Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 17, 2020
Decision Letter - Yi Li, Editor

PONE-D-20-04206

Pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary gland tumor in Tupaia belangeri (Tree shrew)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsukiyama-Kohara,

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.  In particular, please ensure that pathological characterizations are complete and accurate and that driver gene alterations are established. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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,

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

2. We note that the tree shrews were not euthanised at the end of the study. In the Methods, please report the outcome of the animals; for example, if they were used in other studies, or were returned to the Laboratory Animal Centre.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. 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

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: Yes

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: Authors bred and characterized 61 female tree shrews and identified 15 spontaneous mammary tumors. The incidence rate of mammary tumors was 24.6 % (15/61) and the average age of tumor incidence was 2 years 3 months. Unknown inherited factor(s) may paly a role in familial BC. Most cases were simple adenomas and two cases were tubulopapillary carcinomas. Over 90% cases were positive for both ERa and PR. These findings are quite interesting.

Major concerns:

1. Whether pTEN and PI3KCA genes are mutated in these spontaneous mammary tumors should be validated.

2. Ref 25 was incorrectly cited. Additionally, the following ref should be cited: characterization of spontaneous breast tumor in tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri chinenesis), Zoological Research, 2012,Feb. 33(1): 55−59.

3. The pathological differences between this study and Ref 12 should be discussed. Simple adenomas may not be accurate. Please consult pathologist for the classification.

Reviewer #2: Due to their structural differences between mouse and human mammary glands, commonly used mouse models of breast cancer have some limitations. Authors of this manuscript entitled “Pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary gland tumor in Tupaia belangeri (Tree shrew)” characterized the pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary tumors in Tupaia belangeri (tree shrew), which shows relatively high genetic homology and structural similarity to human mammary glands. Authors found that the tree shrews in their laboratory have high mammary tumor incidence rate (24.6%) and high rate of simultaneous or metachronous multiplex mammary tumors (60%). Some cases seemed to be of familial mammary gland tumors. Most tumors are benign adenoma and ER+. Two malignant mammary tumors (tubulopapillary carcinoma) were also observed. This work may provide a new animal model for breast cancer research. Future investigation on the genetic basis of familial cases may provide new insight into the mechanism of mammary tumorigenesis. The expression of Nectin-4, the receptor of measles virus, in some mammary tumor cells may provide a model to study the oncolytic virotherapy of breast cancer. The manuscript is overall well written. Following a few correction/modification may improve the manuscript.

1. Typo: “Nectin-4 has been also been reported” (page 11) should be corrected.

2. Figures 5 and 6 can be combined to save space.

3. Please provide a little bit more information in the Figure legend of Figure 1.

Reviewer #3: This interesting paper highlights pathological characteristics of another animal model of breast cancer, the tree shrew. While the pathological descriptions are evident, the manuscript does focus quite a bit on the familial inheritance of mammary tumors seen in their model. However the data supporting these observations is quite minimal aside from pedigree charting. Are these familial patterns driven by germline mutations that can be identified,particularly those associated with inherited forms of breast cancer. I think the genetic aspects should be explored more here for discussion, including sequencing of at least the major inherited drivers in breast cancer.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #1: Authors bred and characterized 61 female tree shrews and identified 15 spontaneous mammary tumors. The incidence rate of mammary tumors was 24.6 % (15/61) and the average age of tumor incidence was 2 years 3 months. Unknown inherited factor(s) may paly a role in familial BC. Most cases were simple adenomas and two cases were tubulopapillary carcinomas. Over 90% cases were positive for both ERa and PR. These findings are quite interesting.

Major concerns:

1. Whether pTEN and PI3KCA genes are mutated in these spontaneous mammary tumors should be validated.

In line with the reviewer’s suggestions, we performed sequencing of PTEN and PIK3CA genes in the mammary tumors of tupaia No.75 (malignant, 6Y1M), No.97 (3Y11M), No.185 (2Y8M), and No.211 (10M), as reported previously (Xia et al., Eur. J. Cancer, 2014, reference #12). However, we did not observe any mutations in these genes, as reported in reference #12.

2. Ref 25 was incorrectly cited. Additionally, the following ref should be cited: characterization of spontaneous breast tumor in tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri chinenesis), Zoological Research, 2012,Feb. 33(1): 55−59.

In line with the reviewer’s comments, we have corrected reference 25 by replacing it with reference 12, and included the reference suggested by the reviewer [Characterization of spontaneous breast tumor in tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri chinenesis), Zoological Research, 2012,Feb. 33(1): 55−59].

3. The pathological differences between this study and Ref 12 should be discussed. Simple adenomas may not be accurate. Please consult pathologist for the classification.

From the results of this study, mutations in PTEN and PIK3CA genes may not always be induced in spontaneous mammary tumors in tupaia (p11, lines 12-13). However, further study is required in this field. We have discussed these points on p14, lines 7-10.

We have discussed the pathological differences with a veterinary pathologist and changed “simple adenomas” to “intraductal papillary adenoma (duct papilloma)(IPA)”, and included reference 15. We have also explained these findings in greater detail (p10, lines 11–15).

Reviewer #2: Due to their structural differences between mouse and human mammary glands, commonly used mouse models of breast cancer have some limitations. Authors of this manuscript entitled “Pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary gland tumor in Tupaia belangeri (Tree shrew)” characterized the pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary tumors in Tupaia belangeri (tree shrew), which shows relatively high genetic homology and structural similarity to human mammary glands. Authors found that the tree shrews in their laboratory have high mammary tumor incidence rate (24.6%) and high rate of simultaneous or metachronous multiplex mammary tumors (60%). Some cases seemed to be of familial mammary gland tumors. Most tumors are benign adenoma and ER+. Two malignant mammary tumors (tubulopapillary carcinoma) were also observed. This work may provide a new animal model for breast cancer research. Future investigation on the genetic basis of familial cases may provide new insight into the mechanism of mammary tumorigenesis. The expression of Nectin-4, the receptor of measles virus, in some mammary tumor cells may provide a model to study the oncolytic virotherapy of breast cancer. The manuscript is overall well written. Following a few correction/modification may improve the manuscript.

1. Typo: “Nectin-4 has been also been reported” (page 11) should be corrected.

We have corrected this sentence (p11, line 5 from the bottom).

2. Figures 5 and 6 can be combined to save space.

We have combined Figures 5 and 6.

3. Please provide a little bit more information in the Figure legend of Figure 1.

In line with the reviewer’s comments, we have updated the figure legend with more information.

Reviewer #3: This interesting paper highlights pathological characteristics of another animal model of breast cancer, the tree shrew. While the pathological descriptions are evident, the manuscript does focus quite a bit on the familial inheritance of mammary tumors seen in their model. However the data supporting these observations is quite minimal aside from pedigree charting. Are these familial patterns driven by germline mutations that can be identified,particularly those associated with inherited forms of breast cancer. I think the genetic aspects should be explored more here for discussion, including sequencing of at least the major inherited drivers in breast cancer.

We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. In line with these comments, we sequenced the PTEN and PIK3CA genes in different tupaia tumors [tupaia No.75 (malignant, 6Y1M), No.97 (3Y11M), No.185 (2Y8M), and No.211 (10M)]. However, we did not detect any mutations in these genes, which was reported previously (reference 12). We have discussed these findings in the discussion (p14, lines 7–11).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Tupai_mam_tumor_Response to rev.docx
Decision Letter - Yi Li, Editor

Pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary gland tumor in Tupaia belangeri (Tree shrew)

PONE-D-20-04206R1

Dear Dr. Tsukiyama-Kohara,

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,

Yi Li, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yi Li, Editor

PONE-D-20-04206R1

Pathological and genetic aspects of spontaneous mammary gland tumor in Tupaia belangeri (Tree shrew)

Dear Dr. Tsukiyama-Kohara:

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. Yi Li

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 .