Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 19, 2025
Decision Letter - Huzaifa Umar, Editor

Dear Dr. Zhiyi Zuo,

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 05 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 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,

Huzaifa Umar

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 anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (2) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data are available upon a reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author (Zhiyi Zuo at zz3c@virginia.edu).].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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. 

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The study provides valuable insights into the gut microbiota–immune system interaction in sleep deprivation but requires improvements in data interpretation, clarity of methodology, and discussion depth.

1. Refine the title for conciseness while maintaining key elements; for example, Sleep Deprivation Disrupts Gut Microbiota Rhythms and Inflammatory Responses in Mice.

2. Improve grammar and specificity and include quantitative results in the abstract section.

3. Condense background information on circadian rhythms in the introduction section.

4. Explicitly state hypothesis and expected outcomes in the introduction section.

5. Strengthen rationale for behavioral assessments.

6. Provide details on microbiota sequencing normalization methods.

7. Clarify whether experimenters were blinded in behavioral assessments.

8. Ensure consistent use of statistical markers in figures and tables.

9. Include correlation analysis between cytokines and microbiota shifts.

10. Behavioral results should include effect size.

11. Improve figure clarity and readability.

12. Some speculative claims lack direct experimental validation (e.g., gut microbiota driving anxiety).

13. The clinical implications should be emphasized—how does this relate to human sleep disorders?

14. Lack of mechanistic validation (e.g., microbiota transplant studies).

15. Provide stronger mechanistic links between microbiota and behavior.

16. Expand discussion on clinical relevance.

Reviewer #2: he study employs a robust experimental design with comprehensive temporal sampling, enabling a detailed analysis of circadian disruptions caused by sleep deprivation. The integration of microbiome sequencing with cytokine profiling provides compelling evidence of altered microbial and immune rhythms, contributing valuable knowledge to the field of chronobiology and neuroimmunology. The findings have potential implications for understanding the health consequences of sleep loss and could inform therapeutic strategies aimed at mitigating circadian and inflammatory disturbances. Given the novelty, methodological rigor, and relevance to human health, I recommend acceptance of this manuscript for publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Responses to the reviewers’ comments

We want to thank the reviewers for their effort in improving our paper. We have revised the manuscript based on their comments. The changes are marked in red in the manuscript for easy recognition. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

Reviewer: 1

The study provides valuable insights into the gut microbiota–immune system interaction in sleep deprivation but requires improvements in data interpretation, clarity of methodology, and discussion depth.

Point 1: Refine the title for conciseness while maintaining key elements; for example, Sleep Deprivation Disrupts Gut Microbiota Rhythms and Inflammatory Responses in Mice.

Response: We have incorporated some suggested elements into the title of manuscript.

Point 2: Improve grammar and specificity and include quantitative results in the abstract section.

Response: We have gone through the abstract to improve its grammar and specificity. Also, we added interleukin 1β data.

Point 3: Condense background information on circadian rhythms in the introduction section.

Response: We have reduced the corresponding paragraph from 107 words to 96 words (paragraph 1 of page 3).

Point 4: Explicitly state hypothesis and expected outcomes in the introduction section.

Response: The hypotheses and expected outcomes are stated in the last paragraph of page 3.

Point 5: Strengthen rationale for behavioral assessments.

Response: The rationale for having behavioral assessments is now presented in the second paragraph of page 8.

Point 6: Provide details on microbiota sequencing normalization methods.

Response: The relevant information is now presented in the second paragraph of page 7.

Point 7: Clarify whether experimenters were blinded in behavioral assessments.

Response: Yes, the behavioral assessments were performed in a blind fashion. The information is in the second paragraph of page 8.

Point 8: Ensure consistent use of statistical markers in figures and tables.

Response: We have now used the same statistical markers in the figures.

Point 9: Include correlation analysis between cytokines and microbiota shifts.

Response: We performed correlation analysis between o_bacteroidales and cytokines or between o_clostridjales and cytokines. The P values for these correlations are all > 0.05 (see the table below this paragraph). We selected these two types of bacteria for correlation analysis because they had diurnal rhythmic changes. Our results do not suggest a correlation relationship between the bacteria and blood cytokines. Many reasons may explain this finding. For example, multiple types of bacteria may induce the production of one cytokine, but these bacteria may have different diurnal rhythmicity. Also, it may take various time lags between the changes of bacteria and cytokine production.

R2 P value

Bacteroidales

IL-1β

Control 0.02 0.77

SD 0.25 0.31

IL-6

Control 0.47 0.13

SD 0.31 0.25

IL-17

Control 0.21 0.36

SD 0.03 0.76

Clostridiales

IL-1β

Control 0.41 0.17

SD 0.004 0.91

IL-6

Control 0.37 0.20

SD 0.001 0.96

IL-17

Control 0.03 0.75

SD 0.01 0.87

Point 10: Behavioral results should include effect size.

Response: The effect size of sleep deprivation on mouse performance in the open field test is now presented in the second paragraph of page 13.

Point 11: Improve figure clarity and readability.

Response: We have enlarged the labels that were small in the previous version of figures and saved them in tiff file with high resolution.

Point 12: Some speculative claims lack direct experimental validation (e.g., gut microbiota driving anxiety).

Response: There was one place that had this speculative claim. We have modified the corresponding sentences in the Conclusions of Abstract not to have such a claim.

Point 13: The clinical implications should be emphasized—how does this relate to human sleep disorders?

Response: We have added a paragraph to discuss the relevance of our findings to human sleep disorders in the second paragraph of page 16.

Point 14: Lack of mechanistic validation (e.g., microbiota transplant studies).

Response: We agree that there is a lack of mechanistic validation for the link between disruption of diurnal rhythmicity and anxious behavior of mice. Microbiota transplant experiments may seem to be an approach for the validation. However, these experiments are not practical. First, we measured the diurnal rhythmicity of gut microbiota in the ileum. Harvesting enough materials to prepare gut microbiota from ileum for transplant and making sure that the transplant is successful is very difficult because the donors and recipients have to be euthanized for harvesting the samples. Simulating the diurnal rhythmicity of gut microbiota and the disruption of the rhythmicity is not possible to achieve. We have expanded the discussion in the third paragraph of page 16.

Point 15: Provide stronger mechanistic links between microbiota and behavior.

Response: Please see our response to your point 14. We have added discussion in the first paragraph and the last paragraph of page 15 and the first paragraph of page 16 to provide evidence for the possible link between gut microbiota and anxious behavior.

Point 16: Expand discussion on clinical relevance.

Response: A paragraph is added to discuss the clinical relevance of our findings (second paragraph of page 16).

Reviewer: 2

The study employs a robust experimental design with comprehensive temporal sampling, enabling a detailed analysis of circadian disruptions caused by sleep deprivation. The integration of microbiome sequencing with cytokine profiling provides compelling evidence of altered microbial and immune rhythms, contributing valuable knowledge to the field of chronobiology and neuroimmunology. The findings have potential implications for understanding the health consequences of sleep loss and could inform therapeutic strategies aimed at mitigating circadian and inflammatory disturbances. Given the novelty, methodological rigor, and relevance to human health, I recommend acceptance of this manuscript for publication.

Response: Thank you very much for your recommendation and encouragement.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses.docx
Decision Letter - Huzaifa Umar, Editor

Sleep deprivation disrupts diurnal rhythmicity of gut microbiota and blood inflammatory cytokines in mice

PONE-D-25-03292R1

Dear Dr. Zhiyi,

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 email 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,

Huzaifa Umar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Huzaifa Umar, Editor

PONE-D-25-03292R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zuo,

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. Huzaifa Umar

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 .