Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244798

A recurring disease outbreak following litchi fruit consumption among children in Muzaffarpur, Bihar—A comprehensive investigation on factors of toxicity

Sukesh Narayan Sinha 1,*, Ungarala Venkat Ramakrishna 1, P K Sinha 2, C P Thakur 3
Editor: Ch Ratnasekhar4
PMCID: PMC7774918  PMID: 33382820

Abstract

Litchi fruits are a nutritious and commercial crop in the Indian state of Bihar. Litchi fruit contains a toxin, methylene cyclopropyl-glycine (MCPG), which is known to be fatal by causing encephalitis-related deaths. This is especially harmful when consumed by malnourished children. The first case of litchi toxicity was reported in Bihar in 2011. A similar event was recorded in 2014 among children admitted to the Muzaffarpur government hospital, Bihar. Litchi samples sent to ICMR-NIN were analyzed and MCPG was found to be present in both the pulp and seed of the fruit. Diethyl phosphate (DEP) metabolites were found in the urine samples of children who had consumed litchi fruit from this area indicating exposure to pesticide. The presence of both MCPG in litchi and DEP metabolites in urine samples highlights the need to conduct a comprehensive investigation that examines all factors of toxicity.

1. Introduction

Litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) is a tropical and subtropical fruit belonging to the genus Litchi in the soapberry family, Sapindaceae. Mainly produced in China, India, and Vietnam, litchi fruits are highly perishable and have a very short harvest period (approximately 1 month) [1]. The crop is highly susceptible to many diseases, which can lead to significant losses in quality and yield [2]. To overcome this limitation, pesticides are commonly used.

In India, litchi fruit is one of the most prominent agricultural products in the northern state of Bihar [3]. In 2012–2013, a total of 7 metric tons/hectare (MT/ha) were produced in India, and Bihar was the leading producer, with 44.2% of the yield (Indian Horticulture Database 2013, National Horticulture Board). During the same period, this region was also responsible for using a significant portion of the total pesticide imported and produced in India [4]. Since pesticides are known to be carried from crops into our diets, they raise a significant concern toward human health.

The first outbreak of litchi toxicity occurred in 2011, in which 14 children died following litchi consumption in Bihar. Investigation of the deaths revealed that the cause was similar to pesticide toxicity [5]. Later, a similar case occurred in Kolkata; however, the cause of death was identified as a toxin, methylene cyclopropyl-glycine (MCPG). MCPG is found in unripe litchi fruit and depletes glucose reserves in the body, making it more fatal for undernourished children, triggering encephalitis-related deaths. These findings led to the recommendation that children should not consume unripe litchi fruit [6].

Recent evidence has shown MCPG is found in the seeds of litchi fruit, and in the presence of platinum oxide (PtO2), MCPG hydrogenates into a blend of leucine, isoleucine, norleucine, and two isomeric α -(methyl cyclopropyl) glycines [7]. The IR and NMR spectra of the newly found compound showed a doled-out structure and the α-MCPG demonstrated hypoglycemic activity when infused dermally into mice. No accurate correlation of the hypoglycemic effects of the new acid and its advanced homolog, hypoglycin A, was made [8].

The first acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) outbreak occurred in Eastern India in 1973 [8, 9]. However, the AES outbreak in 2011 was centered in North Bihar, with several cases identified in each of the affected towns. The average age of the patients was 5 years (3 months–10 years) and disease onset correlated with the natural production season of litchi. The first case was reported at the Krishnadevi Deviprasad Kejriwal Maternity Hospital (KDKM) on June 11, 2011. There was a record of 26 deaths, representing 31% of the total number of children admitted [10]. The case casualty rate was 20% in Gorakhpur, India and 25% from the 2004–2009 pandemic in Vietnam [11] and North India [12]. and most belonged to the lower socioeconomic sections of society. In the epidemic at Gorakhpur, India, 93.69% of cases were among children aged 1–5 years [12]. The proportion of males to females was reported as 1.45:1 in Gorakhpur [13] and 1.2:1 in Vietnam [11].

The death of the children led to the focus on the toxicity of MCPG present in the fruit, but the role of pesticides has not been examined. More investigation is needed to identify the role of pesticides in the death of the patients. Those farming the crop stated that pesticides containing cypermethrin were used on the litchi trees to prevent bats and insects damaging the fruit. The excessive use of these agrochemicals and harvesting the fruits before the expiry of the sprayed pesticides could also have a more considerable impact on the children who ingested them [13].

The National Vector Borne Disease Control Program (NVBRC Program), India has reported that concentrations of α-cypermethrin, a largely active pyrethroid insecticide, above the maximum limit for humans were found in the litchi samples collected in the affected areas. It was alleged that there could be a link between the AES outbreak and pesticide poisoning [14].

