Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 23, 2025 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr Han, Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Molecular insights into human glycoprotein 2 (GP2) filament formation and its antibacterial function in the proteolytic environment" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you as we consulted with an academic editor about your submission. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review. However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire. Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Apr 11 2025 11:59PM. If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time. If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns. During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF. Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission. Kind regards, Richard Richard Hodge, PhD Senior Editor, PLOS Biology rhodge@plos.org PLOS Empowering researchers to transform science Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Cao, Thank you for your continued patience while we considered your manuscript "Molecular insights into human glycoprotein 2 (GP2) filament formation and its antibacterial function in the proteolytic environment" for publication as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you as we obtained the previous reviews and reviewer identities from Nature Communications. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and the Academic Editor. Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision and responses to the previous rounds of review at Nature Communications, I am pleased to say that we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication. I have provided some specific comments from the Academic Editor below my signature (labelled ‘Comments from the Academic Editor’) where we think it would be useful to include an estimate of the purity of the GP2 protein preparations in a revised version. In addition, after discussions with the rest of the editorial team, we would like to consider your manuscript as a Short Report at the journal (https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/what-we-publish#loc-short-reports), given the scope of the study and the previous comments from Reviewer #1. I will change the article type on your behalf upon resubmission. *IMPORTANT* Finally, I would be grateful if you could please make sure to address the following editorial and data-related requests that I have provided below (A-H): (A) We routinely suggest changes to titles to ensure maximum accessibility for a broad, non-specialist readership. In this case, we would suggest a minor edit to the title, as follows. Please ensure you change both the manuscript file and the online submission system, as they need to match for final acceptance: “Structure of human glycoprotein 2 reveals mechanisms underlying filament formation and adaption to proteolytic environments in the digestive tract” (B) Please include information about the form of consent (written/oral) given for research involving human participants in the ethics statement provided in the Methods section (C) Please include the specific approval number issued by the Institutional Review Board of Xinhua hospital in the ethics statement provided in the Methods section. (D) Thank you for providing the structural data in the PDB and EMDB databases (8XC5 and EMD-38237). However, we note that the data is currently on hold for release. We ask that you please make the structures publicly available at this stage before publication. (E) In addition, please ensure that the LC-MS/MS raw data deposited in PRIDE is made publicly available and provide the accession number/URL of the deposition in the Data Availability Statement in the online submission form. (F) Please also ensure that each of the relevant figure legends in your manuscript include information on *WHERE THE UNDERLYING DATA CAN BE FOUND*, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend. (G) We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in the following Figures: Figure 3A, 3C, S6A-D, S8 We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements. We noted that the uncropped gels for Figure 3A are already provided in the Supplementary file as Figure S5. We ask that this is removed and included in a specific supplementary information file named S1_raw_images. (H) Per journal policy, if you have generated any custom code during the course of this investigation, please make it available without restrictions. Please ensure that the code is sufficiently well documented and reusable, and that your Data Statement in the Editorial Manager submission system accurately describes where your code can be found. Please note that we cannot accept sole deposition of code in GitHub, as this could be changed after publication. However, you can archive this version of your publicly available GitHub code to Zenodo. Once you do this, it will generate a DOI number, which you will need to provide in the Data Accessibility Statement (you are welcome to also provide the GitHub access information). See the process for doing this here: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly. We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following: - a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list - a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable, if not applicable please do not delete your existing 'Response to Reviewers' file.) - a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript. NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information *Published Peer Review History* Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details: https://plos.org/published-peer-review-history/ *Press* Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. *Protocols deposition* To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. 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 Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Best regards, Richard Richard Hodge, PhD Senior Editor, PLOS Biology rhodge@plos.org COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR Regarding Comment 3 of Reviewer 1, it would be helpful for the authors to state in the manuscript what percentage of the total protein is GP2. Given that they quantitate total protein to determine the protein:elastase ratio in the experiment, this number should be available if they have some ability to estimate GP2 concentration. Adding this percentage would also give the authors and opportunity to acknowledge that while unlikely, the effects of contaminating proteins on their assays cannot be completely ruled out. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Dear Qin, On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Ann Stock, I am pleased to say that we can accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes. Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. PRESS We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf. We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/. Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. Best wishes, Richard Richard Hodge, PhD Senior Editor, PLOS Biology rhodge@plos.org PLOS Empowering researchers to transform science Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .