Assessment of antidiabetic, hepatoprotective, and analgesic effects of quinazolinone derivative, (E)-1-Benzoyl-3-((4- (Dimethylamino) Benzylidene) Amino)-2-(4-(Dimethylamino) Phenyl)-2,3 dihydroquinazoline-4(1h)-one, in diabetes induced mice model

Haider Ali; Asif Jan; Gowhar Ali; Syed Shaukat Ali; Abdur Rahim; Ursula Abu Nahla

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327627

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 23, 2025
24 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Editor Dear Dr. Abu Nahla, 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 Nov 08 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, Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 3. Please 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. 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: N/A Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 7. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. 8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 10. 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.] 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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Chemicals and Equipment Strengths: •Clear identification of chemicals and their sources. •Inclusion of equipment brands adds transparency and reproducibility. Weaknesses: •The title “Chemicals and Equipments” uses incorrect plural; “Equipment” is uncountable. •The list format could benefit from clearer categorization (e.g., reagents vs. instruments). •“Test compound” is vaguely described; its chemical name, purity, and preparation details should be specified. Animals Strengths: •Ethical compliance is documented with reference to approval and regulations. •Breeding and housing information is provided. Weaknesses: •Mixing British and American spellings (“behavioural” vs. “behavioral”; “labouratory” vs. “laboratory”) should be standardized. •The timing of animal testing (8:00 am to 5:00 pm) seems overly specific and unnecessary unless diurnal effects are relevant. •“Animals care” should be titled “Animal Care” and moved under the “Animals” section for coherence. ________________________________________ ☠️ Acute Toxicity Strengths: •Dosing regimen is thorough and progressive. •Multiple time points for assessment show diligence. Weaknesses: •Vague behavioral descriptions (“writhing, aggression, etc.”) are insufficient for scientific reporting. •Mixing up possessive (“mice’s”) and plural nouns detracts from professionalism. •Mortality is mentioned but not quantified clearly. Diabetes Induction and Glucose Monitoring Strengths: •Appropriate use of alloxan and food deprivation before administration. •Consistent blood glucose monitoring with tail-tip sampling. Weaknesses: •No baseline glucose values provided. •It’s unclear whether hyperglycemia thresholds were validated or how diabetic status was confirmed. •The glucometer brand/model is omitted, affecting reproducibility. Preclinical Pharmacological Tests Strengths: •Multiple tests allow broad functional assessment (thermal, chemical, mechanical stimuli). •Comparison between standard drugs and test compound supports validation. Weaknesses: •The % analgesia formula lacks clarity and formatting, and there's no citation for the equation source. •“Peripheral agony” is not appropriate scientific terminology—better to use “nociceptive stimulus.” •Repetition in structure and phrasing makes it hard to distinguish among tests. •Important data points like number of animals per group, randomization, and blinding are not discussed. Histological and Biochemical Analysis Strengths: •Established procedures for sample handling and staining are referenced. •Use of standard clinical parameters (ALT, AST, ALP) reflects biomedical relevance. Weaknesses: •Centrifuge speed is unusually low (“300 rpm” seems off; likely meant to be “3000 rpm”). •The histological description is generic and lacks images of good quality. •The process of statistical validation (e.g., assumptions for ANOVA) is not stated. Statistical Analysis Strengths: •Use of ANOVA and post-hoc tests suggests proper analysis planning. •Mention of SPSS and GraphPad Prism is useful. Weaknesses: •Specific post-hoc tests used aren’t mentioned (Tukey, Bonferroni, etc.). Overall Suggestions •Include subheadings for better organization within each methodological domain. •Avoid vague, conversational phrases and ensure consistent scientific tone. •Report sample sizes, ethical euthanasia confirmations, and ensure terminology aligns with biomedical standards. •Consider adding diagrams or flowcharts to clarify experimental timelines and test setups. ****** 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 ******** [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.0327627.r001
Revision 1