Orchard leaseholders also revealed that they employed residents from the community as caretakers to work in the litchi farms. Among the 14 case patients reported, 3 were involved in the application of pesticides and 8 lived together with individuals who were employed in the orchards during the outbreak period [15].

Different types of pesticides have been reported to have been used on litchi trees. Chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, and deltamethrin were used for controlling seed-borne diseases while other pesticides such as carbaryl, dolofase, phosphamide, chlorpyrifos, and dichlorobis were also used for cultivation, as reported by the National Research Centre for Litchi, Muzaffarpur [16]. Hence, the presence of pesticides should also be investigated to obtain clarity regarding the causes of toxicity that led to death in the children in Muzaffarpur.

In 2014, more cases of children suffering from the effects of litchi fruit toxicity were identified in Bihar. The local government hospital reported children of different age groups being admitted. To comprehensively understand the reasons underlying the toxicity, nine urine samples and the litchi fruit samples were investigated in our laboratory. The present investigation aimed to determine the toxin compounds present in the fruit samples and the urine samples of the victims.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Chemicals and reagents

The following materials were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (USA): acetonitrile, methanol, 1-butanol, LC-MS grade, ninhydrin reagent 2%, glacial acetic acid, and TLC plates (aluminum sheets). Formic acid (analytical grade) was obtained from Merck, USA. To detect pesticide residues in food, QuEChERS (a mixture containing magnesium sulfate, sodium acetate along with primary secondary amine, PSA, tubes) was purchased from Agilent (USA), as was the liquid chromatography (LC) column. Standards of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. All reagents and standards were prepared fresh in LC-MS grade water or solvent before use. The standards of organophosphate pesticide (OP) metabolites, diethyl dithiophosphate, diethyl thiophosphate, dimethyl thiophosphate, dimethyl dithiophosphate, dimethyl phosphate, and diethyl phosphate (DEP) were obtained from the National Centre for Environmental Health, CDC (Atlanta, USA).

2.2 Collection of litchi samples

Litchi fruit samples were collected from Balaji Utthan Sansthan, Patna, Bihar, the same area as that of the affected children. Samples were subsequently sent to the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) Laboratory, Hyderabad, Telangana for analysis.

2.3 Collection of urine samples

Urine samples (n = 9) were collected from children admitted with suspected litchi toxicity to Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur Balaji University, and sent to the ICMR-NIN laboratory for further analysis. Written informed consent was obtained from parents of all children, and experiments were conducted under the institutional ethical guidelines of Balaji Utthan Sansthan.

All experimental protocols and procedures were approved (approval number: 2014/IED/Proj/001) by the institutional committee of Balaji Utthan Sansthan.

2.4 Analysis of OP metabolites in urine samples

Analysis of urine samples for the relevant metabolites can provide critical information for the estimation of human exposure to OP pesticides. Urine samples were used for the analysis of OP pesticide exposure in the affected children, with samples analyzed for nonspecific dialkyl phosphate metabolites. For the estimation of OP metabolites, urine was selected because collection is simple and non-intrusive, metabolite concentrations are normally significantly higher than those in blood, and laboratory methods are accessible to quantify these metabolites at low detection levels. Urine samples were lyophilized according to the method described by Sinha et al. (2014). The analysis was conducted using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and the identification of pesticide metabolites in urine was performed using a previously developed described by Sinha et al. (2014) [17].

2.5 Instrumentation

A 4000-QTRAP triple quadrupole hybrid mass spectrometer (Applied Biosystems MDS Sciex, USA) aligned with ultra-fast liquid chromatography with LC 20 AD, binary pump (ultra-fast liquid chromatography (UFLC), Shimadzu) was used for the identification and estimation of OP pesticide metabolites (six OP metabolites). The analysis was performed in negative turbo ion spray (ESI) mode. The reverse-phase C-18 column was used for LC.

2.6 Liquid chromatography–mass spectroscopy conditions (LC-MS)

An UFLC instrument outfitted with a triple-quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer in operation inside the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode was utilized for this investigation. Chromatographic separation was accomplished for the six OP metabolites by using a liquid chromatograph equipped with an SB-C18 reverse phase column with a particle size of 1.8 μm and dimensions of 150 × 4.6 mm. Extracted urine samples (10 μL) were administered into the instrument utilizing a Shimadzu auto-sampler fitted with a Hamilton 100 μL syringe. Gradient compositions of 0.1% acid in water (gradient-A) and acetonitrile (gradient B) at a flow rate of 0.2 mL were utilized. nonetheless, the best affectability and separation for all the pesticides were accomplished utilizing the gradient compositions [17].

