Lower termite (Coptotermes heimi) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, phylogenetic characterization, fibre degradation potential and in vitro digestibility

Pankaj Kumar Kumawat; Srobana Sarkar; Satish Kumar; Artabandhu Sahoo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318090

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 13, 2024
13 Feb 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r001
24 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor PONE-D-24-05915Lower termite (Coptotermes heimi) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, fiber degradation potential, phylogenetic dynamics and invitro digestibilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sahoo, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 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, Vishal Ahuja Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, The work presented in manuscript may have some significance but the representation is too poor. The writing part need major revision. The detailed comments are given below Line 14: Please provide the full name of the author. Line 15: spacing before "Principal". Line 19:change to "The present study was aimed to ..." LIne 20: missing a spacing - of anaerobic; from gut; termite Coptotermes; inhabiting under; semi arid. Line 21: missing a spacing before "A total". Line 22: missing a spacing before "isolates". Line 23: activity. Line 24: The highest........the lowest... Line 25: missing a spacing before "phylogenetic". Line 26: missing a spacing before "In vitro"; between "substrate was". Line 27: change to "TM6 revealed the highest". Line 28: missing a spacing - the gut of C. heimi. Line 30: missing a spacing before "utilization". Line 33: to improve. Line 33: poor quality of fibres. Line 34: missing a spacing before Coptotermes, gut. Line 37: into. Line 40: higher and lower? incomplete sentence. Line 41:harbour. Line 41: no comma before and after "while". Line 41: contain. Line 43: work, help. Line 43: breaking down complex. Line 48: poor-quality. Delete "adding". Line 50: have the ability. Line 51: missing a spacing before "Furthermore". Line 52: missing a comma between acetogenesis and methanogenesis. rewrite the last sentence. Line 54: typo error - heimi. Line 55: C. heimi. Line 56: C. heimi. Line 56: harbour a diverse... Line 58: from the gut. Line 59: of C. heimi. Line 59: delete microbiota never studied before Line 60: roughage-based Line 65: C. heimi. Line 66: what type of nest? What are the criteria in the site/tree selection? Line 67: delete "trees". Replace "on March" with "in March". How did you collect the samples? Line 80: 48 h. Line 82: was repeated..... Line 93: The experiment was conducted to estimate the enzymatic activity instead of the enzyme itself. Please rephrase the sentence. Line 96: activities are expressed. Line 104-105: rewrite. Line 107: 39°C. Line 110: rewrite. Line 111-112: rewrite. Line 113-116: rewrite. Line 123: 10 d. Line 125: was measured. Line 128: Get the correct name of the kit. Line 133: missing a spacing between a numeric and a unit. Line 134: How many different types of conditions? Line 135: 72ºC Line 136: 1.5 Kb Line 145: isolates were processed.....replicates... Line 147: How many types of content? Line 150: each bottle........condition. Line 152: 100 mL. Line 154: 24 h. Line 156: italic - in vitro. the samples were strained..... Line 157: -20°C Line 160: missing a spacing - 6 ft. Line 160: SP-1200 and 1% phosphoric acid. Line 162: 150°C Line 163: define gases air. Line 164: missing a spacing - CFAs mixture, 65 mM. Small letter for acetic acid. Line 173: missing a spacing before "All". Line 174: missing a spacing - their ability. Line 175: missing a spacing - which confirms. Line 176: missing a spacing before "All". Line 182: rewrite the sentence. Line 185: The endoglucanase activity of TM23 (Clostridium puniceum strain BL 70/20) was ... Line 186: missing a spacing - and the highest. Delete "was showed by isolate TM23. Line 186-197: only the scientific names are written in italic. The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 191: The maximum activity was observed in TM18... Line 198: missing a spacing - degradation potential. Line 199: hours or h. Please standardise. Line 201: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 204; missing a spacing - 1500 bp. Explain why only 20 isolates were processed molecular identification. Line 205: missing a spacing - to nucleotide blast. Line 206-217: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 217: 24 sequences represent how many bacterial isolates? Line 221: no italic for "hay". missing a spacing - straw by. Line 222: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 225 - 226: the highest, the lowest. Line 238 - 243: check all the spacing between words. A lot of grammatical errors. Rewrite the last sentence. Line 250-251: spacing. Line 252-259: no italic for sp. or spa. Line 259-262: rewrite. Line 263: from the gut of C. heimi. Line 267: from the gut of . Line 271-272: rewrite. Line 272: to extract. Line 295: the most......populations which include... Line 296: delete "family". Line 297: in the handgun of. Line 298: a key role. Line 299: in the fermentation processes. Line 302: in the midgut of. Line 304: Firmicutes as the most. Line 305: it was reported. Line 307: small letter - revealed. Line 308: had enhanced the. Line 309: spacing between texts. Line 310: the highest. Line 319: from the gut. Line 320: this is the first report. Line 321: the gut of C. heimi. Good luck. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Line 14: Please provide the full name of the author. Line 15: spacing before "Principal". Line 19:change to "The present study was aimed to ..." LIne 20: missing a spacing - of anaerobic; from gut; termite Coptotermes; inhabiting under; semi arid. Line 21: missing a spacing before "A total". Line 22: missing a spacing before "isolates". Line 23: activity. Line 24: The highest........the lowest... Line 25: missing a spacing before "phylogenetic". Line 26: missing a spacing before "In vitro"; between "substrate was". Line 27: change to "TM6 revealed the highest". Line 28: missing a spacing - the gut of C. heimi. Line 30: missing a spacing before "utilization". Line 33: to improve. Line 33: poor quality of fibres. Line 34: missing a spacing before Coptotermes, gut. Line 37: into. Line 40: higher and lower? incomplete sentence. Line 41:harbour. Line 41: no comma before and after "while". Line 41: contain. Line 43: work, help. Line 43: breaking down complex. Line 48: poor-quality. Delete "adding". Line 50: have the ability. Line 51: missing a spacing before "Furthermore". Line 52: missing a comma between acetogenesis and methanogenesis. rewrite the last sentence. Line 54: typo error - heimi. Line 55: C. heimi. Line 56: C. heimi. Line 56: harbour a diverse... Line 58: from the gut. Line 59: of C. heimi. Line 59: delete microbiota never studied before Line 60: roughage-based Line 65: C. heimi. Line 66: what type of nest? What are the criteria in the site/tree selection? Line 67: delete "trees". Replace "on March" with "in March". How did you collect the samples? Line 80: 48 h. Line 82: was repeated..... Line 93: The experiment was conducted to estimate the enzymatic activity instead of the enzyme itself. Please rephrase the sentence. Line 96: activities are expressed. Line 104-105: rewrite. Line 107: 39°C. Line 110: rewrite. Line 111-112: rewrite. Line 113-116: rewrite. Line 123: 10 d. Line 125: was measured. Line 128: Get the correct name of the kit. Line 133: missing a spacing between a numeric and a unit. Line 134: How many different types of conditions? Line 135: 72ºC Line 136: 1.5 Kb Line 145: isolates were processed.....replicates... Line 147: How many types of content? Line 150: each bottle........condition. Line 152: 100 mL. Line 154: 24 h. Line 156: italic - in vitro. the samples were strained..... Line 157: -20°C Line 160: missing a spacing - 6 ft. Line 160: SP-1200 and 1% phosphoric acid. Line 162: 150°C Line 163: define gases air. Line 164: missing a spacing - CFAs mixture, 65 mM. Small letter for acetic acid. Line 173: missing a spacing before "All". Line 174: missing a spacing - their ability. Line 175: missing a spacing - which confirms. Line 176: missing a spacing before "All". Line 182: rewrite the sentence. Line 185: The endoglucanase activity of TM23 (Clostridium puniceum strain BL 70/20) was ... Line 186: missing a spacing - and the highest. Delete "was showed by isolate TM23. Line 186-197: only the scientific names are written in italic. The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 191: The maximum activity was observed in TM18... Line 198: missing a spacing - degradation potential. Line 199: hours or h. Please standardise. Line 201: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 204; missing a spacing - 1500 bp. Explain why only 20 isolates were processed molecular identification. Line 205: missing a spacing - to nucleotide blast. Line 206-217: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 217: 24 sequences represent how many bacterial isolates? Line 221: no italic for "hay". missing a spacing - straw by. Line 222: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Line 225 - 226: the highest, the lowest. Line 238 - 243: check all the spacing between words. A lot of grammatical errors. Rewrite the last sentence. Line 250-251: spacing. Line 252-259: no italic for sp. or spa. Line 259-262: rewrite. Line 263: from the gut of C. heimi. Line 267: from the gut of . Line 271-272: rewrite. Line 272: to extract. Line 295: the most......populations which include... Line 296: delete "family". Line 297: in the handgun of. Line 298: a key role. Line 299: in the fermentation processes. Line 302: in the midgut of. Line 304: Firmicutes as the most. Line 305: it was reported. Line 307: small letter - revealed. Line 308: had enhanced the. Line 309: spacing between texts. Line 310: the highest. Line 319: from the gut. Line 320: this is the first report. Line 321: the gut of C. heimi. ****** 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: Wei Hong Lau ******** [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: PLOS ONE final Main Manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r002
Revision 1