11 Oct 2025 Author Response Response to Editor and Reviewer Comments Section 1: Response to Editor’s General and Journal Requirements 1. Manuscript style and format requirements We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE formatting style. The manuscript now follows the journal’s structure, file naming conventions, and style template guidelines. All figures, tables, and references have been reformatted to meet journal standards. 2. Ethics statement placement The ethics statement has been retained only within the Methods section, and removed from any other sections as instructed. 3. Data Availability Statement We have added a complete Data Availability Statement as per PLOS ONE policy: “All data are available within the manuscript and/or supporting information files.” 4. Data sharing plan We confirm that all underlying data supporting our findings are now freely accessible as Supporting Information files. No ethical or participant privacy concerns prevent data sharing. 5. Competing Interests We have completed the Competing Interests section with the statement: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” 6. Title consistency The title in the manuscript and on the submission system have been made identical. 7. Data anonymization All personal or identifiable data have been removed from the dataset. The uploaded dataset is fully anonymized and complies with PLOS data policy. 8. Supporting Information captions Captions for all Supporting Information files have been included at the end of the manuscript, and corresponding in-text citations have been updated accordingly. 9. Suggested citations We have reviewed the literature recommended by reviewers and cited relevant works where appropriate. 10. Reference list accuracy The reference list has been thoroughly reviewed and corrected for formatting, accuracy, and completeness. No retracted articles are included. Section 2: Response to Reviewer #1 Comments 1. Chemicals and Equipment section We thank the reviewer for these valuable suggestions. The section title has been corrected to “Chemicals and Equipment.” We have categorized the list clearly under reagents and instruments. The test compound is now fully described with its chemical name, purity (≥98%), and preparation details. 2. Animals section We standardized all spelling to British English for consistency and removed unnecessary details regarding test timing. The subheading has been revised to 'Animal Care and Use,' and ethical compliance is clearly described. 3. Acute Toxicity section Behavioral observations are now described using standardized terminology (e.g., 'tremors', 'locomotor activity', 'grooming'). Quantitative mortality data have been included. Grammatical corrections were made. 4. Diabetes Induction and Glucose Monitoring Baseline glucose levels have been added to the Results section. The glucometer brand/model (Accu-Chek Active, Roche Diagnostics) is now specified. The criteria for diabetes induction (≥250 mg/dL) are clarified, and validation details have been included. 5. Preclinical Pharmacological Tests The percentage analgesia formula has been reformatted, and an appropriate citation is added. The term 'peripheral agony' has been replaced with 'nociceptive stimulus.' We clarified animal numbers per group (n=6), randomization procedures, and blinding during analysis. The section has been restructured with clearer subheadings. 6. Histological and Biochemical Analysis The centrifugation speed has been corrected to 3000 rpm. High-resolution histological images have been added as Supporting Information. We have described ANOVA assumptions and validation steps explicitly. 7. Statistical Analysis We now specify the post-hoc test used (Tukey’s multiple comparison). Details of software versions (SPSS v25, GraphPad Prism v9.0) and data normality checks have been added. 8. General Suggestions We implemented all general improvements recommended by the reviewer, including: (i) better subheadings, (ii) consistent scientific tone, (iii) clear reporting of sample sizes and euthanasia, and (iv) inclusion of an experimental timeline flowchart in Supporting Information. Section 3: Summary of Revisions 1. Manuscript revised to comply fully with PLOS ONE format and ethical/data policies. 2. Improved clarity and organization across all Methods sections. 3. Added missing experimental details, including animal group sizes, statistical validation, and glucometer specifications. 4. Updated histological images and added Supporting Information captions. 5. Corrected all linguistic inconsistencies and improved readability. 6. Revised Data Availability, Ethics, and Competing Interests statements as per journal policy. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviwers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327627.r002
20 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Editor Dear Dr. Abu Nahla, 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 Dec 04 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, Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 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.