The analytes were investigated in the MRM negative ESI mode with high resolution. The interface radiator was maintained at a temperature of 550°C and an ion-spray (IS) voltage of 5500 eV. A full autotune of the mass spectrometer was performed prior to each sample set investigation. A full scan of the mass spectra of all pesticides was recorded to select the optimal mass to charge quantitative relation (m/z) molecule (Q1) victimization continuous infusion of each pesticide inside the positive ionization method of ESI. The product mass spectra were acquired with the nonstop infusion of each analyte; therefore, Q1, which was compared to the protonated precursor molecule, remained constant. The most abundant product ion for each compound was then assigned for MRM examination. At least two of the most intense product ions were separated; one ion was utilized for quantification, while the other was utilized for affirmation, according to the three head rules given for mass spectrographic investigations of OP pesticides [18, 19]. The optimization of the source-dependent parameters, such as nebulizing gas (GS1), heating gas (GS2), and curtain gas, were analyzed in the flow injection analysis mode. The GS1, GS2, and curtain gas pressures were maintained at 35, 40, and 25 psi, respectively, throughout the study. In addition, the de-clustering potential (DP), collision energy (CE), entrance potential (EP), and collision exit potential (CXP) were utilized according to the predefined affectability of the strategy [17].

2.7 Extraction of urine samples

Using a lyophilizer, 10 mL of each urine sample was transferred into 20 mL test tubes and freeze-dried. To each lyophilized test tube, 5 mL of acetonitrile was added and vortexed for 10 min and then moved into 15 mL centrifuge tubes (first concentrate). The samples were again extracted using 5 mL of acetonitrile for 2 min and then moved to the acetonitrile-extracted sample arranged in the first step. When the extraction was completed, the contents of the tubes were centrifuged for 8 min at 3000 rpm. In this procedure, the supernatant was collected into another 15 mL tubes for drying and further positioned in a TurboVap at 20°C under 15 psi of nitrogen to ensure that it was completely dried. The tubes were reconstituted using 1 mL acetonitrile for analysis [17].

2.8 Mass spectrometer instrument control by the analyst program

The ABSciex Analyst 4.1.2 software package controlled the MRM operational mode for the 4000 QTRAP mass spectrometers. The Analyst software system additionally controlled the operational procedure of the instrument. This program set the instrument to acquisition by ESI in the negative mode for the analysis of the varied analytes. Different DP, CE, EP, and CXP parameters were applied for the choice of confirmation and quantification of ions of every analyte depending on their physical and chemical properties. Precursor ions were isolated using the most sensitive, specific, and linear dynamic range. The product ions of the precursor ions were then used for confirmation [17].

2.9 Extraction of MCPG

Each part of the fruit was crushed separately in a mortar and pestle. The crushed parts were macerated with 95% (v/v) ethanol. The whole system was then allowed to stand for 3–5 d at room temperature (37°C). The slurry was pressed to collect the extract, which was filtered and evaporated under vacuum. The concentrate was diluted four times with water. A bulky precipitate formed immediately and precipitation was completed by storing the diluted extract overnight at 4°C. This was then removed by continuous rotator centrifugation and discarded.

Amino acids extracted from the samples were used for spotting on the TLC plates. The samples were spotted and run on a mobile phase in the TLC chamber. The mobile phase used for the process was 1-butanol, glacial acetic acid, and water in a ratio of 4:1:1. The system was run until the mobile phase reached three-fourth of the plate. The TLC plate was then air-dried entirely and placed in an oven for 30 min at 60°C. The dried TLC plates were sprayed with a 2% ninhydrin solution and dried again in an oven at 60°C for 45 min. Purple spots on the plate indicated the presence of glycine-like amino acids.

2.10 Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) analysis

TLC aluminum sheets of 20 × 20 dimension were utilized for the identification. These plates were kept in an oven at a temperature of 120°C for 30 min to activate the silica on the sheets. The TLC chamber was saturated with the mobile phase at a ratio of 4:1:1 of 1-butanol, glacial acetic acid, and water. The extracted samples of different parts of the fruit were spotted using a capillary tube toward the bottom of the plate at 2 cm above the surface. The spots were left to dry at room temperature for 2 min. The plates were then placed inside the TLC chamber for separation and identification. The mobile phase was allowed to increase to two-third of the height of the plate and then removed from the chamber to dry at room temperature. After drying, the plates were sprayed with 2% ninhydrin solution and dried in an oven at 60°C for 45 min to observe any colored spots for identification.

3. Results

Each fruit was separated into three parts: fruit, seed, and rind. Fruit parts were analyzed for traces of MCPG and metabolites of different pesticides. Urine samples of the affected children were also analyzed for the same pesticides.

MCPG has been newly characterized as a component of a higher plant being isolated from seeds of Litchi chinensis. MCPG was converted by catalytic hydrogenation in the presence of platinum oxide into a mixture of leucine, isoleucine, norleucine and two isomeric α-methyl cyclopropyl glycines. All the parts of the fruit were subjected to TLC as a preliminary test to check for glycine like amino acid complexes.

