Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 24, 2024
Decision Letter - Ryan Thomas, Editor

PONE-D-24-29210Inulin promotes appetite in mice by regulating the gut microbiota under conditions of rapid entry to the plateauPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for you submission to PLOS ONE. While your manuscript has merit, the reviewer and I noted several issues that require attention to prior to consideration for approval. My additional comments are listed here with the reviewer's at the end of this letter. Overall the reviewer and I found the research interesting and valuable for PLOS ONE readers but major revisions required.

1. Additional careful proofread is required as there are spelling and grammar errors that need corrected.

2. I do not see that false discovery rate correction was performed for the microbiome evaluations - please perform statistical analysis with FDR correction.

3. Please describe in the methods how the mice were housed and in how many cages they were housed in. Caging effect may be a large confounder of the data.

4. Include dot plot graphs so that the reader and reviewer may see the individual distribution of cohort animals.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 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,

Ryan M. Thomas, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. 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.

4. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

5. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. 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.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Editor Comments:

The manuscript presents an interesting study on the effects of inulin on appetite modulation in mice, focusing on gut microbiota changes under rapid entry to plateau conditions. The concept is well-founded, and the methodology appears robust. However, several areas require revision and clarification to enhance the manuscript's clarity and scientific rigor.

Specific Comments:

1. Introduction: The introduction should better contextualize the research within existing literature. Please expand on previous studies that have investigated the effects of inulin on gut microbiota and appetite, particularly in non-plateau conditions, to strengthen the rationale for this study.

2. Data presentation: Some figures and tables are very complex. Simplify them if possible.

3. Discussion: The discussion section needs further improvement. Explain how the results are consistent with the initial hypothesis. Discuss the implications of these findings for using inulin as a functional food, especially under the unique conditions of rapid plateau entry. The discussion should also include a section on study limitations. Address potential biases and generalizability of the results to other populations or species.

4. References: Verification and Formatting: Please review references 1 to 11 for relevance and accuracy, ensuring they are updated and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

**********

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:  Dr. Mai Albaik

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Dear Ryan M. Thomas,

I have examined the comments you provided and have incorporated the following four main elements into the manuscript:

1. The figures have been removed from the manuscript.

2. All authors and their respective affiliations are listed in the main document, and the identity of the corresponding author is clearly indicated.

3. The separately loaded table files have been removed.

I would be grateful if you could review the revised manuscript and provide me with your invaluable feedback on this revised version.

Kind regards,

Li Xiaoli

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor

PONE-D-24-29210R1Inulin promotes appetite in mice by regulating the gut microbiota under conditions of rapid entry to the plateauPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

The authors have clearly addressed the comments from the first round of reviews. A second round of review suggests a minor revision is required. I also advise the authors to update the background with rescent publications that came after the original submission. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 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,

Yash Gupta, 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:

Reviewers have raised deficiencies that are to be corrected.

[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: All comments have been addressed

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: Present work, titled as “Inulin promotes appetite in mice by regulating the gut microbiota under conditions of rapid entry to the plateau”, by Xiaoli Li and co-workers aims to explore role of inulin, a dietary fiber, in regulating gut microbiota with a model study using fifty seven-week-old SPF-grade C57BL/6J male mice. Authors have chosen two different environmental conditions, i.e. regular and rush to plateau to study structural as well as functional characteristics of inulin uptake affecting the gut microbiota. Results demonstrate that inulin has a direct impact on metabolism and secretion of appetite hormones which result in enhanced appetite and body weight by increasing useful gut bacteria.

Authors have systematically introduced the concepts involved in developing the study of inulin in the context of plateau health supplements along with detailed methodology adopted in conducting the study. The manuscript is well-written, highlighting the background of current study, limitations/challenges followed by scope of future actions towards promoting health in plateau environments. The work can be accepted for publication after addressing the following concerns:

Correction:

• Authors mentioned in the abstract that ‘fifty seven-week-old SPF-grade C57BL/6J male mice’ were used for the study but materials and methods section says fifty eight week. Please check and correct this.

• What do NPY and PYY correspond to in the ‘Measurement of appetite hormone content’ section? Explain the significance of these measuring these two contents for better understanding of the readers.

• Which ‘spectrophotometer’ was used to measure the purity and concentration of extracted DNA? Provide the details.

• Provide the reference for ‘four parameter logistic function’.

• Several sentences need to be rephrased for clarity like;

‘Overcoming the adverse effects………………………………………………….…solved urgently.’

‘Furthermore, the mechnanism……………………………………………………inulin was analyzed.’

‘Were/was’ used at several places in the results and discussion section.

‘pH’ written as ‘PH’.

‘Inulin’ should be written in lower case whenever it appears in the middle of the sentence.

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Report.pdf
Revision 2

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your constructive feedback and careful evaluation of our manuscript titled “Inulin promotes appetite in mice by regulating the gut microbiota under conditions of rapid entry to the plateau.” We have thoroughly addressed all the concerns raised and incorporated the suggested revisions. Below are our point-by-point responses:

1.Correction: Inconsistency in mouse age

Reviewer’s comment: The abstract states “fifty seven-week-old mice,” while the Materials and Methods section mentions “fifty eight-week-old mice.”

Response: We sincerely apologize for this oversight. The correct age of the mice is seven-week-old, as stated in the abstract. The typographical error in the Materials and Methods section has been corrected (Page 3, Line 78).

2.Clarification of NPY and PYY

Reviewer’s comment: Explain the abbreviations NPY and PYY and their significance in appetite regulation.

Response: We have revised the “Measurement of appetite hormone content” section to clarify:

Neuropeptide Y(NPY, an appetite-stimulating hormone). Peptide YY(PYY, an appetite-suppressing hormone).This explanation has been added to the manuscript (Page 6, Lines 68–69).

Measuring these hormones helps elucidate how inulin modulates appetite via gut microbiota-mediated pathways. This explanation has been added to the manuscript (Page 6, Lines 112–114).

3.Spectrophotometer details

Reviewer’s comment: Specify the spectrophotometer used for DNA analysis.

Response: The purity and concentration of the extracted DNA were measured using an AOELAB V-1200 spectrophotometer made by Xiangyi Instruments Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China).

This detail has been included in the Methods section (Page 4, Line 73-76).

4.Reference for the four-parameter logistic function

Reviewer’s comment: Provide a reference for the four-parameter logistic function.

Response: We have added the requested reference (DeLean et al., 1978) as citation [27] in the revised manuscript (Page 9, Line 191).

5. Language and formatting revisions

Reviewer’s comment: Rephrase ambiguous sentences, correct grammatical errors, and standardize formatting (e.g., “pH,” lowercase “inulin”).

Response: All suggested revisions have been implemented:

Ambiguous sentences (e.g., “Overcoming the adverse effects…solved urgently”) were rephrased for clarity.

Grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., “were/was”) and formatting errors (e.g., “PH” → “pH”) were corrected.

“Inulin” is now consistently lowercase in mid-sentence instances.

We appreciate the reviewer’s meticulous attention to these details.

Additional Changes

All figures, tables, and supplementary materials were reviewed for consistency, and minor typographical errors were corrected throughout the manuscript.

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if further clarifications or adjustments are required.

Sincerely,

Xiaoli Li (on behalf of all authors)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx
Decision Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor

Inulin promotes appetite in mice by regulating the gut microbiota under conditions of rapid entry to the plateau

PONE-D-24-29210R2

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Yash Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor

PONE-D-24-29210R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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. Yash Gupta

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 .