PONE-D-24-34289The dietary effect of multistrain probiotics ( Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis ) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia

(Oreochromis niloticus)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bayantassova,

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 Oct 17 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,

Lee Seong

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. 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 methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This research was funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (grant no. AP19576848)"

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.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear author,

After read the manuscript and comments from reviewers, your manuscript needs a major revision

There will be another round of review process

Please response carefully to the comments from reviewers to avoid decline for publication

Please proofread the manuscript before resubmit the revision. Good luck

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Dear authors,

The study is interesting using two LAB as feed additive in nile tilapia farming. However, the major concerns about the paper are as below:

the paper has too many minor errors such scientific name and table format

statistical analysis should conduct HOV and normality tests before anova test

should provide actual p value

should compare to single vs plural LAB analysis before can confirm plural LAB is better

other comments in the attachment

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-34289

Title: The dietary effect of multistrain probiotics (Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcuslactis) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia

Journal: PLOS ONE

This Ms was interesting to isolated new probiotics candidate species isolated from fish and its potential role on growth, antioxidant activity, and immune potential tested in this study in Nile tilapia. But I am not sure of these species done the ability of the probiotics characterization and its in vitro activity is very essential before testing in vivo of aquatic animals. I found some of major mistake of this Ms need to rectify before considering of the article in this journal as seen in below:

Line 22, 46: aquaculture industry growing and developed rapidly not just “two decades” you can change ‘few decades’

Line 22, 47: add ‘animal’ after future

Line 26: add ‘influxes of gut microbiota’ after fish

Line 29,30,34,35,38,40,117,192,193,186,198,211,227,232,234,391,393,401,404,406,410,418,445,461,463,484,466,467,469,480,482,492,493: ‘Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis’ change to ‘L. mesenteroides and L. lactis’

Line 36: ‘lactis diet’ change to ‘lactis supplemented diet’

Line 39: ‘lactis groups’ change to ‘lactis supplemented diet groups’

Line 42: keywaord limit to 4 words

Line 54: Include ‘https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260500320845’

Line 55: Include ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.03.039’

Line 56: Include ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.04.036; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.12.051’

Line 57: ‘bacteria’ change to ‘population’

Line 58: ‘have the capability to enhance’ change to ‘were ability to increase’

Line 60: include ‘https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14628’

Line 61: ‘dietary’ change to ‘nutritional’

Line 66: Include ‘(Oreochromis niloticus)’ after Nile tilapia

Line 67: different fish species, specify?

Line 68: ‘freshwater aquaculture’ change to ‘freshwater fish Nile tilapia’

Line 70: Delete ‘in Nile tilapia’

Line 82: Can check any health or clinical test before acclimatization?

Line 89: control diet means commercial diet or formulated diet?

Line 90: ‘24-hour’ change to ‘24-h’

Line 98: ‘48 h’ change to ’48-h’

Line 109: ’95 ◦C, 95 ◦C, 55 ◦C 72 ◦C 72 ◦C’ change to ‘95◦C, 95◦C, 55◦C 72◦C 72◦C’

Line 114: Commercial feed, trade name, company name, where the diet purchase?

Line 117-125: The subculture of probiotics and how to quantify, not clearly describe..

Line 139: ‘24 h’ change to ’24-h’

Line 154: ‘1h’ change to ‘1-h’

Line 156: ‘10 minutes’ change to ‘10 min’

Line 161: Escherichia coli to be italics

Line 166: space between 10 and μl; Micrococcus lysodeikticus to be italics

Line 175: ‘minutes’ change to ‘min’

Line 193: ‘weight gain (WG), final body weight (FBW), and specific growth rate (SGR)’ change to ‘WG, FBW, and SGR’

Line 195: ‘protein efficiency ratio (PER) and feed efficiency ratio (FER)’ change to ‘PER and FER’

Line 202: in table 2: ‘Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed with Leuconostoc

mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis’ change to ‘Nile tilapia fed with L.

mesenteroides and L. lactis’

Line 220,230,245,272,293,315,337,359: ‘experimental diets’ change to ‘probiotics supplemented diets’

Line 226: ‘alternative complement pathway (ACP)’ change to ‘ACP’

Line 392,467: Remove ‘(Oreochromis niloticus)’

Line 399: L. lactis to be italics

Line 400: Remove ‘(Paralichthys olivaceus)’

Line 420: Lactobacillus to be italics

Line 439: ‘nutrients [42] [43]’ change to ‘compounds [42,43]’

Line 450: Remove ‘(P. olivaceus)’

Line 470: include the scientific name of the sea bream

Line 474: ‘Labeo rohita’ change to ‘L. rohita’

Line 490: ‘include ‘multi species’ before probiotic mixture

All figure are modify simple and clear for printing.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript entitled " The dietary effect of multistrain probiotics (Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis ) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia " by Assel Paritova et al. aim to evaluate the impact of multiple-strain dietary probiotics Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis on the growth performance, immunity, and gut microbiota of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).

Based on scientific considerations, this manuscript lacks interesting findings that contribute to the field of fish nutrition/immunology. In general, the manuscript is poorly written and contains major concerns and unclear points that the authors need to address in order to improve the quality of the manuscript and meet acceptable standards for a scientific article. In the present study, the authors fail to provide crucial information. Overall, the writing of the manuscript needs improvement, and it would be beneficial for the authors to seek guidance from expert researchers on how to write a good manuscript.

- This manuscript contains only immune parameters, and lack of data about the parameters related to growth and gut microbiota as mention in the objective.

- The experimental design is poor, I propose that authors should compare each of probiotics and see its combination.

- The data are less, not enough for publication in this high standard journal.

So, I think that this manuscript is not suitable to publish in the journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, so it must be rejected.

Reviewer #4: Interesting research. However,

1. please make it clearer about "multistrain" definitions, In this study, you applied ONLY two genus. maybe two strain?

2. Why did you apply only two replicates?

3. Please check format of scientific names.

4. Bactericidal activity, in the future. Please select the ones that closer affected on the fish studies, tilapia pathogens.

5. In this study, you cannot state "synergistic" effects because NO individual treatment applied.

6. Please check format of references.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes: Chanagun Chitmanat

**********

[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-24-34289_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-34289-2.pdf

PONE-D-24-34289R1The dietary effects of two strain probiotics ( Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bayantassova,

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 Nov 22 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,

Lee Seong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Dear author,

Thank you for your work

THe manuscript is look better now

However, there are few concerns as follow:

1. Incubation temperature see line 103

2. format for scientific name and table

other comment in the attachment

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-34289R1

Title: The dietary effects of two strain probiotics (Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

Journal: PLOS ONE

The revised Ms was improved well the comments provided by the reviewers. Therefore, this current revision may be consider for publication.

**********

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 #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: PONE-D-24-34289_R1_reviewer.pdf

The dietary effects of two strain probiotics ( Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis) on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

PONE-D-24-34289R2

Dear Dr. Bayantassova,

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,

Lee Seong

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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: (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 #1: No

**********