3.1 Isolation of MCPG

The isolation of MCPG was performed using a TLC system. The solvent was run to 15 cm on the TLC plate and dark spots were observed for seed, pulp, and peel at 7.5 cm and 10.5 cm and the Rf values calculated for the analysis were found to be 0.5 and 0.7 (Fig 1). A light spot at a distance of 4 cm was observed for the seed sample with an Rf value of 0.26, which is similar to the Rf value of glycine, isoleucine, and lysine-like compounds, indicating the presence of MCPG in the seed of litchi fruit.

Fig 1. TLC identification of amino acids in different parts of litchi fruit.

Fig 1

3.2 MS/MS analysis

The litchi fruit was preliminarily tested for MCPG and then subjected to MS/MS to confirm its presence. The conditions used in the analysis of the sample were: DP—85, CE—22, CXP—10, Ion Source Gas—25, IS voltage - 5500v, Curtain Gas—10, Entrance potential—10. MS/MS of the samples showed chromatographic peaks at 127.2 and 127.0 for seed and pulp, respectively. The mass spectra of MCPG were found to be 127.4, indicating the presence of MCPG in our sample. The peaks are shown in Fig 2A and 2B, respectively.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

a. Mass spectra of MCPG in litchi seed. b. Mass spectra of MCPG in litchi pulp.

3.3 OP pesticide metabolite analysis in urine samples

Pesticide metabolites in urine were identified using the method previously developed by Sinha et al. (2014). Urine samples (n = 9) were analyzed for the detection of DEP metabolites. The samples were extracted using acetonitrile solvent and the estimation was carried out using LC-MS. Out of the nine samples analyzed, only one was detected with high concentrations of DEP (3327 ng/mL), whose retention time was 16.5 min and the chromatographic peak (MRM) is shown in Fig 3. Further, the precursor and product ion of the identified DEP metabolite was isolated at m/z 152.9 (Q1) and 78.9 (Q2), and the conformation ion was identified at m/z 125.

Fig 3. Chromatograph showing a high concentration of DEP in the urine sample.

Fig 3

4. Discussion

In 2014, the incidence of litchi consumption-related toxicity at Muzaffarpur, Bihar, among children led to the present investigation. Although similar studies were previously conducted, they focused on identifying MCPG, a known toxin found in litchi. However, the present study considered other sources of toxicity that can occur due to litchi consumption. The use of OP pesticides in Bihar for litchi cultivation called for a thorough investigation. Therefore, litchi fruit samples and urine samples from the children from Muzaffarpur were collected and analyzed in the present study to critically investigate and identify the toxic compounds (MCPG and OP pesticide metabolites), which may have caused the fatalities.

The preliminary analysis of all the parts of the litchi fruit, including pulp, peel, and seed, using the TLC method, showed the presence of glycine, indicating that the fruit samples contained MCPG. Furthermore, to corroborate this finding, MS/MS analysis was carried out, which indicated the presence of MCPG in both the pulp and seed of the fruit. MCPG is known to interfere with biological processes such as gluconeogenesis and fatty acid β-oxidation. Therefore, when a malnourished child with reduced hepatic stores (which is common due to low food consumption) consumes litchi fruit, hypoglycemia occurs rapidly due to the presence of MCPG. Additionally, MCPG blocks gluconeogenesis and β-oxidation of fatty acids, which further results in severe refractory hypoglycemia. MCPG is also known to cause accumulating aminoacidemia, which may lead to encephalopathy [20].

The outbreak of such an epidemic was previously linked to the consumption of litchi fruit [2123]. These studies considered the responsible toxic chemical in the litchi fruit as MCPG and associated consuming the fruit with hypoglycemia and encephalopathy. Further, studies have determined the safe tolerable dosage of litchi fruit by considering the cumulative minimum concentration MCPG and its LD50 values in the rat. Thus, based on the equivalent dose-quantity conversion, approximately 3.9 kg of litchi pulp/day for an adult human (weighing 60 kg) and 0.59–1.17 kg of pulp/day for children (1–5 years of age, respectively) could be considered a safe quantity [24].

To obtain a complete picture of toxicity in the children, we also studied the presence of any OP metabolite in the urine samples. Usage of OP pesticides on litchi fruits during cultivation is a common practice. The analysis of the samples revealed the presence of DEP metabolites in the urine indicating pesticide exposure in the children. Thereby, the effects of OP pesticides along with those of MCPG should be considered when assessing litchi consumption-related toxicity.

Previously, investigations have been conducted in areas of Bihar, where the outbreak due to litchi consumption was reported. Controversial conclusions have emerged regarding the causative mechanism of death due to litchi consumption. Nevertheless, MCPG is a known chemical present in litchi, which can be fatal when consumed in excess quantities by undernourished individuals. In addition, the present study considered the other probable toxic compounds in litchi, that is OP pesticides. It can be concluded that this seasonal outbreak can be attributed to both MCPG and OP pesticides used in the cultivation of litchi crops. Useful data can be obtained if further toxicity assessments are designed in line with the present study to consider all the possible toxin compounds in areas where litchi production is predominant.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to take this opportunity to express heartfelt gratitude to the Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Director, ICMR—National Institute of Nutrition for the support and for providing facilities to work on the project. The author would also like to specially thank K. Vasudev & Dr. G. Subba Rao, Scientist-F, NIN for his constant support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

No specific funding has been received for this study.

References

  • 1.Litchi Resource Mapping, Bihar. Report submitted to state Horticulture Mission, Bihar, 2010 23 March
  • 2.Wang H, Sun H, Ma J, Stammler G & Zhou M, Fungicide effectiveness during the various developmental stages of Peronophythora litchi in vitro, Journal of Phytopathology, 2009; 157; 407–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Agriculture Times, Bihar is the top litchi producing State with 40% share, 07 Jun 2017
  • 4.Indira Devi P., Thomas Judy and Raju Rajesh K. Pesticide Consumption in India: A Spatiotemporal Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 30 (No.1) January-June 2017 pp 163–172 10.5958/0974-0279.2017.00015.5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.The Daily Star. Pesticides in litchis cause 14 kids to die, Thursday, 2012; June 28.
  • 6.Times of India. Unripe litchis harmful for children, Bengal minister says after Malda deaths, 2014; Jun 11.
  • 7.Sander Johannes, Terhardt Michael, Sander Stefanie, and Janzen Nils, Quantification of Methylenecyclopropyl Compounds and Acyl Conjugates by UPLC-MS/MS in the Study of the Biochemical Effects of the Ingestion of Canned Ackee (Blighia sapida) and Lychee (Litchi chinensis), Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2017. 65 (12), 2603–2608. 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gray DO & Fowden L, α-(Methylenecyclopropyl)glycine from Litchi Seeds. Biochem. J. 1962; 82; 385 10.1042/bj0820385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chatterjee A.K, A note on the outbreak of JE virus encephalitis in the district of Bankura. Indian. J. Public. Health. 1974; 18; 157–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dinesh D.S., Pandey K., Das V.N.R., Topno R.K., Kesari S., Kumar V., et al. Possible factors causing Acute Encephalitis Syndrome outbreak in Bihar, India, Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci, 2013; 2(12); 531–538 [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Paireau J, Nguyen HT, Lefrancois R, Matthew RB, Nghia ND, Nguyen TH, et al. Litchi associated Acute Encephalitis in children, Northern Vietnam. Emerg Infect. Dis. 2012; 18; 1817–1824. 10.3201/eid1811.111761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Singh G K, Agarwal N, Singh C M, Pandey S, Kumar P, Singh K, et al. Time and place distribution of Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) Japanese Encephalitis (JE) cases in Gorakhpur. Indian. J. Commun. Health. 2013; 25; 66–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ramashankar, Muzaffarpur: Litchi growers blame excess dose of pesticides for death of children, The Times of India, June 24, 2019
  • 14.Chatterjee P, 2014. Two-Year Probe Finds No Infection, Hints at Litchi in AES Deaths. New Delhi, India: The Indian EXPRESS [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saiful Islam Mohammed, Raihan Sharif Ahmad, Sazzad Hossain M. S., Dawlat Khan A. K. M., Hasan Murshid, Akter Shirina, et al. , Outbreak of Sudden Death with Acute Encephalitis Syndrome Among Children Associated with Exposure to Lychee Orchards in Northern Bangladesh, 2012, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Volume 97, Issue 3, 7 September 2017, p. 949–957 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Litchi- Protection and management from pest, ICAR- National Research Centre for Litchi, Muzzafarpur, https://www.nrclitchi.org/extension-folder
  • 17.Sinha S N, Reddy V, Kasturi V, Vishnu Vardhana Rao M, Noor Ahmed M, Shaik A, et al. Analysis of dialkyl urine metabolites of organophosphate pesticides by a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry technique. Anal. Methods. 2014; 6; 1825. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Odetokun M. S., Angela Montesano M., Weerasekera G.,Whitehead R. D. Jr, Needham L. L. and Boyd Barr D., Quantification of dialkylphosphate metabolites of organophosphorus insecticides in human urine using 96-well plate sample preparation and high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry J.Chromatogr. B: Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci., 2010,878,2567–2574 10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.04.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Van den Eede Nele, Neels Hugo, Jorens Philippe G., Covaci Adrian, Analysis of organophosphate flame retardant diester metabolites in human urine by liquid chromatography electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry J. Chromatogr. A, 2013,16,1303 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.06.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Das M, Asthana S, Singh SP, Dixit S, Tripathi A & John TJ. Litchi fruit contains methylene cyclopropyl-glycine. Curr Sci. 2015; 109; 2195–2197. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sahni G S. Recurring Epidemics of Acute Encephalopathy in Children in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Indian Pediatr. 2012; 49; 502–503 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mathew JL & John TJ. Exploration of association between litchi consumption and seasonal acute encephalopathy syndrome. Indian Pediatr. 2017; 54; 319–325. 10.1007/s13312-017-1095-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shrivastava A, Kumar A, Thomas J D, Laserson K F, Bhushan G, Carter M D, et al. Association of acute toxic encephalopathy with litchi consumption in an outbreak in Muzaffarpur, India, 2014: a case-control study. Lancet Glob Health, 2017; 5(4), e458–e466. 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30035-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tripathi J, Bandyopadhyay N, Hajare S N, Wadhawan S, Sarma H D & Gautam S. Determination of tolerable dose of litchi fruit considering reported hypoglycin A and MCPG contents through biochemical and histopathological evaluations in mice. Current Science, 2019; 117; No. 8. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ch Ratnasekhar

28 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-25356

A recurring outbreak of litchi fruit consumption among children of Muzaffarpur, Bihar

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sinha,

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 12 2020 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.

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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ratnasekhar Ch, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 

"Informed consent was obtained for all the children from their parents and all experiments were conducted under the institutional ethical guidelines by Balaji Utthan Sansthan, Patna, Bihar, India.

We confirm that all the experimental protocols and procedures were approved by a Balaji Utthan Sansthan institutional committee, Balaji Utthan Sansthan, Patna, Bihar, India. ". 

i) Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

ii) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3.  We note that Figure [1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.     You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure [1] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.     If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please upload a new copy of Figures 2 and 3 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The work in the manuscript entitled, “recurring outbreak of Litchi fruit consumption among children of Muzaffarpur, Bihar” is very interesting and have high significance. However, the manuscript is not written and presented well as per the standard of the journal. Further, the work in the manuscript lack scientific novelty as a lot of work for the analysis of methylenecyclopropyl-glycine (MCPG) and pesticides have already been published in last few years. I, therefore, wouldn’t like to recommend this manuscript for the publication PLOS ONE in its present form.

Some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript are as follows:

• The English language and grammar are very poor throughout the manuscript.

• There are a lot of sentences in the introduction which are not properly cited.

• The content of the introduction section should be improved focusing more on MCPG and pesticide toxicity.

• The author should increase the sample size of the urine and plasma samples for this study which can be statistically significant.

• Section 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 can be merged.

• The urine and plasma samples were not subjected for protein precipitation prior extraction. Any explanation?

• The quality of all the images provided are very poor. please improve.

Reviewer #2: Sinha and colleagues have discussed the mysterious outbreak of Muzaffarpur, Bihar in a sophisticated and chronological order. The paper has been well written and well organized. The introduction and background are reasonable and setting up premises for the paper. This paper concluded that MCPG (methylene cyclopropyl-glycine) and organophosphorus pesticides were the probable culprit of the encephalitis related death in children of Muzaffarpur. While the observations are interesting and potentially useful, I find the paper needs some minor revisions to make it more appealing to the general audience.

1-There are numerous grammatical and typo errors, and the explanations are not clear in some places. For example, in the first paragraph of the introduction “In India, a total of 68.49 metric tons were produced, and 25.40 metric tons were imported in 2012-2013” this sentence is for litchi production or pesticide consumption it is not clear.

2-In the second paragraph of the introduction the author has mentioned the first outbreak year as 2012 instead of 2011 which is not matching what has mentioned in the abstract.

3-In the third paragraph of the introduction, the first line of the paragraph “plant extracte” should be replaced with “plant extract”.

4-In the fourth paragraph of the introduction the full name of KDKM medical clinic and SKMCH hospital should be mentioned.

5-In the fifth paragraph, the seventh line “The sex proportion was seen as 1.2:1 male to female”. It is not clear for which place this data has been mentioned. In the 8th line, reference 14 is not in a proper format.

6-In the material method section, Acetyl-cholinesterase estimation, the author should mention the full name of SLK diagnostics

7-In the material method section, under the subheading “Mass spectrometer instrument control by the analyst program” the last line “Precursor ions……………. confirmation” is not clear and hard to understand.

8-In the result section, in the second paragraph “ac-(methyl cyclopropyl) glycine” should be replaced with “α-methyl cyclopropyl glycines”.

