Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 20, 2024
Decision Letter - Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Editor

PONE-D-24-06911Inquisition of Novel Targets for Potential Fungicides against four plant pathogenic fungal by in silico, molecular docking, Molecular dynamics and DFTPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumer,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

1. Title of the manuscript needs revision. It looks incomplete as "four plant pathogenic fungal".

2. The manuscript lacks discussion on the bio-availability and toxicity of the said fungicides.

3. More data has been demanded by a Reviewer-2 and it is doable to use more in silico tools to elaborate the results especially the impact  of these fungicides on living cells  if these fungicides get enter into the cells.

4. Results lack description keeping in view the biological systems that may come in contact with these molecules..

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 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,

Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Ph.D.

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

[N/A]. 

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.

4. 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.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Comments by Reviewer 2.

Author should add more in-silico data from multiple software and tools to evaluate these findings. This is very limited data for such important fungal pathogens.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 review for the manuscript entitled “Inquisition of Novel Targets for Potential Fungicides against four plant pathogenic fungal by in silico, molecular docking, Molecular dynamics and DFT”.

Authors have explored potential candidates for fungicides against 4 fungal proteins. They have used in sillico, molecular docking simulations, and molecular dynamic simulation for selecting the nature inhibitors against fungal pathogens.

In opinion:

The manuscript title succinctly reflects the research's core. It's a meticulously prepared document:

The introduction furnishes a thorough overview, laying the groundwork for the study.

The methods section meticulously explains the procedures, ensuring reproducibility for fellow researchers.

Results and figures are clearly presented, facilitating comprehension of the findings.

The discussion and conclusion sections adeptly analyze the results, offering valuable insights into the study's implications.

Reviewer #2: Author should add more in-silico data from multiple software and tools to evaluate these findings. This is very limited data for such important fungal pathogens. Author should start with one fungal pathogen with the fungicide first.

**********

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: Yes:  Subhash Chandra

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: comments.docx
Revision 1
Decision Letter - Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Editor

PONE-D-24-06911R1Inquisition of Novel Fungicidal Targets for Combating Root Rot, Gray Mold, Fusarium Wilt, and Cereal Rust through In Silico Techniques, Molecular Docking, Dynamics, and DFT AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumer, 

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.

==============================Revised version of the manuscript is satisfactory. The authors are requested to perform minor revisions as suggested by the authors.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2025 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,

Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Ph.D.

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 revised version of manuscript is satisfactory. The authors are requested to perform minor revision as suggested by the reviewers.

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: This revised draft still needs formatting and grammatical correction throughout the draft. For example, Figure 6 to 9 legend font size is different. Give brief description for all figure legends. Title under each figure does not convey any information.

Cite the in-silico reference https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-011x.3191 with REF 9 for the statement “particularly in silico techniques like molecular docking[9]”

Do not use abbreviations in figure legend. For example, figure 2 legend, HOMO and LUMO. Write full name.

Check the formatting for the heading “A comparative study for docking Results”.

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes:  Hira Kamal

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: Reviewer Comments_PONE-D-24-06911.docx
Revision 2

The paper presents a comprehensive computational study on the identification of potential fungicides against four fungal proteins. The authors employ a range of computational methods, including molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and pharmacokinetics studies. However here are some suggestions

1. Title should be shortened and more concise.

Answer: It has revised and have made short as

“Computational and In silico study of Novel Fungicides against Combating Root Rot, Gray Mold, Fusarium Wilt, and Cereal Rust.”

2. Should add relevant keywords that accurately reflect the content of the paper.

Answer: It has revised and added as

Density Functional Theory, HOMO, LUMO, Molecular docking, ADMET and Molecular Dynamics

3. Don’t use jargon in title

Answer: It has revised and sincerely removed.

4. Add description or full form of these proteins i.e. 7VEM, 8H6Q, 8EBB, 7XDS, at

least at first time use.