31 May 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you for your useful suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. The suggestions were helpful in improving our manuscript and we have addressed them in the revised version. Here we are also providing the detailed responses to the comments and a word file has also been attached Comments Response to comments Line 14: Please provide the full name of the author Agreed and complied Line 15: spacing before "Principal". Corrected Line 19: change to "The present study was aimed to..." Sentence modified as suggested LIne 20: missing a spacing - of anaerobic; from gut; termite Coptotermes; inhabiting under; semi arid. Needful corrections done Line 21: missing a spacing before "A total". Needful corrections done Line 22: missing a spacing before "isolates". Needful corrections done Line 23: activity. Corrected as suggested Line 24: The highest........the lowest... Sentence modified as suggested Line 25: missing a spacing before "phylogenetic". Needful corrections done Line 26: missing a spacing before "In vitro"; between "substrate was". Needful corrections done Line 27: change to "TM6 revealed the highest". Needful corrections done Line 28: missing a spacing - the gut of C. heimi. Needful corrections done Line 30: missing a spacing before "utilization". Needful corrections done Line 33: to improve. Needful corrections done Line 33: poor quality of fibres. Needful corrections done Line 34: missing a spacing before Coptotermes, gut. Needful corrections done Line 37: into. Corrected as suggested Line 40: higher and lower? incomplete sentence. Sentence completed Line 41:harbour. Corrected as suggested Line 41: no comma before and after "while". Needful corrections done Line 41: contain.. Corrected as suggested Line 43: work, help. Corrected as suggested Line 43: breaking down complex Corrected as suggested Line 48: poor-quality. Delete "adding". Corrected as suggested Line 50: have the ability. Corrected as suggested Line 51: missing a spacing before "Furthermore". Corrected as suggested Line 52: missing a comma between acetogenesis and methanogenesis. rewrite the last sentence. Line 54: typo error - heimi. Sentence rewritten as suggested Line 55: C. heimi. Needful corrections done Line 56: C. heimi. Needful corrections done Line 56: harbour a diverse. Corrected as suggested Line 58: from the gut. Corrected as suggested Line 59: of C. heimi. Corrected as suggested Line 59: delete microbiota never studied before Corrected as suggested Line 60: roughage-based Corrected as suggested Line 65: C. heimi. Corrected as suggested Line 66: what type of nest? What are the criteria in the site/tree selection? The Coptotermes is part of family Rhinotermitidae are construct their nests within the wood they consume. These termites carve out intricate networks of tunnels within the wood, devoid of any visible external entrances, except for temporary ones formed during swarming periods. The tunnels within the nests are divided by partitions composed of their waste material and are often covered or lined with a plaster-like substance also made from their waste. The criteria used to identifying termite infested trees are as followed 1. Visible Damage 2. Frass or Termite Droppings 3. Mud Tubes 4. Wood Density and Moisture Content Line 67: delete "trees". Replace "on March" with "in March". How did you collect the samples? Corrected as suggested Line 80: 48 h. Corrected as suggested Line 82: was repeated..... Corrected as suggested Line 93: The experiment was conducted to estimate the enzymatic activity instead of the enzyme itself. Please rephrase the sentence. Corrected as suggested Line 96: activities are expressed. Corrected as suggested Line 104-105: rewrite. Sentence rewritten as suggested Line 107: 39°C. Corrected as suggested Line 110: rewrite. Sentence rewritten as suggested Line 111-112: rewrite. Sentence rewritten as suggested Line 113-116: rewrite. Sentence rewritten as suggested Line 123: 10 d. Corrected as suggested Line 125: was measured. Corrected as suggested Line 128: Get the correct name of the kit. Needful corrections done Line 133: missing a spacing between a numeric and a unit. Corrected as suggested Line 134: How many different types of conditions? The conditions are mentioned in text and rewritten for clarity. Line 135: 72ºC Needful corrections done Line 136: 1.5 Kb Needful corrections done Line 145: isolates were processed.....replicates... Text rewritten for clarity. Line 147: How many types of content? Text rewritten for clarity. Line 150: each bottle........condition. Needful corrections done Line 152: 100 mL. Needful corrections done Line 154: 24 h. Needful corrections done Line 156: italic - in vitro. the samples were strained..... Needful corrections done Line 157: -20°C Needful corrections done Line 160: missing a spacing - 6 ft. Needful corrections done Line 160: SP-1200 and 1% phosphoric acid. Needful corrections done Line 162: 150°C Needful corrections done Line 163: define gases air. Needful corrections done Line 164: missing a spacing - CFAs mixture, 65 mM. Small letter for acetic acid. Corrected as suggested Line 173: missing a spacing before "All". Corrected as suggested Line 174: missing a spacing - their ability. Corrected as suggested Line 175: missing a spacing - which confirms. Line 176: missing a spacing before "All". Corrected as suggested Line 182: rewrite the sentence. Sentence rewritten for clarity Line 185: The endoglucanase activity of TM23 (Clostridium puniceum strain BL 70/20) was ... Corrected as suggested Line 186: missing a spacing - and the highest. Delete "was showed by isolate TM23. Corrected as suggested Line 186-197: only the scientific names are written in italic. The coding names should be written in a regular format. Agreed and complied Line 191: The maximum activity was observed in TM18... Corrected as suggested Line 198: missing a spacing - degradation potential. Corrected as suggested Line 199: hours or h. Please standardise. Agreed and complied Line 201: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Agreed and