Dear Dr. Chusri,

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 28 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

José M. Alvarez-Suarez

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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The research received financial support from the National Science, Research, and Innovation Fund (NSRF) and Mae Fah Luang University (Fundamental Fund Grant No. 662A05032). It was also partly supported by the Southern Thailand Science Park (Collaborative Research Program; Co-Research-PsuCor-1/62), Prince of Songkla University. The manuscript's production was partially assisted through academic collaboration under the reinventing university system of Mae Fah Luang University.].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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

6. Please include a copy of Table 1-4 which you refer to in your text on page10, 11 and 13.

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.

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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.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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall assessment: This is a well-designed and comprehensive study that investigates the development of a functional food product with a clear therapeutic target. The manuscript is generally well-written, the methodology is sound, and the results support the conclusions. The work has significant potential for practical application in the functional food industry. However, there are areas where clarity, data presentation, and statistical rigor can be improved to strengthen the manuscript for publication.

A. Inconsistencies and points of confusion

1. Dosage Form in Animal Study: The animal study administers "flour" (GBF and PregelF3) at 1000 mg/kg. Administering a dry powder to rats via oral gavage is technically challenging and can cause aspiration. It is standard practice to suspend or dissolve the test substance in a vehicle (e.g., water, carboxymethyl cellulose). The manuscript must clarify how the flours were administered.

2. Statistical Analysis Presentation: While ANOVA is mentioned, the post-hoc test (Duncan's) is not always clearly applied in the results text. For example, in Table 3, some values are described as "significantly" different without the corresponding letters being referenced in the narrative. The figures (Fig 3) lack statistical annotation (e.g., letters or asterisks) to show which groups are significantly different from each other.

3. Sensory Evaluation Scale: The manuscript states a "9-point hedonic scale" is used but does not define the anchors (e.g., 1=dislike extremely, 9=like extremely). This is a minor but important detail for reproducibility.

4. Microbiological Data in Table 4: The table lists "ND" for Total Viable Count (TVC) at week 0 but `1.1x10^2` CFU/g at week 2. An increase from ND to 10² is unusual for a baked, low-moisture product and should be briefly explained (e.g., potential for post-baking contamination during handling, or clarification that "ND" means below a certain detection limit, like <10 CFU/g).

B. Section-by-section analysis with recommendations

ABSTRACT

Line 4-5: "well-recognized gluten-free flour" – This is true but not the primary focus. Consider rephrasing to emphasize its recognized gastroprotective potential in traditional medicine/preclinical studies.

Line 10-11: "systematically investigated" – Good phrasing, it accurately reflects the study's strength.

INTRODUCTION

Line 34-35: "However, in addition to this widespread ethnobotanical use, there is no evidence of its gastroprotective effects." – This statement is incorrect and a major error. The sentences immediately preceding this (Lines 30-33) cite references [13, 14, 15] that provide evidence of gastroprotective effects. This line must be deleted or heavily rephrased (e.g., "However, evidence for the specific cultivar Musa sapientum Linn., ABB group, cv. Kluai Namwa, used in Thai medicine is limited").

Line 41-42: "may also influence bioactivity" – This is a key point of your hypothesis. You can state this more confidently, e.g., "but its impact on bioactivity, particularly gastrointestinal protective potential, remains unexplored."

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Section 2.1:

Line 68-70: Specify the concentration of GBF in the slurry for each formulation (PregelF1-F4) here, or state that they are detailed in Table 1. It's currently in Table 1, but mentioning the range (20-50%) in the text improves flow.

Section 2.2:

Line 80-81: "using the published protocol" – This is too vague. You must cite the specific protocol or describe the method briefly (which you do in the following sentences). Delete "using the published protocol."

Section 2.4 (Gastroprotective effects):

Line 125-126: Crucial Omission. You must describe how the GBF and PregelF3 powders were prepared for oral administration to the rats. Were they suspended in water or another vehicle? This is a critical methodological detail.

