PONE-D-24-13567Association between dietary inflammation index and herpes simplex virus I and II: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guo,

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.

==============================Your manuscript has been reviewed by reviewers, and they have provided their comments on your study. Please consider revising your manuscript by addressing the comments from both reviewers and kindly replying to them.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 07 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,

Engin Berber, D.V.M., Ph.D.

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Dear Authors

I read your manuscript carefully; your work will be accepted with minor revision. Please apply the following comments.

Article entitled “Association between dietary inflammation index and herpes simplex virus I and II: a cross-sectional study” has been written in a good way; It is an interesting topic. Authors only address following minor revisions:

Abstract:

-Your keywords should write based on MeSH term.

Introduction

In the introduction, you should first discuss the role of dietary intake (especially natural supplements and complementary medicine) in the virus infection diseases (COVID 19, Herpes and…), then discuss the probably association between dietary inflammatory index with HSV prevalence. You can also use the following references in your article for strengthen the introduction and discussion sections. These references are helpful.

1) Shan, T., Huang, Y., Zhao, Z., Li, F., Wang, Y., Ye, C., ... & Ren, Z. (2023). Ketogenic diet restrains herpes simplex encephalitis via gut microbes. Microbes and Infection, 25(3), 105061.

2) Evaluation of the effect of kefir supplementation on inflammatory markers and clinical and hematological indices in COVID-19 patients; a randomized double-blind clinical trial (Advances in Integrative Medicine).

3) Effect of a diet based on Iranian traditional medicine on inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A double-blind, randomized, controlled (European Journal of Integrative Medicine).

4) Current Nutritional Support in Critical Ill Covid-19 Patients: A Brief Review (DOI:10.26420/austincritcarej.2021.1034).

5) Effects of Melatonin and Propolis Supplementation on Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Primary Pneumosepsis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (Complementary medicine research).

6) Firouzi et al. The effect of Vitamin C and Zn supplementation on the immune system and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

7) Does propolis have any effect on rheumatoid arthritis? A review study (Food Science & Nutrition).

-Given that similar studies have been done before, please mention the logic and novelty of your work.

-Please mention the novelty of your study.

Methods:

- Please more explain about your study design.

- Did the authors calculate study sample prior the study?

- Do you have information on the household socio-economic status? It has been demonstrated that "generally" adherence to a healthier pattern is associated with higher educational and socio-economic level of the family.

- I couldn't see the food intake chart (micronutrients), is it measured?

Results:

Well presented.

Discussion:

Authors should improve discussion section by implementing recent evidence. You can also use the above references.

- I found some grammatical errors in your work. Please revise in again by a native person.

Best Regard

Reviewer #2: The author conducted extensive research to explore the association between the Dietary Inflammation Index and herpes simplex virus I and II based on the NHANES datasets. However, there are many questions here that may need further improvement.

1) In the Abstract-Introduction, "to fill....and to provide...." changed to "We aimed to fill....and to provide.... "

2) Why choose data from these five cycles in the NHANES (2007-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2013-2014,

95 and 2015-2016)?

3) line 160: "Education level was classified as high school graduate, college, less than high school

and above". This sentence is a bit confusing and does not align with the following table. In thel table, education level was classified into >high school, high school, and <high school.="">4)line 188: How is diabetes detected? According to the following table, diabetes status were classified as "no", "DM", "IGT", and "IFG". Please provide detailed definitions for these indicators.

5) In Table 2, the header row should include OR (95% CI).

6) Importantly, NHANES employed a complex, multistage, probability sampling design. Using NHANES weights can make the study results more representative, reflecting the overall situation of the US population rather than just individuals in the sample. Therefore, the author should conduct weighted logistic regression analysis when performing this study. As for selecting and calculating weights, it is advisable for the author to consult relevant literature.</high>

**********

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-24-13567R1Association between dietary inflammation index and herpes simplex virus I and II: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guo,

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 revise your draft accordingly and address the reviewers' comments.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 02 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,

Engin Berber, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: 1. In the definition of diabetes as a covariate, you are not asked to classify diabetes into four types, but rather to distinguish between the presence or absence of diabetes based on multiple indicators from NHANES. A fasting blood glucose level above 7.0 mmol/L can be defined as diabetes, but if it is below 7.0 mmol/L, does that mean the participants doesn't have diabetes? You also need to consider whether they are taking blood sugar-lowering medications or receiving other glucose-lowering treatments. Additionally, it’s important to look at HbA1c levels, such as whether it’s greater than 6.5%. All of these factors should be considered together to determine whether the individual has diabetes.These data can be obtained from the NHANES database.

2. Importantly, NHANES employed a complex, multistage, probability sampling design. Using NHANES weights can make the study results more representative, reflecting the overall situation of the US population rather than just individuals in the sample. Therefore, the author should conduct weighted logistic regression analysis when performing this study.

Reviewer #3: This study entitled Association between dietary inflammation index and herpes simplex virus I and II: a cross-sectional study is interesting. However, I have some comments.

1. The result section in abstract is so general without any emphasizing on number or for example OR or CI . it should be corrected.

2. I think it would have been better to talk about the disease first in the introduction section and then talk about the inflammatory index of the diet in the following paragraphs.

3. In the introduction section, it is better to mention in one sentence the association between the inflammatory diet and the risk of acute and chronic diseases (you can read these studies and use as references in this section 10.1016/j.dsx.2015.09.015 and 10.1002/ptr.7081

4. Research Gap and Novelty: The claim that no studies have examined DII and HSV among U.S. adults is important but should be emphasized more. Moreover, explain why the NHANES dataset is uniquely suited for this study.

5. You should explain more the exclusion criteria.

6. When you calculate DII, did you adjust the effects of energy for every 45 components?

7. The smoothing curve fitting should be explained more

8. Its better to mention the key findings in each model with specific p-values and odds ratios to guide readers through the statistical significance and strength of associations more effectively.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Association between dietary inflammation index and herpes simplex virus I and II: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-24-13567R2

Dear Dr. Guo,

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,

Engin Berber, D.V.M., Ph.D.

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I think authors could make all of the comments in the new version of manuscript and it has good quality for acceptance.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is well written, and it provides valuable data to fill the gap. I have no comments to raise concern.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********