complied Line 204; missing a spacing - 1500 bp. Explain why only 20 isolates were processed molecular identification. Corrected as suggested. All 24 isolates were processed for molecular identification, 20 was typographical error. Line 205: missing a spacing - to nucleotide blast. Needful corrections done Line 206-217: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Agreed and complied Line 217: 24 sequences represent how many bacterial isolates? Sequences of 24 isolates were submitted to NCBI GenBank Line 221: no italic for "hay". missing a spacing - straw by. Agreed and complied Line 222: The coding names should be written in a regular format. Agreed and complied Line 225 - 226: the highest, the lowest. Needful corrections done Line 238 - 243: check all the spacing between words. A lot of grammatical errors. Rewrite the last sentence. Sentence rewritten for clarity Line 250-251: spacing. Needful corrections done Line 252-259: no italic for sp. or spa. Needful corrections done Line 259-262: rewrite. Sentence rewritten for clarity Line 263: from the gut of C. heimi. Corrected as suggested Line 267: from the gut of . Corrected as suggested Line 271-272: rewrite. Sentence rewritten Line 272: to extract. Corrected as suggested Line 295: the most......populations which include.. Corrected as suggested Line 296: delete "family". Corrected as suggested Line 297: in the handgun of. Corrected as suggested Line 298: a key role. Corrected as suggested Line 299: in the fermentation processes. Corrected as suggested Line 302: in the midgut of. Needful corrections done Line 304: Firmicutes as the most. Corrected as suggested Line 305: it was reported. Corrected as suggested Line 307: small letter - revealed. Corrected as suggested Line 308: had enhanced the. Corrected as suggested Line 309: spacing between texts. Needful corrections done Line 310: the highest. Needful corrections done Line 319: from the gut. Corrected as suggested Line 320: this is the first report. Needful corrections done Line 321: the gut of C. heimi Needful corrections done Regards Artabandhu Sahoo Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r003
18 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor PONE-D-24-05915R1Lower termite ( Coptotermes heimi ) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, phylogenetic characterization, fibre degradation potential and in vitro digestibilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sahoo, 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 01 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, Vishal Ahuja 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: Dear author, Thank you for the submission. Review of your manuscript has been completed and it need minor revision. A lot of mistakes and type errors have been found in it which need to be removed for further consideration. Thanks and regards. [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: (No Response) 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: I Don't Know ****** 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: Line 15: Please provide the full name of the author. Line 40: Delete comma Line 172: Double full stops. Reviewer #2: Comments: 1. Line 23: The term ‘isolates’ is repeated after (TM1 to TM24). Please correct it. 2. Line 24: You mentioned that all isolates were obligatory anaerobes except four (TM8, TM9, TM14 and TM22). Kindly mention whether these four isolates are facultative anaerobes or aerobes. 3. Line 48: There is no spacing between fiber[15]. Please correct it. 4. Line 55: Double full stop after abundance. Please correct it. 5. Line 74: Whether it is Pfenning trace elements or Pfennig trace elements. Kindly confirm. 6. Line 82: -80°C (minus 80°C) should be written combinedly. 7. Line 153: There is no spacing between gfor. Please correct it. 8. Line 173: Double full stop. Please correct it. 9. Line 183: There is no spacing between (12.05 U/ml)and. Kindly correct it. 10. Line 186: There is no spacing between TM5and. Kindly correct it. 11. Line 283: Double full stop. Please correct. 12. Line 286: Whether it is termites fed xylan or termites fed on xylan. Kindly correct it. 13. Kindly recheck the manuscript for spacing and punctuation mistakes. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-05915_R1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r004
Revision 2
24 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you and the reviewers for the useful suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. The suggestions were helpful in improving our manuscript and we have addressed them in the revised version. Here we are also providing the detailed responses to the comments Comments Response to comments Reviewer #1 Line 15: Please provide the full name of the author. Needful corrections made Line 40: Delete comma Corrected as suggested Line 172: Double full stops Corrected as suggested Reviewer #2 Line 23: The term ‘isolates’ is repeated after (TM1 to TM24). Please correct it. Needful corrections made Line 24: You mentioned that all isolates were obligatory anaerobes except four (TM8, TM9, TM14 and TM22). Kindly mention whether these four isolates are facultative anaerobes or aerobes. Sentence modified as suggested Line 48: There is no spacing between fiber. Please correct it. Needful corrections made Line 55: Double full stop after abundance. Please correct it. Needful corrections made Line 74: Whether it is Pfenning trace elements or Pfennig trace elements. Kindly confirm. Needful corrections made Line 82: -80°C (minus 80°C) should be written combinedly. Corrected as suggested Line 153: There is no spacing between g for. Please correct it. Corrected as suggested Line 173: Double full stop. Please correct it. Corrected as suggested Line 183: There is no spacing between (12.05 U/ml) and. Kindly correct it. Needful corrections made Line 186: There is no spacing between TM5and. Kindly correct it. Needful corrections made Line 283: Double full stop. Please correct. Corrected as suggested Line 286: Whether it is termites fed xylan or termites fed on xylan. Kindly correct it. Corrected as suggested Kindly recheck the manuscript for spacing and punctuation mistakes. Agreed and complied Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r005
