Production of probiotic garden cress (Lepidium Sativum) using Bifidobacterium Bifidum and its evaluation of nutritional value, biocontrol and growth rate ability

Golnaz Shambayati; Mojtaba Mohammadzadeh Vazifeh; Seyed Masoud Hosseini; Hasan Hajjami Barkousaraei

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322552

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 15, 2024
15 May 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r001
24 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Khaled Abd EL-Razik, Editor Dear Dr. Shambayati, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 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. 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, Khaled Abd EL-Hamid Abd EL-Razik, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the online submission form, you indicated that The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from (Golnaz Shambayati/gshambayati97@gmail.com). All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 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. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. [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? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** Reviewer #1: please follow instruction within the manuscript . authors should add the impact of research in the conclusion and introduction need more improvements to be more informative some spelling mistakes need to be corrected add more details in materials section as probiotic inoculation Reviewer #2: the manuscript is techinically sound and have an impact for future applying also the scientific quality of the paper is good,Statistical Analysis is required.the authors have made all data underlying the findings in the manuscript fully available, the language of the manuscript is clear .Here are some comments for revising it. I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Production of probiotic garden cress (Lepidium Sativum) using Bifidobacterium Bifidum and its evaluation of nutritional value, bio control and growth rate’ thoroughly. The manuscript is discussing an interesting topic; generation of probiotic garden seeds and assessment of bifidobacteria's viability and resistance in gastrointestinal environments in addition, analyses of its organoleptic qualities, growth rate, and effect on vitamin C content were conducted. • Where is the key word? • SGI must be written fully for the first time in abstract. • Line 93 SGI can be written in abbreviated form as it is mentioned before. • Line 123 correct the word moistens. • Line 175 they were determined instead of and were determined. • Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of stomach condition, also why they didn’t make different PH values? • Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of SGI with different concentration for bile condition? • Line 220 write the name of PDA media (Potato Dextrose Agar) media fully. • Statistical Analysis is required. • Conclusion: The whole conclusion should be summarized and include recommendation with mentioning the most important finding not to repeat all the result that presented in detail in the result section. Reviewer #3: The manuscript needs English editing, reconstitution of sentences follow Reviewer comments No statistical analysis was performed follow journal guidelines Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The authors make all data underlying the findings described in the manuscript fully available without restriction ****** 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: Amany Ahmed Arafa Reviewer #2: Yes: Eman Shafeek Ibrahim Reviewer #3: Yes: Ashraf S. Hakim ******** [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-24-18993.pdf 9-6.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: plos one reviewer.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Revised PONE-D-24-18993_reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r002
Revision 1
2 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear PLOS one team I hope I’ve been able to amend and complete the article correctly. This is my first experience submitting an article and I was not aware of some basis needed to do so. Response to reviewer #1 - Please follow instruction within the manuscript. authors should add the impact of research in the conclusion and introduction need more improvements to be more informative. The instructions have been followed and the impact of the research has been added. The introduction and the conclusion sections have been restructured and more informative. - Some spelling mistakes need to be corrected All the spelling and numerical mistakes have been corrected. - Add more details in materials section as probiotic inoculation All of the materials and methods have completely been added and the probiotic inoculation method has also been rewritten and fully explained. Response to reviewer #2 - Where is the key word? The key words are added to the end of the abstract section - SGI must be written fully for the first time in abstract. SGI is fully rewritten in the abstract. - Line 93 SGI can be written in abbreviated form as it is mentioned before. - Line 123 correct the word moistens. - Line 175 they were determined instead of and were determined. All the spelling, abbreviation and grammatical mistakes have been corrected. - Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of stomach condition, also why they didn’t make different PH values? - Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of SGI with different concentration for bile condition? The strain used in this study (Bifidobacterium bifidum) is an industrial strain whose viability and resistance to gastrointestinal condition and pH has already been examined and confirmed. We aimed to investigate the ability of the bacteria to survive in stomach and intestinal conditions due to the change in bacterial niche (The original niche of this strain is the human large intestine not the herbs). For this reason, only the pH mentioned in the references and articles discussing probiotics viability was used to check the survival of the bacteria and there was no need to use different concentrations of bile salts or other pH values. Determination of total viable count after exposure to SGI condition was done on day 3 because it was important for us that the bacteria survive in the mentioned conditions until the last day of expiration. That is why different intervals was not made. - Line 220 write the name of PDA media (Potato Dextrose Agar) media fully. The full form of PDA media is written. - Statistical Analysis is required. Some tests including fat content, pH and acidity measurement was repeated two more times with the mentioned protocols to add statistical analysis you asked for. The other parameters, except organoleptic evaluation, are reported as an average of three results obtained from previous experiments but the statistical analysis is also added to them, hoping that it will be acceptable to you. - Conclusion: The whole conclusion should be summarized and include recommendation with mentioning the most important finding not to repeat all the result that presented in detail in the result section. The most important findings and recommendations are added to the conclusion section and the results repetition is removed. Response to reviewer #3 - The manuscript needs English editing, reconstitution of sentences English editing and reconstitution of sentences are done. I tried to rewrite the manuscript in an intelligible fashion and standard English. - Follow Reviewer comments All the comments have been applied and followed. - No statistical analysis was performed The statistical analysis is performed and added. - Follow journal guidelines The journal guidelines have been followed. - Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Yes; The authors made all data underlying the findings in the manuscript fully available without restriction. All the mistakes the dear reviewers have mentioned were completely correct and acceptable and I am very grateful that you read my article carefully. Thank you for giving me another chance to send you the revised manuscript. I hope I can send you more articles and have more cooperation with you. Kind regards Golnaz Shambayati Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r003
30 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Shengqian Sun, Editor Dear Dr. Shambayati, 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 Mar 16 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. 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 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, Shengqian Sun 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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: 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??> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: The authors have carried out significant changes to the manuscript. They have addressed most of the suggested corrections and comments. Really, it's an interesting study that has a significant impact. Now, the manuscript could be accepted. Congratulations. Reviewer #4: The research in this paper is very interesting and the results are also very meaningful. The production of probiotics using Bifidobacterium bifidum is of great research value. While the writing needs to be more standardized, it is recommended to make appropriate revisions. 1.The Introduction is well written, but the length is a bit short. Please add some content and references appropriately. 2.The vertical axis of Figure 4 needs to be explained. 3.There are too many images in the manuscript, so it is necessary to consider combining them into larger images, or some images can be included in the appendix. Especially the merging of Figures 11-13. 4.Similarly, the results section is also appropriately merged together based on the merging of the graphs. 5.The conciseness of the research conclusions is not enough, for example, the conclusion and abstract sections do not have a research significance section, only the research results. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r004
Revision 2
9 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer 4 I hope you are doing great. Thank you so much for analyzing my manuscript carefully. The points you mentioned are all acceptable and I'm so grateful to announce that all of them have been revised and corrected. I hope I get acceptance letter Best regards Golnaz Shambayati Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r005
11 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Shengqian Sun, Editor Dear Dr. Shambayati, Thank you for your revised manuscript. I appreciate your efforts in addressing the reviewers' comments and completing the revision. However, I noticed that the submission is missing a properly marked-up version with track changes as well as the unmarked version of the revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 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 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 . Please carefully follow the journal's submission guidelines and consider referring to examples from fellow researchers to ensure accuracy. Kindly revise and resubmit accordingly. Let me know if you need any further clarification. Kind regards, Shengqian Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r006
Revision 3
22 Mar 2025 Author Response Dear PLOS one team I hope I’ve been able to amend and complete the article correctly. This is my first experience submitting an article and I was not aware of some basis needed to do so. Response to reviewer #1 - Please follow instruction within the manuscript. authors should add the impact of research in the conclusion and introduction need more improvements to be more informative. The instructions have been followed and the impact of the research has been added. The introduction and the conclusion sections have been restructured and more informative. - Some spelling mistakes need to be corrected All the spelling and numerical mistakes have been corrected. - Add more details in materials section as probiotic inoculation All of the materials and methods have completely been added and the probiotic inoculation method has also been rewritten and fully explained. Response to reviewer #2 - Where is the key word? The key words are added to the end of the abstract section - SGI must be written fully for the first time in abstract. SGI is fully rewritten in