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No ****** Reviewer #1: 1. Structural and Formatting Issues • Inconsistent Section Headings: Headings like “Chemicals and Equipments,” “Animals,” and “Animals care” are inconsistently formatted. Use standardized subheadings (e.g., Chemicals and Equipment, Animal Handling, Experimental Procedures) and ensure consistent capitalization. • Redundant Subsections: “Animals” and “Animals care” should be merged into a single, coherent subsection titled Animal Care and Ethical Approval to avoid repetition and improve flow. 2. Language and Grammar • Grammatical Errors: o “Chemicals and Equipments” → should be “Chemicals and Equipment” (equipment is uncountable). o “Histological study were done…” → should be “Histological studies were conducted…” o “The mice’s were then observed…” → incorrect possessive usage; should be “The mice were then observed…” • Awkward Phrasing: o “Peripheral agony” in the writhing test is overly dramatic and unscientific. Use “peripheral pain” or “nociceptive response.” o “Rumpled with a safety pin” in punctate hyperalgesia is vague and informal. Use “stimulated using a calibrated safety pin.” 3. Scientific Rigor and Clarity • Missing Details: o Chemical concentrations and preparation methods are not described. For example, how was alloxan prepared before injection? o Environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, light/dark cycle) for animal housing are not mentioned. o Sample sizes for each group are missing throughout. This is critical for reproducibility and statistical validity. • Ambiguity in Protocols: o The acute toxicity section lacks clarity on how safety was determined. What criteria were used to define “safe” beyond absence of mortality? o The analgesia formula is presented without defining “cut-off time” or explaining how it was standardized. 4. Ethical and Regulatory Compliance • Ethical Approval: While the approval number is provided, the statement should be expanded to confirm adherence to international standards (e.g., ARRIVE guidelines). • Euthanasia Method: Cervical dislocation is acceptable, but the description is overly graphic. Use standardized phrasing like “performed according to AVMA guidelines for humane euthanasia.” 5. Statistical Analysis • Insufficient Detail: o The statistical section lacks information on significance thresholds (e.g., p < 0.05), confidence intervals, and whether data met assumptions for ANOVA. o Post-hoc test types (e.g., Tukey, Bonferroni) are not specified. 6. Referencing and Citation • Inconsistent Citation Format: References like “[15]” are used without a bibliography. Ensure all citations are properly formatted and listed at the end of the manuscript. • Missing Source Attribution: Several methods (e.g., Von Frey, hot plate test) are standard but should still be attributed to original or validated sources. 7. Recommendations for Improvement • Revise for clarity and grammar throughout the section. • Merge and streamline redundant subsections for better readability. • Include precise experimental details: sample sizes, chemical preparations, environmental conditions. • Expand ethical and statistical sections to meet publication standards. • Ensure proper citation and referencing with a complete bibliography. ****** 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 ******** [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.0327627.r003
Revision 2
6 Nov 2025 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Manuscript.ID:PONE-D-25-32082R1 Title: Assessment of Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, and Analgesic Effects of Quinazolinone Derivative, (E)-1-Benzoyl-3-((4-(Dimethylamino) Benzylidene) Amino)-2-(4-(Dimethylamino) Phenyl)-2,3-dihydroquinazoline-4(1H)-one, in Diabetes-Induced Mice Model We thank the Academic Editor and Reviewer #1 for their valuable time and constructive feedback. All comments have been carefully addressed, and corresponding revisions are highlighted in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.” Below, each reviewer comment is reproduced in italics, followed by our detailed response. Reviewer #1 1. Structural and Formatting Issues Comment: Inconsistent section headings; redundant subsections “Animals” and “Animals care.” Response: We have standardized all section headings according to PLOS ONE formatting. • “Chemicals and Equipments” → changed to “Chemicals and Equipment.” • The subsections “Animals” and “Animals care” have been merged into a single section titled “Animal Care and Ethical Approval.” • Uniform capitalization and formatting have been applied throughout Materials and Methods. 2. Language and Grammar Comment: Multiple grammatical and phrasing issues (e.g., “Chemicals and Equipments,” “Histological study were done,” “The mice’s were,” “Peripheral agony,” “Rumpled with a safety pin”). Response: The entire manuscript has been thoroughly revised for grammar, punctuation, and scientific phrasing. Examples of key corrections: • “Chemicals and Equipments” → “Chemicals and Equipment.” • “Histological study were done” → “Histological studies were conducted” • “The mice’s were then observed” → “The mice were then observed” • “Peripheral agony” → “Peripheral pain (nociceptive response).” • “Rumpled with a safety pin” → “Stimulated using a calibrated safety pin.” We also used Grammarly and manual proofreading by two co-authors to ensure clarity and professional tone. 3. Scientific Rigor and Clarity Comment Chemical concentrations and preparation methods missing. Response: All chemical preparation details have been added in Materials and Methods → Chemicals and Reagents. For instance, alloxan was freshly dissolved in sterile normal saline (0.9 % NaCl) at a concentration of 150 mg/kg before injection. Similar clarifications were added for other reagents. Comment Environmental conditions for animal housing not described. Response: We have now included: “ The animals were kept in well-ventilated housing maintaining temperature at 26 0 C and humidity between 30% and 70% and provided with 12:12 hour light-dark cycle to support the circadian rhythms of the animals. The housing was also supplied with dry wood shavings used as bedding, which were regularly changed to maintain a hygienic and microbe-free environment.” Comment :Sample sizes missing throughout. Response: Sample sizes for each experimental group (n = 5 mice/group) are now clearly stated in the text and figure legends. Statistical power was verified to ensure adequate sensitivity. Comment Ambiguity in toxicity and analgesia descriptions. Response: The Acute Toxicity section has been expanded: “Safety was assessed by absence of mortality, changes in behavior, grooming, feeding, or mobility for 14 days post-administration.” In Analgesia Methods, the formula now defines “cut-off time” as “the maximum time (15 s) beyond which the test was terminated to avoid tissue injury.” 4. Ethical and Regulatory Compliance Comment: Ethical statement should confirm adherence to international standards; euthanasia description too graphic. Response: Details included as: Ethical committee of the Pharmacy Department of the University of Peshawar approved experimental methods (approval number 06/EC-FLES-UOP/2023). The testing period was from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The Scientific Procedure Act of U.K. 1986 and The ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 were followed when doing procedures on animals.” 5. Statistical Analysis Comment: Statistical details (p-values, post-hoc tests) are insufficient. Response: The Statistical Analysis section now includes: “Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test. Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism v10.0. Confidence intervals (95 %) were calculated where applicable.” 6. Referencing and Citation Comment: Inconsistent citation format; missing bibliography; methods not attributed to original sources. Response: A complete reference list has been compiled in accordance with PLOS ONE style. All methodological procedures (e.g., Von Frey, hot-plate, and acetic-acid writhing tests) now include appropriate citations to the original or validated sources. In-text citations are numbered sequentially, and all references are listed at the end of the manuscript. 7. Recommendations for Improvement Comment: Revise for clarity and grammar, merge redundant subsections, add details, expand ethics and statistics, ensure proper citation. Response: All recommendations have been fully implemented: • Grammar and clarity improved across all sections. • Redundant subsections merged. • Detailed methodological parameters (sample sizes, preparation steps, environmental conditions) added. • Ethical and statistical statements expanded. • References standardized and verified. We sincerely thank the reviewer for these comprehensive suggestions that have substantially enhanced the manuscript’s quality and compliance with PLOS ONE standards. We trust that the revised version addresses all reviewer concerns. We are grateful for the editor’s opportunity to revise and resubmit, and we hope that our responses and improvements will now make the manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Point by Point response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327627.r004
17 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Editor <p>Assessment ofAntidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, and Analgesic Effects of Quinazolinone Derivative, (E)-1-Benzoyl-3-((4- (Dimethylamino) Benzylidene) Amino)-2-(4-(Dimethylamino) Phenyl)-2,3 dihydroquinazoline-4(1h)-one, in Diabetes induced Mice Model PONE-D-25-32082R2 Dear Dr. Nahla, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support. 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, Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): No further comments Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript in accordance with the requested guidelines and feedback. All necessary modifications have been implemented to address the concerns and suggestions raised during the review process. Specific attention was given to refining the clarity, coherence, and overall structure of the content to enhance its readability and academic rigor. The revised version reflects a careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments, with appropriate adjustments made to the methodology, data interpretation, and presentation of results where applicable. Additionally, grammatical and typographical errors have been corrected to ensure a polished and professional final submission. The authors are confident that the updated manuscript now meets the expected standards and requirements, and they appreciate the constructive input that contributed to its improvement. A detailed response to each reviewer comment has also been provided to demonstrate how the revisions align with the feedback received. The manuscript is now resubmitted for further evaluation. ****** 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: Akingbolabo Daniel Ogunlakin ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327627.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo, Editor PONE-D-25-32082R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Abu Nahla, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Oluwafemi Adeleke Ojo Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327627.r006

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 .