6 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor PONE-D-24-05915R2Lower termite ( Coptotermes heimi ) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, phylogenetic characterization, fibre degradation potential and in vitro digestibilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sahoo, 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 20 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, Vishal Ahuja 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: Dear authors, Thank you for the submission. The reviewer asked for some minor details about methodology. Kindly address the comments. Thanks and regards. [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 #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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #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 #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: Comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r006
Revision 3
30 Dec 2024 Author Response Attached as a word file Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_auresp_3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r007
7 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor PONE-D-24-05915R3Lower termite ( Coptotermes heimi ) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, phylogenetic characterization, fibre degradation potential and in vitro digestibilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sahoo, 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 Feb 21 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, Vishal Ahuja 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: Dear authors, Thanks for the submission of your revised manuscript. However, no response fille received. Kindly share it with clear response to al the comments. Good luck. [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r008
Revision 4
8 Jan 2025 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you and the reviewers for the useful suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. The suggestions were helpful in improving our manuscript and we have addressed them in the revised version. Herewith we are also providing the detailed responses to the comments and it is also attached as a separate file Response to comments: 1. Query - Could author explain in further detail the rationale behind using particularly Coptotermes heimi for this study: Answer - Wood-eating termites possess remarkable potential in various biotechnological applications due to their ability to efficiently break down recalcitrant biomass. Coptotermes heimi are the most predominant lower termites the in semi-arid regions of India and there exists similarity between the environments in the rumen and termites' gut. This unique capability makes them valuable source of fiber-degrading enzymes which could be utilized to enhance fiber digestion in ruminants, improving feed efficiency and overall productivity in livestock systems. 2. Query - Line 157-158, authors should provide the concentration of samples used for analysis with GC: Answer - Needful corrections made as suggested 3. Query - In Table 3, based on trends and value of fibrolytic enzyme activites observed, could author comment on finding some interesting correlation between activity and isolates: Answer - Agreed and added in the discussion 4. Query - In Table 4, could author comment on providing some quantitative/numerical data for filter paper degradation potential. Also, please provide remarks on significance of “+”in context of value: Answer - This is a qualitative test hence, no numerical data is available. Although, the significance of ‘+’ is added as a footnote below the Table. Regards Artabandhu Sahoo Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r009
10 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor Lower termite ( Coptotermes heimi ) gut fibrolytic bacterial consortium: Isolation, phylogenetic characterization, fibre degradation potential and in vitro digestibility PONE-D-24-05915R4 Dear Dr. Sahoo, 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, Vishal Ahuja Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear authors, Thanks for the submission of revised version. The manuscript has been revised suitably for consideration. Good luck Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r010
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vishal Ahuja, Editor PONE-D-24-05915R4 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sahoo, 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. Vishal Ahuja Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318090.r011

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 .