Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 18, 2019
Decision Letter - Stephen D. Ginsberg, Editor

PONE-D-19-26326

Urine dicarboxylic acids change in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease and reflect loss of energy capacity and hippocampal volume

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Harrington,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by two Reviewers and an Academic Editor, please make the suggested corrections posed by both Reviewers so I can render a decision on this manuscript.

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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please describe in your methods section how capacity to provide consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity to consent please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

a)    Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  

b)    Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Cipher Biostatistics & Reporting.

1.     Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

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: Yes

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 is a very interesting paper. The reviewer agree with authors' hypothesis. But would like to suggest an open search for lipid metabolites as urinary biomarkers in the future. The manuscript should be published to show the community the potential of urine. But there is a theory about urinary biomarker which will support the manuscript but not mentioned. The theory is in the paper with recent progress of urinary protein biomarkers on early AD animal model (J Alzheimers Dis. (2018) 66:613–637. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180412).

Reviewer #2:

1. Please give the precise structure of C4-C5 DCAs and C7-C10 DCAs, are they oxidized?

2. Single ion monitoring (SIM) mode based on triple quad mass spectrometry is a Quantitative platform for targeted analysis, but is not suitable for the finding of biomarkers. Therefore, although the authors targeted dicarboxylic acids because they are implicated in several processes associated with AD pathology, I guess readers may also need to explain why and how the C4-C5 DCAs and C7-C10 DCAs were selected for SIM analysis. Specifically, whether some other DCAs such as smaller than C4 or bigger than C 10 were detected in urine, or there is no statistical differences for these DCAS between AD and cognitively healthy groups.

3. The authors have provided well designed and credible results, especially; the samples of CH individuals with normal amyloid/Tau (CH-NAT) and pathological amyloid/Tau (CH-PAT) are very valuable. However, some details of the analysis method may be ignored. For example, gas chromatographic methods coupled with mass spectrometry is widely used for the detection of dicarboxylic acids, but the efficiency and stability of reaction products and several derivatization agents may be different, so the detection limit (LOD) and relative standard deviation (RSD) of C4,C5… C10 should be given, 0therwise, the relationship between signal intensity and content cannot be accurately judged.

4. In Fig 2(B). Changes in urine DCA in clinical groups, if I am not wrong, there are 25 black triangles, which is not inconsistent with 24 AD 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: Yong Wang

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.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by June, 2020. 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,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Revision 1

Responses to the reviewers

Reviewer 1

But would like to suggest an open search for lipid metabolites as urinary biomarkers in the future. We add a statement to recommend an open search for lipid metabolites in our “limitations” paragraph.

But there is a theory about urinary biomarker which will support the manuscript but not mentioned. The theory is in the paper with recent progress of urinary protein biomarkers on early AD animal model (J Alzheimers Dis. (2018) 66:613–637. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180412). We add the recommended reference.

Reviewer 2

1. Please give the precise structure of C4-C5 DCAs and C7-C10 DCAs, are they oxidized? We have added the structure of the DCA’s to the Supp figure 1. We have also included more GCMS method details with the structure of the PFBBr species that we detect in the method; this is interesting as only one PFBBr adduct is detected.

2. Single ion monitoring (SIM) mode based on triple quad mass spectrometry is a Quantitative platform for targeted analysis, but is not suitable for the finding of biomarkers. Therefore, although the authors targeted dicarboxylic acids because they are implicated in several processes associated with AD pathology, I guess readers may also need to explain why and how the C4-C5 DCAs and C7-C10 DCAs were selected for SIM analysis. Specifically, whether some other DCAs such as smaller than C4 or bigger than C 10 were detected in urine, or there is no statistical differences for these DCAS between AD and cognitively healthy groups. The recovery yield for C3 and DCAs greater than 10 turned out to be poor and we were not able to optimize the method within these experiments. The values for C6, and C10 were of good quality but they were not significantly different between the groups. We concentrated on those DCAs that we found to be different between CH and AD and which yielded good quality data. We have started to look at larger DCA’s with a new approach, but this is beyond the scope of this manuscript. We used a triple quad GCMS and used the SIM approach because the DCAs all fell apart under conditions we tried. As we mention in the limitations section, we state clearly that a simpler assay will be needed for widespread use, but we hope that these initial results that we report will stimulate efforts to look further at urine as a biomarker with potential for screening of pre-symptomatic AD.

3. However, some details of the analysis method may be ignored. For example, gas chromatographic methods coupled with mass spectrometry is widely used for the detection of dicarboxylic acids, but the efficiency and stability of reaction products and several derivatization agents may be different, so the detection limit (LOD) and relative standard deviation (RSD) of C4,C5… C10 should be given, 0therwise, the relationship between signal intensity and content cannot be accurately judged. In our original submission, we had included the LOD, dynamic ranges, 95% CI, means (SD) for all values of DCAs, and the R2 of internal standards in Tables 1-3. Perhaps the reviewer did not have access to this supplementary data; these parameters give clear description of the data quality.

4. In Fig 2(B). Changes in urine DCA in clinical groups, if I am not wrong, there are 25 black triangles, which is not inconsistent with 24 AD samples. Good catch! We had stated we had an N of 24 for AD in some texts, Tables and in scatter plots in figure 2B; it is 25! We had 25 correctly in other parts. We have corrected this mistake throughout, as indicated in the track changes. Thanks!

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Stephen D. Ginsberg, Editor

Urine dicarboxylic acids change in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease and reflect loss of energy capacity and hippocampal volume

PONE-D-19-26326R1

Dear Dr. Harrington,

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,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Stephen D. Ginsberg, Editor

PONE-D-19-26326R1

Urine dicarboxylic acids change in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease and reflect loss of energy capacity and hippocampal volume

Dear Dr. Harrington:

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. Stephen D. Ginsberg

Section 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 .