PONE-D-24-01782The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas aeruginosa-Infected Dogs Wounds.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abbas,

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 Jun 29 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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

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. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ali Hussein Aldujaily.

3. We note that Figure(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

4. 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. 

[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

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study evaluates the use of biosynthetic AgNPs in combination or not with amikacin in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected canine wound model in vivo. The article is not very innovative, but the in vivo model is not very common. Some modifications are needed before considering it in more detail.

Important notes

The English language needs to be checked by a professional translator. This is urgently needed.

The Materials and methods section needs to be clarified. What happened to the dogs after the in vivo model? Could you please specify the breed of the dogs to ensure reproducibility? What happened to the infection control dogs after the in vivo model? Did the dogs wear an Elizabethan collar after treatment? How were the animals housed? Describe the facilities where the animals were housed?

Tables 1 and 3 can be presented graphically. This way it would be more visual and intuitive. The data from Table 1 should be analysed using a linear correlation over time and the slope can be compared pairwise. The data from Table 3 should be analysed using a Spearman correlation over time.

Table 2 can be summarised in a few lines in the main text and removed.

I miss a collage with pictures of at least one wound from each treatment group over time. Could the author add this?

Figures 10, 11 and 12 can be combined into a single collage. Please make sure that you provide clear and nice images with good quality and one scale per image for each condition.

In the Discussion section, lines 385-416 are a repeat of the Introduction section. Please delete these lines and add a first paragraph describing the main findings of your study.

The Discussion section lacks a comparison between the proposed therapeutic strategy and the other therapeutic AgNP- or NP-only based strategies available in the literature. Please add this information.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Aldujaily and coworkers is an interesting proof of concept of the ability of silver nanoparticles to promote curing of wounds infected by P. aeruginosa in dogs.

The study is well designed and the conclusions obtained valid; nevertheless I have some concerns:

Major:

1) Only one strain of P. aeruginosa was used (an isolate from dog otitis, which is a good selection) and variability of strains may lead to different outcomes.

2) The antibiotic susceptibility profile of the isolate should be shown.

3) The antibacterial effect of the nanoparticles in vitro should be shown, if possible against several strains.

4) Despite of the existence of several papers showing the effectivity of silver nanoparticles against clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa, those were not mentioned in the introduction of discussion:

Salomoni R, Léo P, Montemor AF, Rinaldi BG, Rodrigues M. Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nanotechnol Sci Appl. 2017 Jun 29;10:115-121. doi: 10.2147/NSA.S133415. PMID: 28721025; PMCID: PMC5499936.

Al-Momani H, Almasri M, Al Balawi D, Hamed S, Albiss BA, Aldabaibeh N, Ibrahim L, Albalawi H, Al Haj Mahmoud S, Khasawneh AI, Kilani M, Aldhafeeri M, Bani-Hani M, Wilcox M, Pearson J, Ward C. The efficacy of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 1;13(1):8876. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35919-6. PMID: 37264060; PMCID: PMC10235065.

The potential activity of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as an antibacterial agent against multidrug-resistant isolates from intensive care unit and anticancer agent

• A. B. Abeer Mohammed,

• Mona Mohamed Abd Elhamid,

• Magdy Kamal Mohammed Khalil,

• Abdallah Soubhy Ali &

• Rateb Nabil Abbas

Environmental Sciences Europe volume 34,

Campo-Beleño C, Villamizar-Gallardo RA, López-Jácome LE, González EE, Muñoz-Carranza S, Franco B, Morales-Espinosa R, Coria-Jimenez R, Franco-Cendejas R, Hernández-Durán M, Lara-Martínez R, Jiménez-García LF, Fernández-Presas AM, García-Contreras R. Biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles as potent antibacterial effective against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2022 Sep;75(3):680-688. doi: 10.1111/lam.13759. Epub 2022 Jun 22. PMID: 35687297; PMCID: PMC9543579.

Please cite them.

Minor:

1) L 34-37 “AgNPs cure wounds in 20 days, while Amikacin takes 28. In comparison to amikacin, AgNPs healed the fastest. AgNPs-Amikacin, AgNPs, and Amikacin can eradicate P. aeruginosa infected wounds in 7, 9, and 14 days, according to bacterial counts.”

Add standard deviation to these values.

2) Pseudomonas aeruginosa is mentioned in line 59 for the1rst time (use P. aeruginosa from this line).

3) Line 152 (7, 14, 21, and 28), days?

4) L 362 “ontrol”

5) Put latin expressions in italics : in situ, in vivo, in vitro, etc.

6) Capitalize “Gram”

7) All scientific and gene names in the references should be in italics

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-01782R1The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas aeruginosa-Infected Dogs Wounds.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abbas,

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 Aug 29 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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

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: (No Response)

**********

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:  Please, include all the answers given to me in the manuscript. They are important for the reproducibility of this study.

Reviewer #2:  I do not understand why you didnt replied most of my previous comments.

Please answer ALL THIS POINTS one by one:

Major:

1) Only one strain of P. aeruginosa was used (an isolate from dog otitis, which is a good selection) and variability of strains may lead to different outcomes.

2) The antibiotic susceptibility profile of the isolate should be shown.

3) The antibacterial effect of the nanoparticles in vitro should be shown, if possible against several strains.