9-In the result section, under the subheading “Isolation of MCPG”, the author should clearly define the respective Rf values for each sample.

10-In the discussion section, in the first paragraph and second-line “ Analysis……………..critically” should be rewritten.

11-In the fourth paragraph of the discussion “toxics” should be replaced with “toxins”.

Reviewer #3: Sinha et al has reported the work titled “A recurring outbreak of litchi fruit consumption among children of Muzaffarpur, Bihar”. Authors have tried to identify toxic compounds in fruit litchi and in urine samples obtained from children. Authors found MCPG in litchi samples and identified DEP in urine samples. In addition to these, they performed acetylcholinesterase biochemical assays. The present report is important study as litchi outbreak occurs every year in Bihar due to its consumption.

1. MCPG is a well reported metabolite in litchi. I was just wondering if authors found any other toxic compounds in the litchi fruit.

2. Did authors find any OP pesticides in litchi fruit? If yes what are they?

3. I would suggest quantifying the MCPG in the litchi samples and quantify DEP in urine samples.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Nagendra Rai

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ashish Dwivedi, Scientist, CSIR-IITR, Lucknow

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review plos one.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244798.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Oct 2020

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer Comment 1:

The English language and grammar are very poor throughout the manuscript.

Reply: The whole manuscript was checked for English language and grammar errors and revised accordingly and also the revised manuscript was proofread by a native English speaker and corrected by Grammarly software finally.

Reviewer Comment 2:

There are a lot of sentences in the introduction which are not properly cited.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the identification of errors and the same has been rectified in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 3:

The content of the introduction section should be improved focusing more on MCPG and pesticide toxicity.

Reply: Changes and additions with regards to MCPG and pesticide toxicity have been revised into the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 4:

The author should increase the sample size of the urine and plasma samples for this study which can be statistically significant.

Reply: The samples were collected in the year 2014 during the outbreak as a part of the present investigative study, which has shown interesting findings and further research with large sample size is required.

Reviewer Comment 5:

Section 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 can be merged.

Reply:

Section 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 are merged as per the reviewer suggestions (Page NO: 8-9)

Reviewer Comment 6:

The urine and plasma samples were not subjected for protein precipitation prior extraction. Any explanation?

Reply: The method employed in our study was a reported method developed by the CDC Atlanta for the analysis of pesticide metabolites in urine samples.

Reviewer Comment 7:

The quality of all the images provided are very poor. please improve.

Reply: Image quality has been improved and new images with high resolution are included in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer Comment 1

There are numerous grammatical and typo errors, and the explanations are not clear in some places. For example, in the first paragraph of the introduction “In India, a total of 68.49 metric tons were produced, and 25.40 metric tons were imported in 2012-2013” this sentence is for litchi production or pesticide consumption it is not clear.

Reply: The details mentioning about production and export was with regard to litchi fruit. The same is now clearly mentioned in the revised manuscript. Also, as per the reviewer's suggestions, manuscript was checked for any ambiguous sentences and revised.

Reviewer Comment 2

In the second paragraph of the introduction, the author has mentioned the first outbreak year as 2012 instead of 2011 which is not matching what has mentioned in the abstract.

Reply: The typographic error of 2012 was corrected to 2011 which is the first outbreak occurred in Bihar. (Page -3, Paragraph 2)

Reviewer Comment 3

In the third paragraph of the introduction, the first line of the paragraph “plant extracte” should be replaced with “plant extract”.

Reply: Typographical error of plant extracte to plant extract has been corrected as per the reviewer suggestion. (Page -3, Paragraph 3)

Reviewer Comment 4

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction the full name of KDKM medical clinic and SKMCH hospital should be mentioned.

Reply: The full name of KDKM (Krishnadevi Deviprasad Kejriwal Maternity Hospital) and SKMCH (Shri krishna Medical College & Hospital) are provided in the revised manuscript. (Page 4, Paragraph 1)

Reviewer Comment 5

In the fifth paragraph, the seventh line “The sex proportion was seen as 1.2:1 male to female”. It is not clear for which place this data has been mentioned. In the 8th line, reference 14 is not in a proper format.

Reply: The necessary modified indicating the proportions and referencing in proper format were made in the revised manuscript as per the reviewer suggestions. (Page 4, Paragraph 1)

Reviewer Comment 6

In the material method section, Acetyl-cholinesterase estimation, the author should mention the full name of SLK diagnostics

Reply: The name SLK diagnostics mentioned in the manuscript represents the name and the diagnostic laboratory has identified no abbreviated full form. However, the estimation of ache is depleted in the manuscript since no significant results were obtained regarding the parameter.

Reviewer Comment 7

In the material method section, under the subheading “Mass spectrometer instrument control by the analyst program” the last line “Precursor ions……………. confirmation” is not clear and hard to understand.

