All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper is now been improved following reviewers suggestions.
Since the the findings are rather limited, I suggest in the future to develop them in a more complete form to improve their potential impact.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
The authors have addressed all my concerns and the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Well written. Satisfactorily responded to all reviewer comments.
As a pilot study ok, but findings should be reproduced.
I suggest to re-organize results in clear and separate sections. Behaviour results should be included in the discussion or removed and the statistical approach used in the behavioural characterisation should be specified. In addition, please rephrase the sentence: "A numerical trend, although not statistically significant (p=0.08)" , the trend clearly indicate an absence of statistical significance.
A very interesting and relevant work. The sample size is large and looks very elaborate.
The experiments are well detailed.
Has a microbiota markers been used to compare groups as an endogenous marker?
Well detailed and consistent manuscript.
Well written and appropriately structured manuscript.
Sufficient level of detail in methods and satisfactory experimental design. Concern surrounding reproducibility. Ten per test group is quite low when looking at such variable measures as behavior and microbiota.
Concern surrounding reproducibility. Ten per test group is quite low when looking at such variable measures as behavior and microbiota. It is remarkable that statistical significance was achieved. Although these dramatic effects many represent a big impact, published results should be the product of 3 independent experiments. So it is recommended that the study be repeated.
The manuscript is well written and clearly states aims and conclusions of study.
More ‘quantitative’ figures, outlining phyla abundances and OTUs should be included in the main figures, rather than as supplemental figures, rather than just the heat maps. Perhaps find another way than tables to represent these data.
Figure 1: Data should be presented as mean weight ± standard deviation. Fluoxotine vs. control should be directly compared at each time point and ANOVA applied to the data to determine whether any differences in overall weight are seen between groups. Add n= 10 per group and appropriate figure legend, use format similar to figure 2.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.