Answer: It has revised and added as:

The proteins 7VEM, 8H6Q, 8EBB, and 7XDS, derived from various devastating plant pathogens, represent critical targets for computational drug discovery aimed at combating agricultural diseases. The protein 7VEM, identified as NADPH-assisted quinone oxidoreductase from Phytophthora capsici, plays a crucial role in maintaining redox balance essential for the pathogen's survival and virulence, making it a prime target for inhibitor design. Solved at 2.39 Å resolution with an R-work value of 0.167, its structural fidelity and lack of mutations ensure reliable insights for virtual screening and molecular docking. Similarly, the Class I sesquiterpene synthase BCBOT2 (apo) from Botrytis cinerea (PDB ID: 8H6Q), resolved at 2.00 Å with R-free and R-work values of 0.195 and 0.168 respectively, is vital for sesquiterpene biosynthesis linked to the pathogen's virulence. Its structural data offer a robust framework for identifying small molecules to disrupt sesquiterpene synthesis, attenuating B. cinerea's pathogenicity. The SIX6 protein from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (PDB ID: 8EBB), despite its classification as a protein of unknown function, plays a critical role in the virulence mechanism of this vascular wilt pathogen, which devastates crops like tomatoes. Its high-resolution structure at 1.88 Å, with R-free and R-work values of 0.221 and 0.193, supports molecular docking, virtual screening, and lead optimization to design antifungal agents. Finally, the AvrSr35 effector protein from Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (PDB ID: 7XDS), resolved at 2.06 Å with reliable R-values (R-free: 0.287, R-work: 0.257, Observed: 0.258), provides critical insights into wheat stem rust pathogenicity. Its potential as a target for structure-based drug design is underscored by its well-defined active sites and suitability for molecular dynamics simulations and virtual screening. Together, these structural models offer a comprehensive platform for advancing the design of inhibitors to mitigate plant pathogen-induced diseases Table 1.

Table 1. Protein information.

Title PDB ID:7VEM PDB ID:8H6Q PDB ID:8EBB PDB ID:7XDS

Organism Phytophthora capsici Botrytis cinerea Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici

Resolution 2.39 Å 2.00 Å 1.88 Å 2.06 Å

R-Value Free 0.224 0.195 0.221 0.287

Ramachoron plot, % 89.5 93.8 91.8 94.7

5. Also add sequence characterization study for the given proteins

Answer: It has revised and added which is almost relevant answer of question 4.

6. Add details of figure in legends

Answer: Answer: It has revised and added as:

The study of a computational procedure to determine the quantum calculations of any chemical species requires the optimization of the molecular structure, which is an important aspect of its structural geometry.

Additionally, accurate computational parameters are obtained by determining the most stable configuration of any chemical structure. In this study, all compounds underwent computational optimization using the DFT functional, and their primary and most stable configuration was observed with minimal energy required for optimization. The antifungal ligands are Azoxystrobin(L01), Cyproconazole(L02), Difenoconazole (L03), Tebuconazole (L04), Tricyclazole (L05), Chlorothalonil (L06), Benalaxyl (L07),Bismerthiazol (L08), Carbendazim (L09), Hexaconazole (L10), Thiram (L11), Carboxin (L12), Iprodione (L13), Kresoxim-Methyl (L14), Cymoxanil (L15), Dichloran (L16), Propiconazole (L17), Dimethomorph (L18), Pyraclostrobin (L19) andAmetoctradin (L20) are shown in Fig 1 and supplementary 1.

L01 L02

L03 L04

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments_PONE-D-24-06911 (R2).docx
Decision Letter - Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Editor

Computational and In silico study of Novel Fungicides against Combating Root Rot, Gray Mold, Fusarium Wilt, and Cereal Rust

PONE-D-24-06911R2

Dear Dr. Ajoy Kumer,

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,

Faiz Ahmad Joyia, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Faiz Joyia, Editor

PONE-D-24-06911R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumer,

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. Faiz Ahmad Joyia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .