Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2020
Decision Letter - Nobuyuki Takahashi, Editor

PONE-D-20-01855

Low dose of luteolin activates Nrf2 in the liver of mice dependent on an administration timing: luteolin activates Nrf2 at the start of the active phase but not that of inactive phase of mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ashida,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 05 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

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

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nobuyuki Takahashi, 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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.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. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the ARRIVE Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines. Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (2) efforts to alleviate suffering.

5. 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. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: This manuscript is very interesting for relationship of the luteolin-induced Nrf activation and circadian rhythms in vivo. In fact, author showed that low-dose luteolin activates Nrf2 and increase plasma luteolin levels in active phase. However, I have a few questions. Thus, I propose that to improve the manuscript and to increase potential impact figures in this field of scientific research.

Major comment

1: In Fig.1, author showed that protein levels of Nrf2 and HO-1 were induced in ZT12, but not ZT0. However, this can’t be investigated. Because Nrf2 levels in control level (luteolin 0 mg/kg) is different at ZT0 and ZT12. If author wish to compare the two groups, author should be measure the protein expressions on the same membrane.

2: In Fig.2, author indicated mRNA level of Nrf2 was regulated by circadian rhymes. This point is very interested. However, I have a question. Why did Nrf2 protein level decrease in ZT12 compared to ZT0? Author should be measure Nrf2 levels in nuclear fraction and keap1 protein level in cytoplasm.

3: For statistical analysis, it is better to do a statistical test using one-way analysis but not Dunnett’s test. Because various concentration of luteolin treated for mice in this animal experiment. This point is very important.

Reviewer #2: The authors of 'Low dose of luteolin activates Nrf2 in the liver of mice dependent on an administration timing: luteolin activates Nrf2 at the start of the active phase but not that of inactive phase of mice' present a structured manuscript, focusing on the effects of low dose of luteolin in mice liver, especially with regard to its regulation of Nrf2 transactivation. Based on the displayed results, it can indeed be suggested that luteolin activates Nrf2 to upregulated gene expressions of HO-1 & NQO1 even by the oral administration with extremely lower doses. Furthermore, it is interesting that these effects are clearly dependent on the timing of administration. Although the manuscript deserves further interest, some minor shortcomings and issues should be addressed.

MINOR

1/ Fig4: Why was NOT assessed the effects by lower dose administration like 0.1 mg/kg.

2/ Discussion section (P13line288): How were the values of 0.04-1.7 mg/kg calculated? I just wonder these should be 0.004-0.17 mg/kg, assuming human body wight is approximately 50 kg.

General

Please define all abbreviations at first use, eg BMAL1, CRY, & PER.

Title: Please improve it with correct English expressions.

Introduction:

P3line55: Please correct the spelling of Nrf2.

P3line65: …suggested that an Nrf2-dependent…

P4line78: …, our previous study…

**********

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: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Response to the reviewers

To the editor

Thank you very much for giving an opportunity to revise the manuscript. The comments from the reviewers are helpful to make a better manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to the comments. Please find our responses shown below.

To the Reviewer 1

<Your comment>

This manuscript is very interesting for relationship of the luteolin-induced Nrf activation and circadian rhythms in vivo. In fact, author showed that low-dose luteolin activates Nrf2 and increase plasma luteolin levels in active phase. However, I have a few questions. Thus, I propose that to improve the manuscript and to increase potential impact figures in this field of scientific research.

<Our response>

We appreciate your reviewing our manuscript and giving your critical comments and useful suggestions to us. All of them are helpful for improvement of the manuscript. We addressed to all comments and suggestions and made the revised version of manuscript. Point-by-point responses are shown as follows:

<Your comment #1>

In Fig.1, author showed that protein levels of Nrf2 and HO-1 were induced in ZT12, but not ZT0. However, this can’t be investigated. Because Nrf2 levels in control level (luteolin 0 mg/kg) is different at ZT0 and ZT12. If author wish to compare the two groups, author should be measure the protein expressions on the same membrane.

<Our response>

Thank you for your comment. According to your comment, we carried out additional experiments to compare the difference of the basal expression of HO-1 and NQO-1. The data was replaced in Figure 1 and manuscript was revised (lines; 209, 216-217). Comparison of HO-1 between ZT0 and ZT12 was explained in Fig. 2.

<Your comment #2>

In Fig.2, author indicated mRNA level of Nrf2 was regulated by circadian rhymes. This point is very interested. However, I have a question. Why did Nrf2 protein level decrease in ZT12 compared to ZT0? Author should be measure Nrf2 levels in nuclear fraction and keap1 protein level in cytoplasm.

<Our response>

Thank you for your important comment. We carried out additional experiments to determine the expression of nuclear Nrf2 and cytosolic Keap1. As a result, nuclear Nrf2 and cytosolic Keap1 were higher at ZT0 than at ZT12 (Fig 2C, 2D). These results suggest that the transcriptional activity of Nrf2 was higher at ZT0 than ZT12 and Nrf2 activity is regulated by transcription of mRNA. However, the level of Nrf2 ubiquitination and interaction with Keap1 remain unclear. Further studies are needed in the future. This result was added in the result section and Figure 2, and the manuscript was revised (lines; 226-231 and 241-245).

<Your comment#3>

For statistical analysis, it is better to do a statistical test using one-way analysis but not Dunnett’s test. Because various concentration of luteolin treated for mice in this animal experiment. This point is very important.

<Our response>

According to your comment, the statistical analysis do again using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Dunnett’s test as a post hoc test. The manuscript was revised (lines; 196-200).

To the Reviewer 2

<Your comment>

The authors of 'Low dose of luteolin activates Nrf2 in the liver of mice dependent on an administration timing: luteolin activates Nrf2 at the start of the active phase but not that of inactive phase of mice' present a structured manuscript, focusing on the effects of low dose of luteolin in mice liver, especially with regard to its regulation of Nrf2 transactivation. Based on the displayed results, it can indeed be suggested that luteolin activates Nrf2 to upregulated gene expressions of HO-1 & NQO1 even by the oral administration with extremely lower doses. Furthermore, it is interesting that these effects are clearly dependent on the timing of administration. Although the manuscript deserves further interest, some minor shortcomings and issues should be addressed.

<Our response>

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. Your comments are helpful to make a better manuscript. According to your comments, we revised the manuscript. Please find following our responses as a Point-by-point response fashion.

<Your comment #1>

Fig4: Why was NOT assessed the effects by lower dose administration like 0.1 mg/kg.

<Our response>

Thank you for your comment. Since nuclear translocation of Nrf2 was the highest at 1 mg/kg luteolin, we evaluated the effect of 1 mg/kg luteolin on the mRNA expression of Nrf2 and its target proteins. The reason was added in result section (lines; 254-256).

<Your comment #2>

Discussion section (P13line288): How were the values of 0.04-1.7 mg/kg calculated? I just wonder these should be 0.004-0.17 mg/kg, assuming human body wight is approximately 50 kg.

<Our response>

Thank you for your important comment. The values of 0.04-1.7 mg/kg were calculated by using the human equivalent dose calculation formula (Nair AB and Jacob S, J Basic Clin Pharm. 2016; 7: 27-31.). We added the explanation in the text (lines 302-303) and a reference (Ref. #30).

<Your general comment>

Please define all abbreviations at first use, eg BMAL1, CRY, & PER.

Title: Please improve it with correct English expressions.

Introduction:

P3line55: Please correct the spelling of Nrf2.

P3line65: …suggested that an Nrf2-dependent…

P4line78: …, our previous study…

<Our response>

According to your comments, the manuscript was revised (lines: 34-36, 56-57, 66 and 79). Title (line 1-2) was also changed.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responce to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Nobuyuki Takahashi, Editor

Low dose of luteolin activates Nrf2 in the liver of mice at start of the active phase but not that of the inactive phase

PONE-D-20-01855R1

Dear Dr. Ashida,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Nobuyuki Takahashi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors properly addressed all of reviewers' comments.

So, I have decided to "accept" this manuscript without sending it to the reviewers again.

Reviewers' comments:

Nothing.

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Nobuyuki Takahashi, Editor

PONE-D-20-01855R1

Low dose of luteolin activates Nrf2 in the liver of mice at start of the active phase but not that of the inactive phase

Dear Dr. Ashida:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nobuyuki Takahashi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .