Structural characterization and antifungal properties of sequentially extracted polysaccharides from Algerian Opuntia ficus-indica L. cladodes

Nassima Draou; Hassiba Bokhari; Samia Gharbi; Abderrahmane Rouane; Hachem Kadda; Hakima Kebaili

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344372

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 12, 2025
26 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Yogesh Kumar, Editor Dear Dr. DRAOU, Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 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, Yogesh Kumar 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. 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. 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? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Author, your manuscript ‘Structural 1 characterization and antifungal properties of sequentially extracted polysaccharides from Algerian Opuntia ficus-indica L. cladodes’ is not suitable, in my opinion, for publication. It presents too many flaws that are summarized in the attached file (for the first part of the manuscript). Please, be aware of the advices and improve the manuscript before submitting to a more specialized journal. Reviewer #2: The whole manuscript has been planned and executed well. I would suggest a minor revision considering the following observations: 1. The introduction needs to include the importance of extracting polysaccharides from such kind of plant material/ substrates, highlighting the economics. 2. The conclusion needs to be crisp with the findings and should include the potential applications of extracted polysaccharides. 3. Since it is a new method for simultaneous extraction of different polysaccharide fractions as per the claim, the benefit of this method over conventional methods should be highlighted in the introduction as well as the conclusion part. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: REV_PONE-D-25-37900_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r001
Revision 1
24 Sep 2025 Author Response Re: Revision of Manuscript PONE-D-25-37900 Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Team, Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers and editors for their time and insightful comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed all points raised in the decision letter. Below is our point-by-point response to the specific comments: Response to Academic Editor & Reviewer #1: We thank the reviewers for their thorough critique. We have completely restructured the manuscript to address the concerns regarding technical soundness, methodology description, and language clarity. Key changes include: Comment (Nota): "Here you can add details of work" (re: duplicated sentence). Response: We have removed the duplication and expanded the narrative to better frame the knowledge gap and our study's contribution (Page 3, Lines 57-66). Comment (Nota): "M&M section is not well written: only methodology must be reported..." Response: We have entirely rewritten the Materials and Methods section (Sections 2.1 & 2.2) to be purely descriptive, removing all justifications and consistently using the past passive tense (Pages 4-6, Lines 75-120). Comment: "Describe the stage of development, the season, and the amount of sampling." Response: We have added explicit details: "Cladodes were harvested in November from approximately 10-year-old plants... A single cladode per plant was used" (Page 4, Lines 76-78). Comment: "for how long" (lyophilization). Response: We have added the specific duration: "lyophilized for 5 days" (Page 4, Line 83). Comment: "In M&M at least a brief description is presented... Moreover, the figure are not in good quality..." Response: Methodology: We replaced the brief mention with a detailed, step-by-step protocol (Pages 5-6, Lines 86-120). Figures: We confirm high-resolution TIF files were initially submitted. As recommended, we have now processed Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 through the PACE tool and uploaded the optimized files to ensure they meet all technical standards. Comment (Nota): "This is not M&M, it is a lab protocol!" Response: We have reformulated the section to remove imperative verbs and use descriptive past passive tense (Page 9, Lines 181-188). Comment: "In fact you did not reported!" (standardization). Response: We have replaced the vague phrase with explicit sampling details (Page 9, Lines 189-191). Comment: "Are the references as for the 'Guide for Authors' format of the journal?" Response: We have comprehensively reformatted the entire bibliography to strict PLOS ONE style, including author initials, DOI additions, and correct volume/page formatting (Pages 31-36). Response to Reviewer #2: We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and valuable suggestions to enhance the impact of our work. Comment: "The introduction needs to include the importance... highlighting the economics." Response: We have added a sentence on the economic potential and valorization of native species (Page 3, Lines 53-55). Comment: "The conclusion needs to be crisp... and should include the potential applications." Response: We have revised the conclusion to be more concise and explicitly state the applications as sustainable preservatives (Page 22, Lines 493-496). Comment: "highlight the benefit of this method over conventional methods" Response: We have emphasized the novelty and advantage of our sequential protocol in both the introduction (Page 3, Lines 64-66) and conclusion (Page 24, Lines 506-510). All data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction on Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29508983.v4). We believe our revisions have thoroughly addressed all concerns and that the manuscript now meets PLOS ONE's publication criteria. Thank you again for your guidance. Sincerely, Nassima DRAOU, Ph.D. On behalf of all co-authors. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r002
8 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Nishant Kumar, Editor Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2026 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 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, Nishant Kumar, 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) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, your revised manuscript ‘Structural characterization and antifungal properties of sequentially extracted polysaccharides from Algerian Opuntia ficus-indica L. cladodes’ has been improved. However, additional amendments are required to make it acceptable. Please, see the comments on the attached file. Reviewer #3: The authors appear to have made the necessary corrections. The work can be accepted for publication in its current form. ****** 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 #3: Yes: Murat Yılmaz ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: REV_PONE-D-25-37900_R1_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r003
Revision 2
19 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Dr. Nishant Kumar and Reviewers, Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript and for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and scientific rigor of our work. We have addressed all points raised, as detailed below. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript with tracked changes, and a clean version is also provided. ________________________________________ Reviewer #1 Comment 1: “Corresponding Author section – remove ‘Field Code Changed’ and formatting artifacts.” Response: All field codes and formatting artifacts (e.g., “Field Code Changed”, “Formatted: English…”) have been removed from the manuscript. Comment 2: “Introduction – duplicated sentences (lines 65–68) and redundant phrasing (line 78).” Response: The duplicated sentences and redundant phrase have been deleted. The introduction is now concise and flows logically. Comment 3: “Materials & Methods – unclear ethanol precipitation ratio (line 112).” Response: We have clarified the ratio: “precipitated with absolute ethanol at a 1:3 (v/v) ratio (one volume of aqueous extract to three volumes of ethanol).” Comment 4: “Materials & Methods – unclear description of the three extraction steps (lines 115, 120).” Response: We have added an explanatory sentence: “Each extraction was performed on the residual solid from the previous step to sequentially recover water-soluble polysaccharides.” Comment 5: “Materials & Methods – duplicated paragraphs in section 2.6 (lines 202–209).” Response: The redundant description of the antifungal assay has been removed, retaining only the clear, single protocol. Comment 6: “Statistical information – move sentence on biological replicates to statistical section (line 211).” Response: The sentence “Three independent biological replicates (n=3) were analyzed for each experiment.” has been moved to Section 2.7 (Statistical Analysis). Comment 7: “Results – remove irrelevant reference in Water Content section (lines 247–248).” Response: The reference to “Dittrichia viscosa (Bouri et al., 2021)” has been removed. Comment 8: “Results – Section 3.5 should be rewritten as a narrative, not in bullet points.” Response: Section 3.5 has been completely rewritten into a continuous, discursive narrative that guides the reader through the findings. Comment 9: “Discussion – remove ‘for Algerian cell walls’ (line 517).” Response: The phrase has been deleted. Comment 10: “Conclusion – do not start with a number; rewrite to interpret results, not summarize.” Response: The conclusion has been rewritten to begin with a proper sentence, interpret the main findings in light of the research questions, and include limitations and future directions. Comment 11: “Bibliography – clean formatting artifacts.” Response: All formatting marks in the reference list have been removed, and the bibliography now conforms to PLOS ONE style. ________________________________________ Reviewer #3 Comment: “All comments have been addressed.” Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation. ________________________________________ Additional Technical Corrections • All figures and tables are correctly cited. • Data availability statement is complete and accessible via Figshare. • The manuscript meets PLOS ONE submission requirements. ________________________________________ We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses all reviewers’ concerns and is suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you again for your valuable time and guidance. Sincerely, Nassima DRAOU, Ph.D. On behalf of all co-authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_PONE-D-25-37900R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r004
3 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Nishant Kumar, Editor Dear Dr. DRAOU, 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 20 2026 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 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, Nishant Kumar, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, your revised manuscript ‘Structural characterization and antifungal properties of sequentially extracted polysaccharides from Algerian Opuntia ficus-indica L. cladodes’ has been improved. However, few changes are needed to make it acceptable. In Table 4: change, at line 361, ’glucuronic’ non ‘glucoronic’ The same, change ‘galA’, not ‘Gala’ Line 491 when ref Liu et al 2021: become ref 6. The same for ref Zhang et al 2023, become ref 5. In Results and Discussion, when dealing with the antifungal activity of polysaccharide, specify ‘pectic and hemicellulose polysaccharides’ as you only tested those polysaccharides. You did not tested mucilage polysaccharides for es. Therefore, specify this point in every place it is needed. Reviewer #3: The authors appear to have made the necessary corrections. The work can be accepted for publication in its current form. ****** 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 #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r005
Revision 3
6 Feb 2026 Author Response Dear Dr. Nishant Kumar and Reviewers, Thank you for your positive evaluation and for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive comments, which have helped us further improve the clarity and precision of the work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the remaining comments. Response to Reviewer #1: We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for their careful reading and helpful suggestions. All points have been addressed as follows: 1. Table 4, line 356: “glucoronic” has been corrected to “glucuronic,” and “Gala” has been changed to “GalA” to accurately reflect standard abbreviations for galacturonic acid. 2. Citations in text (lines 469–470): The references to Liu et al., 2021 and Zhang et al., 2023 have been updated to the correct citation numbers [6] and [5], respectively. 3. Clarification of tested polysaccharides: Throughout the Results and Discussion sections, we have specified that the antifungal activity refers specifically to “pectic and hemicellulose polysaccharides” (e.g., lines 418, 494), making it clear that mucilage polysaccharides were not included in the bioactivity assays. Response to Reviewer #3: We thank Reviewer #3 for their supportive feedback and confirmation that the manuscript is acceptable in its current form. All changes are highlighted in the attached “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. A clean version is also provided. We believe the manuscript now fully addresses all reviewers’ concerns and meets the standards of PLOS ONE. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Nassima DRAOU, Ph.D. On behalf of all co-authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r006
20 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Nishant Kumar, Editor Structural characterization and antifungal properties of sequentially extracted polysaccharides from Algerian Opuntia ficus-indica L. cladodes. PONE-D-25-37900R3 Dear Dr. Draou, 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, Nishant Kumar, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Dear Authors, your manuscript have been improved. My idea is the manuscript is suitable for publication in the present form. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Nishant Kumar, Editor PONE-D-25-37900R3 PLOS One Dear Dr. DRAOU, 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. Nishant Kumar Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344372.r008

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 .