Reply: This section is a method that has previously developed by us for the estimation of OP metabolites on LCMS/MS in which precursor ions play a major role in the confirmation of mass of compounds to be identified. Further, the same method was applied here for identification of OP metabolites in the urine samples of children and the reference has been cited in the manuscript. (Page -9, Paragraph – 1)

Reviewer Comment 8

In the result section, in the second paragraph “ac-(methyl cyclopropyl) glycine” should be replaced with “α-methyl cyclopropyl glycines”.

Reply: As per the suggestions of the reviewer, α-methyl cyclopropyl glycines has been replaced for ac-(methyl cyclopropyl) glycine in the revised manuscript. (Page 10, Paragraph 3)

Reviewer Comment 9

In the result section, under the subheading “Isolation of MCPG”, the author should clearly define the respective Rf values for each sample.

Reply: The Rf values for each sample was incorporated and rewritten as per the reviewer suggestions in the revised manuscript. (Page 11, Paragraph 1)

Reviewer Comment 10

In the discussion section, in the first paragraph and second-line “Analysis……………. critically” should be rewritten.

Reply: As per the reviewer suggestions the lines were rewritten as, “The litchi fruit samples and biological (urine) samples of the children from Muzaffarpur were collected and analyzed in the present study to critically investigate the cause of the outbreak” in the revised manuscript. (Page 12, Paragraph 2)

Reviewer Comment 11

In the fourth paragraph of the discussion “toxics” should be replaced with “toxins”.

Reply: The word toxics has been replaced with toxins as per the review suggestions in the revised manuscript. (Page 12, Paragraph 3)

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer Comment 1:

MCPG is a well reported metabolite in litchi. I was just wondering if authors found any other toxic compounds in the litchi fruit.

Reply: We were focusing only on MCPG and pesticide metabolites in the present study and no other toxic compounds were identified. However, it would be interesting and innovative to look beyond and identify if there could be any other compounds that are toxic in litchi fruit.

Reviewer Comment 2:

Did authors find any OP pesticides in litchi fruit? If yes what are they?

Reply: We have extracted the litchi fruits to identify any pesticides but we could not find any significant levels of OP pesticides in any of the fruit samples.

Reviewer Comment 3:

I would suggest quantifying the MCPG in the litchi samples and quantify DEP in urine samples.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions and the DEO metabolites in urine samples were quantified and the levels were found to be 3327 ɳg/mL which was identified in one urine sample. We could not quantify the level of MCPG as we could not get access to the standard of MCPG. (Page 12, Paragraph 1)

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25356 - Responces.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ch Ratnasekhar

23 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-25356R1

A recurring disease outbreak of Litchi fruit consumption among children of Muzaffarpur, Bihar - A comprehensive investigation on factors of toxicity

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sinha,

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

1) Improve the english of the manuscript 

2) Explain how the present study findings are informative than previously published results

3) Improve the quality of images

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 07 2021 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.

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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ch Ratnasekhar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript entitled "A recurring disease outbreak of Litchi fruit consumption among children of Muzaffarpur, Bihar - A comprehensive investigation on factors of toxicity" submitted has been improved very much from the earlier submission. The maximum comments raised have been addressed apart from the language is still not satisfactory along with the quality of images submitted to journal is very poor.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

[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.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244798.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Dec 2020

Comment 1: Improve the english of the manuscript

Response: We thank the editor and reviewers for their comments and help us in improving our manuscript. The English and grammar have been corrected using Editage services and the certificate has been attached with cover letter for your kind reference.

Comment 2: Explain how the present study findings are informative than previously published results

Response: Although similar studies were conducted previously, they focused on identifying MCPG, a known toxin found in litchi. However, the present study considered other sources of toxicity that can occur due to litchi consumption. The use of OP pesticides in Bihar for litchi cultivation called for a thorough investigation. Therefore, litchi fruit samples and urine samples from the children from Muzaffarpur were collected and analyzed in the present study to critically investigate and identify the toxic compounds (MCPG and OP pesticide metabolites), which may have caused the fatalities. The above has also been included in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Improve the quality of images

Response: The original images have been uploaded along with the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25356 R2- Responces.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ch Ratnasekhar

17 Dec 2020

A recurring disease outbreak following litchi fruit consumption among children in Muzaffarpur, Bihar - A comprehensive investigation on factors of toxicity

PONE-D-20-25356R2

Dear Dr. Sinha,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Ch Ratnasekhar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ch Ratnasekhar

21 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-25356R2

A recurring disease outbreak following litchi fruit consumption among children in Muzaffarpur, Bihar - A comprehensive investigation on factors of toxicity

Dear Dr. Sinha:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Ch Ratnasekhar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review plos one.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25356 - Responces.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25356 R2- Responces.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES