Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 7, 2020

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Answer-to-Reviewers-Comments052520.docx
Decision Letter - Ch Ratnasekhar, Editor

PONE-D-20-17370

Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fumihiko Namba,

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.

Though it is a revised submission, it has been assigned to new editor with a new manuscript number due to the fact that the revision has not been submitted on time. I could see reviewer comments and your revised version of the manuscript with all your modifications and responses. For a strong third opinion, I have sent it to another reviewer, who had revised it and asked for minor revision. 

I would be thankful to you if you could revise the manuscript and submit it for consideration. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 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,

Ch Ratnasekhar, 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. Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including the limited sample size.

3. 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.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 reviewed study entitled: “Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between

neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia” by Tanaka et al. used CE TOFMS to

investigate the metabolic changes between hyperoxia in neonatal and adult mice. The analytical methods are sound and very well described in the manuscript. This is an interesting study and technique and the results will provide valuable information into using neonatal mice to investigate metabolic changes associated with respiratory exposures and disease.

Minor Comments:

1. In the final paragraph of the introduction on page three, the author should include some references on using CE TOFMS as an analytical tool for metabolomics. This would validate the technique and inform the readers on the how the technique was previously used.

2. Were any of the metabolites confirmed through MS/MS analysis combined with spectral library searching, or were they identified based on intact mass and electrophoresis? If they were only identified based on these 2 parameters, the author should include some information on the mass accuracy of the instrumentation used for the analysis and the mass error for the metabolite in parts per million (ppm).

**********

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

[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.

Revision 1

Ch Ratnasekhar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

1160 Battery Street, Koshland Building East, Suite 225

San Francisco, CA 94111, United States

Aug 03, 2020

Re: Manuscript ID PONE-D-20-17370

Dear Dr. Ch Ratnasekhar,

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript entitled “Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia”, for publication as an Original Article in PLOS ONE.

Your comments and those of the reviewer were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the text are shown using underline for additions, and strikethrough for deletions. We have deleted Ms. Kikumi Matsuoka’s name as an author and put her name in the Acknowledgement section.

We hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Fumihiko Namba, M.D., Ph.D.

Chief for Research

Center for Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Associate Professor of Pediatrics

Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University

Journal 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

We edited our manuscript according to PLOSOne formatting sample provided.

2. Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including the limited sample size.

We have discussed potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section.

3. 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.

We have provided our original uncropped and unadjusted blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer #1: The reviewed study entitled: “Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia” by Tanaka et al. used CE TOFMS to investigate the metabolic changes between hyperoxia in neonatal and adult mice. The analytical methods are sound and very well described in the manuscript. This is an interesting study and technique and the results will provide valuable information into using neonatal mice to investigate metabolic changes associated with respiratory exposures and disease.

Minor Comments:

1. In the final paragraph of the introduction on page three, the author should include some references on using CE TOFMS as an analytical tool for metabolomics. This would validate the technique and inform the readers on the how the technique was previously used.

As Reviewer recommended, references that reviews CE-TOFMS technique and that is using CE TOFMS are added.

2. Were any of the metabolites confirmed through MS/MS analysis combined with spectral library searching, or were they identified based on intact mass and electrophoresis? If they were only identified based on these 2 parameters, the author should include some information on the mass accuracy of the instrumentation used for the analysis and the mass error for the metabolite in parts per million (ppm).

We did not perform MS/MS. We identified metabolite based on intact mass and migration time in capillary electrophoresis. We assigned metabolite names by matching with the library created by measurement of reference material. Mass error was limited within ±10ppm of theoretical value and migration tome was limited within ±0.5 minutes of the library.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Answer-to-Reviewers-Comments073020-edit-KT.docx
Decision Letter - Ch Ratnasekhar, Editor

Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia

PONE-D-20-17370R1

Dear Dr. Namba,

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:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ch Ratnasekhar, Editor

PONE-D-20-17370R1

Difference in pyruvic acid metabolism between neonatal and adult mouse lungs exposed to hyperoxia

Dear Dr. Namba:

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

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 .