Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 11, 2020
Decision Letter - Edwin Wang, Editor

PONE-D-20-17839

Three novel prognostic biomarkers for seminoma identified by weighted gene coexpression network analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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,

Edwin Wang

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.  We note that Figure 5C in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a)     You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b)   If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

A related work using network modules (PMID: 24075989) should be discussed

[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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 present manuscript titled as “Three novel prognostic biomarkers for seminoma identified by weighted gene coexpression network analysis” used a WGCNA method to analyze seminoma-correlated modules and core genes for identifying prognostic biomarkers for seminoma. Overall, the approach employed in this study is to straightforward and the results are not solid. Below are some comments:

1. “Three novel prognostic biomarkers” is not clear. I suggest to revise it as “Three-gene prognostic biomarkers”.

2. Abstract is not concise enough.

3. Many grammatic errors. English should be improved.

4. Table 1: Why “P value in Survival analysis” and “P value in Univariate Cox analysis” were different? The “P value in Univariate Cox analysis” for TYROBP is not less than 0.05, and the “P value in Survival analysis” for ITGAM is also not less than 0.05. So how to interpret these genes were significantly corelated with survival?

5. The authors claimed the three genes can be used as prognostic biomarker, but no intendent dataset was used for validation. They just analyzed the association of these genes to survival in the TCGA dataset.

Reviewer #2: The author used weighted gene coexpression network analysis and identified three novel prognostic biomarkers for seminoma. I hope the manuscript could be further strengthened by the following comments.

1. Please clearly state the major innovation of this work.

2. More details about the construction of weighted correlation network should be given. How was the correlation matrix constructed and transformed into weighted adjacency matrix? What is the blue and green modules?

3. Please add a flowchart of the construction of weighted correlation network.

4. Please give the reason for parameter selection (e.g., the soft threshold).

5. I want to know whether this network analysis can also be used for the analysis of the other cancers?

6. You should revise your English writing carefully and eliminate small errors in the paper to make the paper easier to understand.

7. Could you discuss the recent trend of developing computational model for identification of the non-coding RNA biomarker of human complex diseases as the future direction of your current research about biomarker identification of seminoma? Some important studies should be cited and discussed (PMIDs: 31927572, 29939227, 29045685, and 24002109).

**********

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.]

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

Dear editors,

Re: Manuscript reference PONE-D-20-17839

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “Three-gene prognostic biomarkers for seminoma identified by weighted gene coexpression network analysis”, which we would like to resubmit for publication in PLOS ONE.

The comments of the academic editor and reviewers 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 the red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font [example: Three novel] for deletions. The revisions have been organized according to the journal requirements. Written permission from the copyright holder to publish Figure 5C under the CC BY 4.0 license is obtained and uploaded simultaneously. The specific text was added to the copyrighted figure caption in the revision. We have sought for English-language editing service for help, considering many grammatical errors in the original manuscript. And the service proof is uploaded with the revisions.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Hualin Chen

Corresponding author:

Name: Gang Chen

E-mail: chengang2308@163.com

Response to the comment of Academic Editor

1. A related work using network modules (PMID: 24075989) should be discussed

Response: Thank you for your comment and this nice work has been discussed in the revision. Zaman et al performed wonderful integrated network analysis and provided a unique insight into the underlying mechanisms of cancer cell survival and proliferation driven by genomic alterations. More importantly, drug targets could be identified through this network analysis, indicating the potential significant clinical value of this work.

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1

1. “Three novel prognostic biomarkers” is not clear. I suggest to revise it as “Three-gene prognostic biomarkers”.

Response: Thanks for your advice and the title is revised.

2. Abstract is not concise enough.

Response: Thank you for your comment and the abstract is revised.

3. Many grammatic errors. English should be improved.

Response: I feel ashamed of my poor English and I am sorry for your unpleasant reading experience. I have asked the English language-editing service for help to revise the paper.

4. Table 1: Why “P value in Survival analysis” and “P value in Univariate Cox analysis” were different? The “P value in Univariate Cox analysis” for TYROBP is not less than 0.05, and the “P value in Survival analysis” for ITGAM is also not less than 0.05. So how to interpret these genes were significantly corelated with survival?

Response: Thanks for your comments. (1) “P-value in Survival analysis” indicated the P value calculated by log-rank test (Kaplan–Meier survival analysis), while “P-value in Univariate Cox analysis” indicated the P-value calculated by Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences in statistical principles may cause different results. However, both methods were widely used in prognostic biomarkers identification. (2) The overall survival rate of seminoma patients was relatively high and fewer death events were observed in the TCGA datasets. If only one method was employed, some clinical valuable biomarkers may be ignored. For example, according to the KM survival analysis (log-rank test), gene ITGAM was not significantly correlated with prognosis. While univariate cox analysis and immunohistochemistry suggested the potential prognostic value of this biomarker. With the attempt to identify more valuable biomarkers of seminoma, we think that it may be a proper manner to integrate the results of both methods, instead of the intersection. (3) As we addressed in our paper, the lack of further experimental validation was the main drawback of our work. Therefore, further researches are urgently needed to validate our findings and explore the molecular mechanism of these biomarkers with tumor immunity in-depth.