the abstract. - Line 93 SGI can be written in abbreviated form as it is mentioned before. - Line 123 correct the word moistens. - Line 175 they were determined instead of and were determined. All the spelling, abbreviation and grammatical mistakes have been corrected. - Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of stomach condition, also why they didn’t make different PH values? - Why the authors didn’t make different intervals in determination of total viable count for studying the effect of SGI with different concentration for bile condition? The strain used in this study (Bifidobacterium bifidum) is an industrial strain whose viability and resistance to gastrointestinal condition and pH has already been examined and confirmed. We aimed to investigate the ability of the bacteria to survive in stomach and intestinal conditions due to the change in bacterial niche (The original niche of this strain is the human large intestine not the herbs). For this reason, only the pH mentioned in the references and articles discussing probiotics viability was used to check the survival of the bacteria and there was no need to use different concentrations of bile salts or other pH values. Determination of total viable count after exposure to SGI condition was done on day 3 because it was important for us that the bacteria survive in the mentioned conditions until the last day of expiration. That is why different intervals was not made. - Line 220 write the name of PDA media (Potato Dextrose Agar) media fully. The full form of PDA media is written. - Statistical Analysis is required. Some tests including fat content, pH and acidity measurement was repeated two more times with the mentioned protocols in order to add statistical analysis you asked for. The other parameters, except organoleptic evaluation, are reported as an average of three results obtained from previous experiments but the statistical analysis is also added to them, hoping that it will be acceptable to you. - Conclusion: The whole conclusion should be summarized and include recommendation with mentioning the most important finding not to repeat all the result that presented in detail in the result section. The most important findings and recommendations are added to the conclusion section and the results repetition is removed. Response to reviewer #3 - The manuscript needs English editing, reconstitution of sentences English editing and reconstitution of sentences are done. I tried to rewrite the manuscript in an intelligible fashion and standard English. - Follow Reviewer comments All the comments have been applied and followed. - No statistical analysis was performed The statistical analysis is performed and added. - Follow journal guidelines The journal guidelines have been followed. - Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Yes; The authors made all data underlying the findings in the manuscript fully available without restriction. Response to reviewer #4: - The Introduction is well written, but the length is a bit short. Please add some content and references appropriately The introduction is written longer and the content related to this section is added properly. - The vertical axis of Figure 4 needs to be explained. Done! - There are too many images in the manuscript, so it is necessary to consider combining them into larger images, or some images can be included in the appendix. Especially the merging of Figures 11-13. You are completely right. I felt the same when looking at the file. Some unnecessary figures have been eliminated and the figures and tables labels are also changed due to the rearranges in the figures and tables order. - Similarly, the results section is also appropriately merged together based on the merging of the graphs. Done! - The conciseness of the research conclusions is not enough, for example, the conclusion and abstract sections do not have a research significance section, only the research results No doubt, the points you mentioned are definitely right. Thank you for your points of view. I should have mentioned the importance of my research and highlight it in order the readers know WHY I decided to go work on this topic. I tried my best to show its importance in the conclusion and abstract section. I hope I was successful. - 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'. The ‘Response to reviewers’ and ‘Manuscript’ files have already been written and prepared. But unfortunately I had a problem preparing ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ file. I did not get your mean by “Track Changes” and every time you mentioned a mistake and asked for a revision, I highlighted the edited section to let you know that this part have been edited, eliminated or added to the manuscript. Actually I have included the changes in the highlighted sections of the document. I am so sorry for that. I have been dealing with many problems lately and it completely confused me. It would be a great favor if you accept this version of my manuscript. Thank you. I’ll be sending you more papers soon and I promise I will never ever do this mistake again. All the mistakes the dear reviewers have mentioned were completely correct and acceptable and I am very grateful that you read my article carefully. Thank you for giving me another chance to send you the revised manuscript. I hope I can send you more articles and have more cooperation with you. Kind regards Golnaz Shambayati Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r007
25 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Shengqian Sun, Editor Production of probiotic garden cress (Lepidium Sativum) using Bifidobacterium Bifidum and its evaluation of nutritional value, biocontrol and growth rate ability PONE-D-24-18993R3 Dear Dr. Shambayati, 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, Shengqian Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r008
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Shengqian Sun, Editor PONE-D-24-18993R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohammadzadeh Vazifeh, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Shengqian Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322552.r009

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 .