Line 143: "Gastric contents were collected to measure pH" – Specify how the gastric contents were collected (e.g., by gentle scraping or washing with a fixed volume of water?).

RESULTS

Table 1:

The footnote says "Values are expressed as mean±SD (n=3)." This is good. Ensure all values in the table carry the same number of decimal places for consistency (e.g., Water Activity is given to 3 decimal places, which is fine, but be consistent).

Yield: It would be helpful to briefly speculate in the text on why yield decreases with higher GBF concentration (e.g., increased viscosity leading to more adhesion to the drums).

Table 2 & Sensory Evaluation:

The text states sPreF3 had the highest ratings, but the statistical analysis (letters) in Table 2 shows that for most attributes (Color, Flavor, Taste, Overall Appearance), sPreF3 is not significantly different from other formulations. The narrative should be tempered to reflect this, e.g., "sPreF3 received numerically higher ratings... and was significantly preferred for crunchiness over sPreF4."

Figure 2 & 3:

Figure 2: The labels (A-E) are missing from the figure itself. They must be added.

Figure 3: The graphs (A, B, C) must include asterisks () or letters to indicate significant differences between the groups. The description in the legend is not a substitute for visual statistical annotation on the graph.

Table 3 (Shelf Stability):

As mentioned under "Inconsistencies," the microbiological data needs a brief comment in the results or discussion (e.g., "The low but detectable TVC after week 2 suggests minor post-processing contamination, but counts remained stable and within acceptable limits throughout the study.").

The sensory scores show some significant fluctuations. This should be mentioned in the text, not just presented in the table.

DISCUSSION

Line 232-234: "This finding aligns with previous studies, which demonstrate that increased temperature during drying processes substantially boosts the swelling power and water solubility index of green bananas [33, 34]." – Excellent, situates your findings within existing literature.

Line 255-257: "Sensory evaluations indicated that snack bars containing 40% pregelatinized GBF (sPreF3) exhibited the highest acceptability..." – As per the comment on Results, adjust this statement to accurately reflect the statistical results from Table 2.

Line 270-271: "It should be highlighted that the pregelatinization process used in this study does not attenuate the gastroprotective properties of GBF." – This is a key conclusion and should be stated prominently.

Limitations Section (Line 295-301): This is well-written and strengthens the manuscript by showing scholarly awareness of the study's constraints.

CONCLUSION

Concise and accurately reflects the study's findings. No changes needed.

REFERENCES, FORMATTING, and TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS

Line 17 (Keywords): "peptic ulcers" is used here, but "gastric ulcers" is used in the title and throughout the text. For consistency and discoverability, consider using "gastric ulcers" as the keyword.

Line 108: "sPreF3" should be defined here when first introduced (e.g., "snack bar made with PregelF3 (sPreF3)").

General: Carefully proofread the manuscript for minor spacing and punctuation errors (e.g., "cm²" sometimes appears as "cm2").

This is a strong paper with a compelling story. The core experiments are valid, and the data supports the conclusions. The revisions required are primarily for clarity, statistical rigor, and accuracy rather than fundamental flaws in the research.

Priority Actions:

1. Correct the major error in the Introduction regarding existing evidence for gastroprotective effects.

2. Clarify the methodology for administering the flour in the animal study.

3. Add statistical annotations (letters or asterisks) to all figures and tables where comparisons are made.

4. Ensure the narrative in the Results and Discussion sections accurately reflects the statistical outcomes, particularly for the sensory data.

With these revisions, this manuscript will be significantly strengthened and should be considered for publication in a good journal.

Reviewer #2: The authors are advised to carefully address all the comments/suggestions/queries, I have made section-wise on the MS entitled "Formulation and In Vivo Evaluation of Unripe Banana Flour Snack Bars: A Promising Alternative for Medical Nutrition Therapy in Gastric Ulcers."

** Title

The title needs to be improved and more accurate.

** Abstract

- The aim is very confused and needs to be improved. I don't understand this statement: "Including functional foods that support gastrointestinal health in the diet can aid in preventing peptic ulcers and minimizing their recurrence," as it can't be the beginning of the abstract. Change it.

- Also, the aim needs to be rewritten to be better understood.

- The abstract is missing numerical data on key findings

- Keywords are general and vague. They need to be improved.

** Introduction

- The introduction is very short and scattered. It should cover all the points addressed in the study.

- Clear objective of the present work.

- The introduction should mention what is novel about this study.

*Methods

- All the physicochemical analyses need to be divided into subheading titles to be more accurate and clear as they are very confused.

- The sensory evaluation needs to be in a separate section.

- What did you mean by this title: Gastroprotective effects?

Moreover, this section is very confused, and the animal experiment needs to be organized as follows:

1. Experimental animals: Include animal details and ethical approval.

2. Laboratory diet composition: the authors need to mention a normal laboratory diet with references.

3. Study design: this section needs to be written in a scientific manner, as it is very confused, as the authors mentioned that there are two control groups: (1) sham control (distilled water); (2) vehicle control (distilled water); I don't know what the difference between them is, since both of them used distilled water. Also, the authors mentioned a positive control (omeprazole, 20 mg/kg). How is this positive control??? Omeprazole is a drug, and they used it to compare with the effect of using Unripe Banana Flour Snack Bars. Moreover, the positive control should be the group that had 80% ethanol (1 mL/rat).

4. Blood samples collection

5. Biochemical parameters: There are no biochemical parameters used in this study. The study should evaluate the activity of the treatment used in this study by measuring some biochemical parameters, including: Cytokines quantitation Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukins (IL-1, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-1β) should be measured

using ELISA kits. Moreover, lipid peroxidation, oxidative stress markers, enzymatic and non‑enzymatic antioxidant levels, malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, nitric oxide (NO) concentration, glutathione peroxidase (GPx), glutathione S-transferase (GST), glutathione reductase (GR), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and reduced glutathione (GSH) should be measured.

6. Statistical analysis

- The authors need to compare all the treated groups to the positive and the drug control to prove their aim.

** Results

- Make the order of the results section the same as you will make in the methods section.

** Discussion needs to be improved and written in scientific words.

** The conclusion needs to be rewritten and more advanced.

** References

- Includes many old references and needs to be updated to be recent.

** There are many grammatical errors, and the writing level is low and needs to be improved.

- The authors need to organize this paper in a scientific manner and present their novelty.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam Bhuiyan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Dina Mostafa MohammedDr. Dina Mostafa MohammedDr. Dina Mostafa MohammedDr. Dina Mostafa Mohammed

**********

[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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Chusri,

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 Apr 24 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

José M. Alvarez-Suarez

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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.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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Review Report: Revised Manuscript PONE-D-25-49266R1

Title: Pregelatinized Green Banana Flour Snack Bars: Physicochemical Properties, Sensory Quality, and Gastroprotective Potential in an Ethanol-Induced Ulcer Model

General Assessment: The authors have submitted a thoroughly revised manuscript that demonstrates significant improvement in response to the reviewers' comments. The study is well-designed, investigating a novel functional food application with clear therapeutic relevance. The revisions have enhanced the manuscript's clarity, methodological rigor, and statistical presentation. The core findings—that drum-drying pregelatinization improves the functional properties of green banana flour (GBF) without diminishing its gastroprotective efficacy—are supported by the data and are of potential interest to the fields of food science and nutritional therapy.

Assessment of Author Responses to Reviewers:

The authors have provided a detailed point-by-point response and have made substantial changes to the manuscript. A review of the revised document confirms that the major concerns of both reviewers have been addressed adequately.

1. Reviewer #1's Priority Actions:

Major Error in Introduction: Corrected. The incorrect statement about a lack of gastroprotective evidence has been removed, and the introduction now accurately cites existing literature while clearly stating the study's novel focus on pregelatinization.

Animal Study Methodology: Clarified. The Methods section (2.6) now explicitly states that GBF and PregelF3 were suspended in distilled water for oral gavage, addressing safety and practicality concerns.

Statistical Annotations: Added. Figure 3 now includes asterisks and pound signs to denote statistical significance. Table footnotes and in-text references to superscript letters are consistent.

Narrative Alignment with Statistics: Adjusted. The text in the Results (3.2) and Discussion regarding sensory evaluation now accurately reflects the statistical outcomes from Table 2, tempering claims where differences were not significant.

2. Reviewer #2's Major Concerns:

Title, Abstract, and Keywords: Revised satisfactorily. The title is more accurate, the abstract is clearer and includes key numerical data, and keywords are more specific.

Introduction and Novelty: Significantly strengthened. The introduction is more comprehensive, clearly outlines the rationale, states clear objectives, and highlights the novelty of investigating pregelatinization's impact on both functionality and bioactivity.

Methods Reorganization: Improved. The Methods section is now better organized with subheadings. The animal experiment description is more detailed, including diet composition and a clearer explanation of control groups.

Study Limitations: Acknowledged. The authors have appropriately noted the absence of blood-based biochemical markers (e.g., cytokines, oxidative stress parameters) as a limitation, explaining it was due to practical constraints while justifying the sufficiency of their chosen endpoints.

Remaining Issues and Suggestions for Minor Revision:

While the manuscript is much improved, some minor issues require correction before final acceptance:

1. Grammar and Language: While greatly improved, some minor grammatical inconsistencies persist.

Line 44: "of food formulations" should be "in food formulations".

Line 126: "pregelatinized GBF (pregelF1..." should be "pregelatinized GBF (PregelF1..." for consistency with defined terms.

Line 192: "...confirmed the model's sensitivity." Consider "confirmed the efficacy of the positive control and the model's sensitivity."

Line 271: "Pregelatinized GBF developed in this present work serves..." -> "The pregelatinized GBF developed in this study serves..."

Conclusion Section: The conclusion is comprehensive but slightly verbose. Consider tightening some sentences for conciseness (e.g., the sentence beginning "In addition to its proven antiulcer activity..." could be split or streamlined).

2. Figure and Table Consistency:

Table 1: The decimal places are now consistent, which is good.

Figure 2: Labels (A-E) are present. Confirm that these are clearly visible in the high-resolution figure files uploaded to the submission system.

Table 3/4 Numbering: The manuscript text refers to a "Table 3" for shelf stability data and a "Table 4" for in vivo effects. However, in the provided manuscript body, the in vivo table appears as Table 4 and the shelf-stability table as Table 3. The authors must ensure the numbering sequence in the main text (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4) is correct and sequential based on their first mention.

3. Funding Statement (Lines 380-384): The updated statement in the manuscript is clear and includes the required disclaimer ("The funders had no role...").

• 4. Refere4nces: Please check all references and include all latest references within last 5 yeasr like as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2024.100431; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307909 etc

Upon satisfactory resolution of these minor points, this manuscript will be ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam Bhuiyan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Assoc. Prof. Dina Mostafa MohammedAssoc. Prof. Dina Mostafa MohammedAssoc. Prof. Dina Mostafa MohammedAssoc. Prof. Dina Mostafa Mohammed

**********

[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.

Pregelatinized Green Banana Flour Snack Bars: Physicochemical Properties, Sensory Quality, and Gastroprotective Potential in an Ethanol-Induced Ulcer Model

PONE-D-25-49266R2

Dear Dr. Chusri,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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,

José M. Alvarez-Suarez

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 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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all the issues and made the necessary corrections. The revised manuscript appears suitable for acceptance and publication.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam BhuiyanDr. Mohammad Nazrul Islam Bhuiyan

**********