PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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.. 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . 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,

Vignesh Ramachandran, MS, PhD

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that the datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/,  PRJNA1186348. All of the other data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

7. 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.

8. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

he Chengdu Medical Research Project (2024011)

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.

9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments :

The authors are requested to disregard the comments of reviewer 2 and proceed to revise the manuscript based on the comments of other reviewers.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors investigated the disrupted gut microbiota aggravated respiratory infection induced by high altitude exposure, and explored a link between plateau environment and microbiome-gut-lung axis based on this. The research objective of the manuscript is clear, and the results are of great significance. However, how the gut microbiota changes under low-pressure hypoxia conditions, how its metabolites affect the respiratory system, and how the axis in the "gut lung axis" is reflected should be carefully elucidated in this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Dear Dr. Zhou,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “Disrupted gut microbiota aggravated respiratory infection induced by high altitude exposure: A link between plateau environment and the microbiome-gut-lung axis.”

After careful consideration, we regret to inform you that we are unable to accept the manuscript for publication at this time. We appreciate the effort and thought that went into your work and encourage you to consider submitting future research to the journal.

Kind regards,

Reviewer #3: Title

The title of this manuscript does not align well with the study’s conclusions. Both disrupted gut microbiota and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are confirmed outcomes of hypobaric hypoxia, as demonstrated in this study. However, the hypothesis that disrupted gut microbiota aggravates respiratory infection is not directly supported by the presented data. Based on the results, it is more accurate to conclude that supplementary FMT enhances immune responses and provides protection against respiratory infection, rather than the reverse.

Additionally, please avoid using the past tense in the title when referring to findings that are considered reproducible or of general validity. Revising the title for accuracy and consistency with the conclusions is recommended.

Abstract

The abstract does not follow the journal’s required format and is overly long. Please consider rewriting it for conciseness.

Specific Comments

Line 136:

In the simulated hypobaric hypoxia rat study, the authors used a low-pressure chamber to simulate an altitude of 5000 meters. This altitude is extremely high, even for human adaptation, and may cause systemic damage in rats. The cited statistic that 2% of the world’s population lives above 1500 meters makes this model less representative. Please justify the rationale for selecting 5000 meters instead of a more moderate altitude, such as 2500 meters.

Lines 143–147:

Several broad-spectrum antibiotics were used at high dosages to induce gut dysbiosis in rats before FMT. Please clarify the specific purpose of this step and its relevance to the experimental hypothesis.

Lines 146–149:

Please specify whether the method used to prepare fecal microbiota for transplantation follows any standardized protocol and provide appropriate references if available.

Line 153:

The phrase “Seven days after FMT...” requires clarification. Does this mean that after FMT, the rats were maintained without further treatment for seven days to stabilize before subsequent experiments?

Line 154:

“104 CFU/mL” should be written as “10⁴ CFU/mL.”

Line 233:

Please specify the type of agar plates used for bacterial culture. How did the authors confirm that the colonies were S. pneumoniae and not contaminants introduced during handling? The colony morphology in the figure appears to show at least two different types. In addition, please state the inoculation volume and the number of replicates used for bacterial enumeration from each BALF sample.

Lines 255–262:

This paragraph is difficult to follow, especially the statistical notations in parentheses (e.g., “from... to..., P < 0.05”). The variation among subgroups (HH or NN) is less important. The focus should be on the comparisons between HH and NN groups. For example: “HH: 9.4 ± 0.8 vs. NN: 17.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.05.” Please consider rewriting for clarity and better readability.

Line 278:

Please briefly explain the biological or ecological significance of the Chao, Observed_species, and Shannon indices, and the rationale for selecting these measures to evaluate microbial diversity.

Lines 286–302:

The results described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 appear somewhat contradictory. Please discuss how FMT can simultaneously alleviate lung inflammation while enhancing NLRP3 inflammasome activity and inflammatory cytokine levels. A clearer explanation of how FMT mediates both protective and pro-inflammatory effects to achieve an overall beneficial outcome would strengthen the discussion.

Line 300:

The manuscript inconsistently uses “*” and “#” to indicate P < 0.05. Please standardize the notation throughout the main text and figures (e.g., Figures 3B and 5).

Lines 322–324:

To properly demonstrate the efficacy of FMT, the comparison should be made between the HH + FMT + SPT and HH + SPT groups, rather than HH + FMT.

Line 344:

Lactobacillus rhamnosus should be italicized, as it is a bacterial species name.

Lines 453–600:

The reference formatting is inconsistent and does not meet scientific standards. Please refer to recent PLOS ONE publications for examples and revise accordingly.

Figures

• Figure 3A: Please provide the original gel image for review.

• Figures 3B and 3C: Please adjust the color scheme to improve visual contrast, as the “blue” groups are difficult to distinguish.

• Figure 5: It is unclear why the authors compared the “NN” group with both “HH + FMT + SPT” and “HH + SPT” groups in this figure. This comparison does not seem to align with the experimental logic described in the text, and the linkage lines indicating statistical significance appear to be misplaced. Please double-check the figure layout and ensure that the comparison markers correctly correspond to the intended groups.

Reviewer #4: Review Comments

1. The authors state in the Introduction that “The gut microbiota is susceptible to host and exogenous factors, in which exposure to hypobaric hypoxia in high plateau may lead to changes in the structure and function of the gut microbiota.” Please clarify what study-based evidence supports this statement. Without appropriate citation or supporting data, this claim should not be included in the Introduction.

2. In the Methods section, the authors mention amplifying bacterial DNA using specific primers. Since the amplification of mixed bacterial DNA produces fragments of varying sizes depending on species composition, please explain how the specific bands were selected for gel extraction and sequencing.

3. The study design includes six groups of rats. The rationale for including all groups—particularly the “HH + FMT” group without bacterial infection—should be clarified. Please explain the purpose of this group and how it contributes to testing the main hypothesis.

4. Sequencing the 16S rRNA amplicons identifies bacteria based on conserved regions but does not provide complete metagenomic information. Therefore, several bacterial genera may not be detected using this approach. The authors should acknowledge this as a limitation of the study and clearly state it in the Discussion section.

5. The overall presentation of the manuscript requires significant improvement. The text should be carefully reviewed for grammatical errors, sentence clarity, and consistent formatting. Numerous spelling and typographical mistakes are present throughout the manuscript (e.g., chanllege, Howervr, remakable, antidody).

6. S. pneumoniae is a fastidious organism that requires enriched media and specific growth conditions. Growth on nutrient agar is generally poor and may result in inaccurate colony counts. Moreover, S. pneumoniae grows best under microaerophilic or anaerobic conditions. The authors should justify the use of nutrient agar and specify how optimal conditions were ensured.

7. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) may contain multiple bacterial species in addition to S. pneumoniae. Please describe how contamination or growth of other bacteria was ruled out, and how colony counts specifically attributable to S. pneumoniae were confirmed.

8. The Conclusion should concisely summarize the major findings and implications of the study, rather than repeating the Discussion content.

9. Use consistent and correct formatting for all bacterial and genus names throughout the manuscript—for example, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Lactobacillus, and Firmicutes should be italicized.

10. Please explain how the fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) donor rats were selected, including the criteria for their health status or microbiota composition. Additionally, clarify whether fecal samples from donor rats were pooled or used individually for transplantation.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shweta SharmaShweta SharmaShweta SharmaShweta Sharma

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: RAMESHKUMAR MARIMUTHU RAGAVANRAMESHKUMAR MARIMUTHU RAGAVANRAMESHKUMAR MARIMUTHU RAGAVANRAMESHKUMAR MARIMUTHU RAGAVAN

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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 Feb 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.. 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 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,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff 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.

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (1)Line 135~137, “However, the gut microbiota's effect on NLRP3 inflammasome activity and airway mucosal immune barrier function under respiratory infection induced by high altitude exposure is unclear” Regarding this issue, the results and discussion section in the manuscript still failed to provide a clear expression.

(2) There are many grammatical and formatting errors in this manuscript.

(3) Line362~368, “The protein expressions of NLRP3, ASC and Caspase-1 in the airway epithelial tissue of the HH + SPI group were increased after being subjected to streptococcus pneumoniae infection for 3 days after hypobaric hypoxia challenge (P < 0.05, compared to the NN group). However, the degree of change in NLRP3, ASC and Caspase-1 protein expression of the HH + SPI group were significantly lower compared to the NN + SPI group (P < 0.05) (Figure 3A; Figure 3B). After FMT, the protein expression levels of NLRP3, ASC, and Caspase-1 in the airway mucosal tissue of rats in the HH + SPI + FMT group were restored (P < 0.05, compared to the NN + SPI group)”. Line 370~373, “The levels of IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6 in the BALF of the HH + SPI group subjected to streptococcus pneumoniae infection were decreased (P<0.05, compared with the NN + SPI group). After FMT, the levels of IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6 of the HH + FMT + SPI group subjected to streptococcus pneumoniae infection were restored”.

In general, pneumococcal infection leads to the activation of various signaling pathways including NLRP3 inflammasome, resulting in the extensive expression of pro-inflammatory factors, which triggers a cytokine storm and causes lung damage. However, the results of this manuscript were exactly the opposite. Why?

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the authors' revisions. However, I must point out a persisting issue with Figure 4. Columbia Blood Agar plates are typically red, but the plates shown in the Figure 4 do not appear to be blood agar plates. The authors should verify if the correct images were uploaded or clarify the discrepancy between the methods described and the figures provided.

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed all the reviewers' comments. This revised version of the manuscript may be accepted for 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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Rameshkumar Marimuthu RagavanRameshkumar Marimuthu RagavanRameshkumar Marimuthu RagavanRameshkumar Marimuthu Ragavan

**********

[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.

<p>Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Mitigates Respiratory Infection in Rats Exposed to Hypobaric Hypoxia by Modulating the NLRP3 Inflammasome and Mucosal Immunity

PONE-D-25-38097R2

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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,

Cornelius Cecil Dodoo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

**********