Divergent effects of azithromycin on purple corn (Zea mays L.) cultivation: Impact on biomass and antioxidant compounds

Yoselin Mamani Ramos; Nils Leander Huamán Castilla; Elvis Jack Colque Ayma; Noemi Mamani Condori; Clara Nely Campos Quiróz; Franz Zirena Vilca

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307548

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 23, 2024
22 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor PONE-D-24-03135Divergent effects of Azithromycin on purple corn (Zea mays L.) cultivation: Impact on biomass and antioxidant compoundsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vilca, 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 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, Eugenio Llorens 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 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 0310–2020—UNAM and Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 059–2021—UNAM" 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "To the Universidad Nacional de Moquegua for financing this Project (Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 727–2022-UNAM, the Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 0310–2020—UNAM and the Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 059–2021—UNAM). " 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: "Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 0310–2020—UNAM and Resolución de Comisión Organizadora N° 059–2021—UNAM" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included 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. 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 8. Please include a caption for figure 1. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 describes the effect of the AZM on the growth of corn and on secondary metabolism. Authors performed experiments with four different concentrations of AZM with four biological replications each. It seems like the differences observed in this study is difficult to say that it is only caused by the AZM concentration. In such a big size pot experiment, it is hard to be consistent among replications and moreover, such a long term experiment would have more chance to be screwed with unwanted effects. To verify the changes were caused by AZM treatment It should first be confirmed that AZM is transformed into plant tissues. How much is remained in soil, drain water? Is it caused by microbiome in the soil? The following questions should also be addressed. L97 Which seeds? Plant materials should be specified. eg, cultivar or inbreds L108 Be consistent displaying units and spacing between numbers and units, throughout the manuscript, eg, μg or ug in L422, L434, Table 3 treatments, etc. L125 Which samples? The plants were divided into roots, leaves, and cobs in L118. Did you use whole cob sample? L234. Table 1. Ear weight was signicantly reduced as the AZM concentration was increased. What about the 100-kernel weight? Reviewer #2: Recommendation: 1. Please do language check. 2. Please check some reference at no.49 in text , wether it is correct position or not. 3. Introduction : Please explain how AZM will be the residue in water. 4. Line 120: plate height means stem length ?? Please clarify the word and check consistency. 5. Explain how to separate stem and how to measure or give the picture of each part of cob to show your measurement (If possible). 6. Line 131: %/% =??? Please clarify. 7. Line 135: How to be sure that water also removed? , Since you did not freeze dry? 8. Line 136: Clarify how to prepare sample to final volume 10 ml or you add 10 ml of 60% acetone which the final volume of each sample will be the same?? 9. Line 141 ; Please rewrite this sentence with reference 26 and 27 10.Line 169: Equation (2) and what are gbh and gbs?? 11. Line 179: How to prepare the solution in different concentrations of extracts ?. 12: Line 195-195: Explain the concentration of Trolox and the sample that were used to find IC50. 13. Line 207 : What is 17% ?? 14. Line 210: This membrane means the syringe filter ? 15. Line 232 and Table 1: Plant height = stem length? 16. Table 1: Please correct and write the unit for weight, height and concentration of AZM 17. Line 265: How about the effect to nitrogen fixing bacteria? Does AZM can affect? Please explain more . 18. Table2: Add unit and correct the letter which indicated significant difference (a,b) 19. Table 2: Why do 0 and 100 ug of AZM cause similar dry weight of root? 20 Line 390 : Figure 1 has no caption. 21. Line 395: umole ET/g =?? Is it correct? 22. Table 3: Treatments means treatment with ? should give more details 23. References: Check and correct the format. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, after a reviewing process I recommend your manuscript to be published at present form. Review report Main Question Addressed: The research investigates the impact of Azithromycin (AZM) residues in irrigation water on the biomass and antioxidant compounds of purple corn. Specifically, it examines how different concentrations of AZM affect various parameters of purple corn growth and antioxidant activity. Originality and Relevance: The topic addressed in the manuscript is both original and relevant in the field of agricultural and environmental science. It explores the understudied area of pharmaceutical contamination in agricultural practices, addressing a specific gap in understanding the effects of antibiotics like AZM on plant physiology and secondary metabolites. Given the increasing concern over pharmaceutical pollution in water sources, this research holds significant relevance for agricultural sustainability and food safety. Contribution to the Subject Area: Compared to existing literature, this manuscript provides novel insights into the effects of AZM contamination on purple corn. It specifically examines a wide range of concentrations and evaluates their impact on biomass and antioxidant compounds, shedding light on dose-dependent responses. This detailed investigation enhances our understanding of how pharmaceutical contaminants can influence plant physiology and biochemistry. Methodological Improvements: While the methodology appears robust, a few improvements could enhance the study's reliability. Firstly, it would be beneficial to include additional controls to account for potential confounding factors, such as variations in soil composition or environmental conditions. Moreover, considering the complexity of plant-soil interactions, incorporating molecular analyses to elucidate underlying mechanisms would strengthen the study's conclusions. Consistency of Conclusions: Overall, the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented are consistent with the study's findings and the main question posed. The authors effectively demonstrate how different concentrations of AZM in irrigation water impact purple corn growth parameters and antioxidant compounds. However, providing a more detailed discussion on the implications of these findings for agricultural practices and environmental management would enrich the manuscript. Appropriateness of References: The references cited in the seem relevant and appropriate for supporting the research background and contextualizing the findings. Additional Comments: The abstract provides clear and concise summaries of the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Including graphical representations, such as figures or tables, summarizing key findings could enhance the abstract's visual appeal and aid in conveying complex data more effectively. Additionally, ensuring clarity in terminology and providing definitions for specialized terms would improve accessibility for readers from diverse backgrounds. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D-24-03135_reviewer commemts.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307548.r001
Revision 1
5 Jun 2024 Author Response Ilo, May 29th, 2024 Mr. Editor of the Plos One Journal Present Subject: Raising of observations In response to the request for reference and comments made by the referees to the manuscript “Divergent effects of Azithromycin on purple corn (Zea mays L.) cultivation: Impact on biomass and antioxidant compounds” In this regard, at the beginning, we thank the referees for their timely comments on the manuscript, which contributed significantly to its improvement. At the same time, we indicate that the comments have been corrected, also here we respond to the comments made by reviewers: Reviewer #1 The manuscript describes the AZM's effect on corn's growth and secondary metabolism. The authors performed experiments with four different concentrations of AZM with four biological replications each. It seems like the differences observed in this study is difficult to say that it is only caused by the AZM concentration. In such a big size pot experiment, it is hard to be consistent among replications and moreover, such a long term experiment would have more chance to be screwed with unwanted effects. To verify the changes were caused by AZM treatment It should first be confirmed that AZM is transformed into plant tissues. How much is remained in soil, drain water? Is it caused by microbiome in the soil? Answer: We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and observations. We acknowledge that it is indeed challenging to categorically state that the differences observed in our study are solely due to the concentration of azithromycin (AZM). However, prior to setting up the experiment, we took several precautions to minimize external variabilities that could potentially affect our results. For instance, we prepared the substrate uniformly and distributed it evenly across the pots to ensure consistency among the experimental units, varying only the concentrations of AZM in the irrigation. The irrigation water used was distilled water to ensure that only the AZM concentrations were present in this water. Regarding the transformation and presence of AZM in plant tissues, we based our methodology on previous studies that have demonstrated AZM's ability to enter and bioaccumulate in plant tissues due to its physicochemical properties. For example, Sidhu, O’Connor, & Kruse (2019) documented the translocation of azithromycin in plant tissues, which supported our decision not to perform additional quantification of AZM in the tissues in this study. Similarly, Almeida et al. (2021) did not directly quantify azithromycin in exposed algae, focusing instead on biological response parameters such as growth rate and pigment content. The bioaccumulation of AZM in plants is correlated with its high aromaticity and higher log Dow value, indicating a high potential for bioaccumulation. The octanol-water distribution ratio (Dow) values of organic compounds are often well correlated with absorption in organic tissues (ECETOC, 2013). Consequently, we assumed that the residual concentration of AZM in the soil and drainage water would be minimal, given its preferential absorption by the plant. Additionally, studies such as those by Sidhu, O’Connor, Ogram, et al. (2019) have shown minimal toxicity of AZM at concentrations up to 0.06 mg kg-1 for soil microbial activity, suggesting that in our study, with significantly lower concentrations, the soil microbiome would not have significantly interfered with AZM absorption by purple corn. To corroborate that the soil microbiome did not affect the absorption of azithromycin, we compared the phenolic compound results in the control (without azithromycin) with the values reported in the literature (Shahidi & Ambigaipalan, 2015). We observed that the concentrations of polyphenols increased with AZM concentrations of 1 and 10 μg L-1, suggesting the translocation of AZM within the plant. We thank you once again for your valuable observations. While it would be ideal to conduct direct measurements of AZM in plant tissues in future studies, the available evidence and the precautions we have taken support the conclusions expressed in the present study. Almeida, A. C., Gomes, T., Lomba, J. A. B., & Lillicrap, A. (2021). Specific toxicity of azithromycin to the freshwater microalga Raphidocelis subcapitata. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112553 ECETOC, (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals). (2013). ECETOC Technical Report No. 117 - Understanding the Relationship between Extraction Technique and Bioavailability. 117. Shahidi, F., & Ambigaipalan, P. (2015). Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods, beverages and spices: Antioxidant activity and health effects - A review. Journal of Functional Foods, 18, 820–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.06.018 Sidhu, H., O’Connor, G., & Kruse, J. (2019). Plant toxicity and accumulation of biosolids-borne ciprofloxacin and azithromycin. Science of the Total Environment, 648, 1219–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.218 Sidhu, H., O’Connor, G., Ogram, A., & Kumar, K. (2019). Bioavailability of biosolids-borne ciprofloxacin and azithromycin to terrestrial organisms: Microbial toxicity and earthworm responses. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.004 The following questions should also be addressed. L97 Which seeds? Plant materials should be specified. eg, cultivar or inbreds Answer: Additional information was added in lines L102 to L104 regarding the seeds used in the present study. L108 Be consistent in displaying units and spacing between numbers and units throughout the manuscript, eg, μg or ug in L422, L434, Table 3 treatments, etc. Answer: The units in Table 3 and the spacing between numbers and units throughout the article's manuscript were modified. L125 Which samples? The plants were divided into roots, leaves, and cobs in L118. Did you use whole cob sample? Answer: Line L137 specifies the sample. Lines L127 to L131 added more information about using the samples and the division process. Furthermore, regarding the cob, it was specified that only the core was used in lines L131 to L135. L234. Table 1. Ear weight was signicantly reduced as the AZM concentration was increased. What about the 100-kernel weight? Answer: The term "Ear weight" was changed to "Tassel weight" in Table 1, as grains are not found in the tassel. The grains were not weighed. Reviewer #2 Please do language check. Answer: The language and spelling of the entire article were checked. Please check some reference at no.49 in text, wether it is correct position or not. Answer: Reference No. 49 was checked and the content of the citation was clarified in lines L324 to L327. Introduction : Please explain how AZM will be the residue in water. Answer: More information was added in lines L70 to L80 about how AZM turns into residue in water. Line 120: plate height means stem length ?? Please clarify the word and check consistency. Answer: The manuscript's coherence was checked. Additionally, it was clarified that only the term "stem length" will be used throughout the manuscript. Explain how to separate stem and how to measure or give the picture of each part of cob to show your measurement (If possible). Answer: More information about the measurement process was added in lines L127 to L130. Line 131: %/% =??? Please clarify. Answer: The (%/%/) was changed to (v/v) in line L143 Line 135: How to be sure that water also removed? , Since you did not freeze dry? Answer: Additional information about the mechanism for water evaporation was added in lines L147 to L149. Line 136: Clarify how to prepare sample to final volume 10 ml or you add 10 ml of 60% acetone which the final volume of each sample will be the same?? Answer: Lines L150 to L152 detail the process of reconstituting the phenolic compounds in 10 mL of 60% acetone. Line 141 ; Please rewrite this sentence with reference 26 and 27 Answer: The sentence in lines L156 was rewritten. Line 169: Equation (2) and what are gbh and gbs?? Answer: The units in line L184 were modified, and their meanings were added in lines L190 to L191. TAC ((mg EC3G)/L)= (A×MW ×FD×1000)/eL×(V )/(g fw)×(g fw)/(g dw) Line 179: How to prepare the solution in different concentrations of extracts? Answer: Additional information was added about the preparation of the solution in different concentrations of extracts in lines L194 to L198. Line 195-195: Explain the concentration of Trolox and the sample that were used to find IC50. Answer: The concentration of Trolox and the sample used were added in lines L214 to L218. Line 207 : What is 17% ??. Answer: This refers to the percentage of C18 contained in the extraction cartridge. Line 210: This membrane means the syringe filter ? Answer: The sentence was modified to explain that it was filtered through a syringe filter with a pore size of 0.22 μm in line L233. Line 232 and Table 1: Plant height = stem length? Answer: It was clarified that only the term "stem length" will be used throughout the manuscript in Table 1, L257 Table 1: Please correct and write the unit for weight, height and concentration of AZM Answer: The units for weight, height, and AZM concentration were corrected in Table 1. Line 265: How about the effect to nitrogen fixing bacteria? Does AZM can affect? Please explain more Answer: Additional information about the effect of AZM on nitrogen-fixing bacteria was added in lines L285 to L291. Table2: Add unit and correct the letter which indicated significant difference (a,b) Answer: The unit was added and the letter indicating a significant difference was corrected in Table 2 Table 2: Why do 0 and 100 ug of AZM cause similar dry weight of root? Answer: When using only one unit, the results are similar. However, when working with 2 decimal places, a variation in the decimal figures is noticeable. For this reason, it was decided to use 2 decimal places in Table 2. Line 390 : Figure 1 has no caption Answer: The title was added to Figure 1. Line 395: umole ET/g =?? Is it correct? Answer: In line L412, the units (μmol ET/g dw) were corrected to (μmol TE/g dw). Table 3: Treatments means treatment with ? should give more details Answer: The treatments are detailed in Table 3. References: Check and correct the format. Answer: The format was checked and corrected. Reviewer #3 Dear Authors, after a reviewing process I recommend your manuscript to be published at present form. Franz Zirena Vilca Professor Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers[F].pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307548.r002
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor Divergent effects of Azithromycin on purple corn (Zea mays L.) cultivation: Impact on biomass and antioxidant compounds PONE-D-24-03135R1 Dear Dr. Vilca, 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, Eugenio Llorens 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 #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 #4: This manuscript has undergone a thorough review, and it is evident that the authors have implemented all necessary modifications to address the reviewers’ concerns. The authors' responses to the reviewers are comprehensive and effectively justify their methodological choices and study outcomes. The additional information incorporated into the manuscript is appreciated and enhances its quality, making it suitable for publication. Reviewer #5: this is a revised version of the article titled Divergent effects of Azithromycin on purple corn (Zea mays L.) cultivation: Impact on biomass and antioxidant compounds, where the authors carrefully addressed the comments ****** 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307548.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor PONE-D-24-03135R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vilca, 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. Eugenio Llorens Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307548.r004

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 .