRM transitions of drug molecules were supplemented in Figure 2.

2. Collision gas and its flow rate not mentioned.

R: Thanks for your comments. The flow rate is 0.3 mL/min; collision gas is 9. We have supplemented this information in the revised manuscript.

3. No re-equilibration time has been provided to the system which is essential for a gradient elution program.

R: Thanks for your comments. The re-equilibration time was set as 5 min in this study. We have supplemented it in the revised manuscript.

4. Calibration standards and quality control: analytical range not mentioned for QCs and calibration standards.

R: Thanks for your comments. Calibration standards and QC were validated according to the 2018 FDA Guidelines.

5. System suitability parameters (tailing factor, theoretical plates) have not been mentioned.

R: Thanks for your comments. The tailing factors under the selected chromatographic conditions were calculated as 0.993 and 0.996 for GCK and PPD, respectively, while the theoretical plates were measured as 1.13 × 104. We have calculated the chromatographic parameters, which have been added in the manuscript.

6. The chromatograms are not legible. No information about Molecular ion peaks or daughter ions has been provided.

R: Thanks for your comments, we have re-provide clearer chromatograms.

7. English usage is not up to the standard. Phrases like ‘all animals were intra-gastric administration’ and ‘The peak areas near all the analytes in the blank plasma were satisfied less than 20% of all the analytes’ are few examples.

R: Thanks for your comments, we have corrected and polished the language.

I hope you will find our corrections worthy of publication in the PLOS ONE.

Best regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Zheng-Guang Wang, PhD

Department of Spinal Surgery,

The third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: letter for response.doc
Decision Letter - Muhammad Hanif, Editor

In vivo pharmacokinetics of ginsenoside compound K mediated by gut microbiota

PONE-D-23-42394R1

Dear Dr. wang,

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,

Muhammad Hanif

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have gone throuigh the revision submitted by the authors and found satisfactory for the publication

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Hanif, Editor

PONE-D-23-42394R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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. Muhammad Hanif

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 .