4) Despite of the existence of several papers showing the effectivity of silver nanoparticles against clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa, those were not mentioned in the introduction of discussion:

Salomoni R, Léo P, Montemor AF, Rinaldi BG, Rodrigues M. Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nanotechnol Sci Appl. 2017 Jun 29;10:115-121. doi: 10.2147/NSA.S133415. PMID: 28721025; PMCID: PMC5499936.

Al-Momani H, Almasri M, Al Balawi D, Hamed S, Albiss BA, Aldabaibeh N, Ibrahim L, Albalawi H, Al Haj Mahmoud S, Khasawneh AI, Kilani M, Aldhafeeri M, Bani-Hani M, Wilcox M, Pearson J, Ward C. The efficacy of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 1;13(1):8876. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35919-6. PMID: 37264060; PMCID: PMC10235065.

The potential activity of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as an antibacterial agent against multidrug-resistant isolates from intensive care unit and anticancer agent

• A. B. Abeer Mohammed,

• Mona Mohamed Abd Elhamid,

• Magdy Kamal Mohammed Khalil,

• Abdallah Soubhy Ali &

• Rateb Nabil Abbas

Environmental Sciences Europe volume 34,

Campo-Beleño C, Villamizar-Gallardo RA, López-Jácome LE, González EE, Muñoz-Carranza S, Franco B, Morales-Espinosa R, Coria-Jimenez R, Franco-Cendejas R, Hernández-Durán M, Lara-Martínez R, Jiménez-García LF, Fernández-Presas AM, García-Contreras R. Biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles as potent antibacterial effective against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2022 Sep;75(3):680-688. doi: 10.1111/lam.13759. Epub 2022 Jun 22. PMID: 35687297; PMCID: PMC9543579.

Please cite them.

Minor:

1) L 34-37 “AgNPs cure wounds in 20 days, while Amikacin takes 28. In comparison to amikacin, AgNPs healed the fastest. AgNPs-Amikacin, AgNPs, and Amikacin can eradicate P. aeruginosa infected wounds in 7, 9, and 14 days, according to bacterial counts.”

Add standard deviation to these values.

2) Pseudomonas aeruginosa is mentioned in line 59 for the1rst time (use P. aeruginosa from this line).

3) Line 152 (7, 14, 21, and 28), days?

4) L 362 “ontrol”

5) Put latin expressions in italics : in situ, in vivo, in vitro, etc.

6) Capitalize “Gram”

7) All scientific and gene names in the references should be in italics

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-01782R2The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas erogenous-Infected Dogs Wounds.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aldujaily,

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 Sep 21 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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

The authors addressed successfully all reviewers' concerns. In my opinion, the work provides an advance towards the current knowledge about nanotechnology and bacterial wound healing. However, the quality of the presentation of the figures does not meet the standards set forth by the journal Plos One and I suggest publishing the paper in the journal with minor changes.

Here are my comments to the authors:

- The figures are appropriate, and understandable. However, they represent the major weak point of this manuscript. They are not presented in an insightful way. Some figures could be grouped, for example, Fig.2 + Fig.4 + Fig.5 (the Table should be minimized and adjusted within the figure) + Fig.7 could be grouped together. Fig.3+ Fig.6 could be grouped together. Also, the labels on Figure 6 are not clear and there is internal redundancy within the Figure.

- The spaces between the parts of Figure 12 should be minimized to be clear for readers.

- The citation of the figures within the text should be adjusted following figures' modification.

Good continuation.

Abeer El Wakil, PhD.

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for addressing my comments. I think that your point of all bacteria being susceptible to silver nanoparticles is dabatable and should be addressed experimentally. However I think even if only one strain was used in your work it is valuable enough to be accepted.

Minor: capitalize "Gram" it is a surname. put all scientific names in italics.

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-01782R3The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas erogenous-Infected Dogs Wounds.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Aldujaily,

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 28 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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Editor's comments:

The authors addressed successfully all reviewers' concerns. In my opinion, the work provides an advance towards the current knowledge about nanotechnology and bacterial wound healing. However, the quality of the presentation of the figures does not meet the standards set forth by the journal Plos One and I suggest publishing the paper in the journal with minor changes.

Here are my comments to the authors:

-      The figures are appropriate, and understandable. However, they represent the major weak point of this manuscript. They are not presented in an insightful way. Some figures could be grouped, for example, Fig.2 + Fig.4 + Fig.5 (the Table should be minimized and adjusted within the figure) + Fig.7 could be grouped together. Fig.3+ Fig.6 could be grouped together. Also, the labels on Figure 6 are not clear and there is internal redundancy within the Figure.

- The spaces between the parts of Figure 12 should be minimized to be clear for readers.

- The citation of the figures within the text should be adjusted following figures' modification.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

PONE-D-24-01782R4The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas erogenous-Infected Dogs Wounds.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aldujaily,

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.

Here are my comments to the authors:

-      The figures are appropriate, and understandable. However, they represent the major weak point of this manuscript. They are not presented in an insightful way. Some figures could be grouped, for example, Fig.2 + Fig.4 + Fig.5 (the Table should be minimized and adjusted within the figure) + Fig.7 could be grouped together. Fig.3+ Fig.6 could be grouped together. Also, the labels on Figure 6 are not clear and there is internal redundancy within the Figure.

- The spaces between the parts of Figure 12 should be minimized to be clear for readers.

- The citation of the figures within the text should be adjusted following figures' modification.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

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.]

[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.

The Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Pseudomonas erogenous-Infected Dogs Wounds.

PONE-D-24-01782R5

Dear Dr. Aldujaily,

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,

Abeer El Wakil, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: