Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 30, 2025
Decision Letter - Míriam R. García, Editor

PONE-D-25-35195Integrative genomic characterization of Pediococcus acidilactici strains reveals differing probiotic safety profilesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prapasarakul,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 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,

Míriam R. García

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. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

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

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: N/A

**********

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: Overall comment:

1. The manuscript is well-organized and written.

2. The discussion is well-reasoned and integrates genetic discoveries with regulatory concerns, including the EFSA recommendations.

Recommendations

1. Abstract: "novel composite alignment" of tet(M); this terminology could be explained more precisely to aid the general readership.

2. Discussion: The observed susceptibility to tetracycline in the presence of tet(M) and resistance to clindamycin in the absence of comparable ARGs warrants further mechanistic discussion. Could gene silence, promoter inactivity, or undiscovered resistance factors be involved? Please discuss more about it.

3. Discussion: The discovery of katA and cfa, which are rarely seen in P. acidilactici, is interesting. These findings indicate potential innovative adaptations. Please find literature or brief contextualization to discuss.

4. S1 Fig. Hemolytic Activity Test of five Thai P. acidilactici strains: If you have a clearer image, please replace it for plate marked no. 5 and 6

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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 Editor

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and the constructive comments that have helped us to improve the clarity and contextualization of our findings. We have addressed each point as detailed below, with changes highlighted in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” file.

Comment 1: Abstract: "novel composite alignment" of tet(M); this terminology could be explained more precisely to aid the general readership

Response: In the revised abstract, we have replaced the term “novel composite alignment” with a more precise and descriptive phrase: “novel composite genetic arrangement flanked by mobile elements, suggesting historical recombination and altered mobility potential.” This change clarifies the genetic context of tet(M), indicating its integration within a composite structure bounded by mobile genetic elements and providing insight into its potential evolutionary origin and mobility. This revision aims to improve clarity for the general readership and to better convey the biological significance of our finding.

Change location: Abstract, lines 37–38.

Comment 2: Discussion: The observed susceptibility to tetracycline in the presence of tet(M) and resistance to clindamycin in the absence of comparable ARGs warrants further mechanistic discussion. Could gene silence, promoter inactivity, or undiscovered resistance factors be involved? Please discuss more about it.

In the revised Discussion (page XX, paragraph XX), we have expanded the explanation to include possible mechanisms for tetracycline susceptibility despite tet(M), such as promoter inactivity, structural mutations, and inducible expression. For clindamycin resistance without erm or lnu genes, we now discuss potential roles of 23S rRNA or ribosomal protein mutations, overexpression of MFS efflux pumps, and uncharacterized determinants such as cfr. These additions provide a clearer rationale for the observed genotype–phenotype discrepancies.

Change location: Discussion, lines 412–431.

Comment 3: Discussion: The discovery of katA and cfa, which are rarely seen in P. acidilactici, is interesting. These findings indicate potential innovative adaptations. Please find literature or brief contextualization to discuss.

Response: we now describe katA as a rare heme-dependent catalase in LAB, potentially acquired from catalase-positive gut or feed bacteria, enhancing oxidative stress tolerance and survival in aerobic and gastrointestinal conditions. Cfa encodes cyclopropane fatty acid synthase, which increases membrane rigidity and hydrophobicity, improving acid and bile tolerance, stability during feed processing, and intestinal persistence. Together, these genes may represent an adaptive signature that enhances resilience for livestock probiotic applications.

Change location: Discussion, lines 457–470.

S1 Fig. Hemolytic Activity Test of five Thai P. acidilactici strains: If you have a clearer image, please replace it for plate marked no. 5 and 6

Response: We have replaced the original S1 Fig. with a high-resolution TIFF image showing plates 5 and 6 more clearly. The updated image improves visibility of hemolysis zones, enabling clearer distinction of alpha-hemolysis. The figure legend has been retained but the image quality now meets PLOS ONE resolution standards (≥300 dpi).

Change location: Supplementary Figure S1.

Editorial Requirement 1: Data Availability Statement

We have revised the Data Availability Statement as requested. The accession numbers for all genome assemblies have been included, along with the repository name (NCBI GenBank) and the link to the database. Additional annotations are provided in the Supplementary File.

Change location: Data Availability Statement, lines 536-542

Editorial Requirement 2: Figure Captions

All figure captions are now included separately in the manuscript following the PLOS ONE format, placed immediately after the first mention of the figure in the text.

Editorial Requirement 3: References

The reference list has been checked and updated to ensure accuracy. No retracted papers are included.

Response to Editorial Requests

PLOS ONE formatting: Manuscript reformatted per PLOS templates.

Data Availability Statement: Revised to include repository names and GenBank accession numbers in the correct format.

Figure captions: Added standalone captions for all figures.

Reference list: Checked for completeness, accuracy, and currency. No retracted articles are cited. New references added for katA, cfa, and resistance mechanism discussion.

We believe these revisions have improved the clarity, completeness, and impact of our manuscript, and we look forward to your further consideration.

On behalf of all authors,

Nuvee Prapasarakul

Corresponding author

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Míriam R. García, Editor

Integrative genomic characterization of five Pediococcus acidilactici strains reveals differing probiotic safety profiles

PONE-D-25-35195R1

Dear Dr. Prapasarakul,

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,

Míriam R. García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Míriam R. García, Editor

PONE-D-25-35195R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prapasarakul,

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. Míriam R. García

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 .