5. The authors claimed the three genes can be used as prognostic biomarker, but no intendent dataset was used for validation. They just analyzed the association of these genes to survival in the TCGA dataset.

Response: I am sorry for the limitation of our work. Seminoma is rare in the general population and the health testis is much hard to obtain. Lack of tumor samples prevents us from further validation. Unfortunately, other common electronic tumor databases like the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) do not provide seminoma cases for analysis. However, the three biomarkers were also DEGs in GSE8607.

I appreciate your great efforts in our work and your precious comments help us improve the quality of our manuscript.

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #2

1. Please clearly state the major innovation of this work.

Response: (1) This is the first study using WGCNA to identify prognostic biomarkers of seminoma and three prognostic biomarkers, which may be potential immunotherapy targets, are obtained; (2) Tumor immunity is a hot topic currently and previous studies have mentioned the critical role of the immune response in seminoma patients. Our findings further prove the roles of tumor immune in seminoma, which may provide evidence for future immunotherapy.

2. More details about the construction of weighted correlation network should be given. How was the correlation matrix constructed and transformed into weighted adjacency matrix? What is the blue and green modules?

Response: Thanks for your suggestions. The official tutorials (available at https://horvath.genetics.ucla.edu/html/CoexpressionNetwork/Rpackages/WGCNA/) provide the codes for analysis in detail. What we have to do is to adjust some thresholds according to our samples. (1) More details about the construction of the weighted correlation network are given in the revision. (2) The correlation matrix is constructed based on Pearson correlation analysis (more details are given in the revision). Then, a soft‑thresholding function is used to transform the correlation matrix into a weighted and scale-free adjacency matrix. In this part, identification of a soft-thresholding β (a soft-thresholding parameter enhancing strong correlations between genes and penalizing weak correlations) is of importance. (3) The blue and green modules represent different modules, and the colors of the modules are just used to mark and distinguish these different modules. The colors have no relation to the genes. Genes in the same module have strong correlation with each.

3. Please add a flowchart of the construction of weighted correlation network.

Response: Thank you for your advice. Actually, Figure 2 A-E represents the main workflow of the whole WGCNA. However, we generate a flowchart of the construction of a weighted correlation network according to your suggestion and it is uploaded as a supplementary figure.

4. Please give the reason for parameter selection (e.g., the soft threshold).

Response: Thanks for your comment. (1) Soft threshold: a suitable soft threshold is determined by two factors: scale-independence and connectivity. In our study, scale-independence >0.85 with maximum average connectivity is considered as the criteria for soft threshold selection. And as Figure 2A demonstrated, only power 9 meets the criteria and is selected for further analysis. As reported in the official guidelines, scale-independence >0.80 is acceptable in soft threshold selection. Under certain special conditions, it is less likely to obtain proper power. And power 6 is often empirically used. (2) Adjust P-value < 0.01 and |logFC| ≥2: Actually, both 0.01 and 0.05 can be used as the thresholds of Adjust P-value. As for |logFC|, 1, 2 or even 0.5 is acceptable. There is no strict restriction in the thresholds of Adjust P-value and |logFC|. In our study, the reason we choose a stricter threshold is that a large number of DEGs in GSE8607 are identified through initial analysis and we only want to find out more significant genes with lower Adjust P-value and higher |logFC|.

5. I want to know whether this network analysis can also be used for the analysis of the other cancers?

Response: Thanks for your question and the answer is yes.

6. You should revise your English writing carefully and eliminate small errors in the paper to make the paper easier to understand.

Response: I am extremely sorry for the grammar errors in our original paper. I have sought for language-editing service for help.

7. Could you discuss the recent trend of developing computational model for identification of the non-coding RNA biomarker of human complex diseases as the future direction of your current research about biomarker identification of seminoma? Some important studies should be cited and discussed (PMIDs: 31927572, 29939227, 29045685, and 24002109).

Response: Your comments and advice are filled with wisdom. These researches contribute a lot to the development of computational biology and these computational models provide new methods to find novel and more significant disease-related non-coding RNA biomarkers. More excellent works, I believe, could be carried out soon based on these models. These works have been cited and discussed in the revision.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx
Decision Letter - Edwin Wang, Editor

Three-gene prognostic biomarkers for seminoma identified by weighted gene co-expression network analysis

PONE-D-20-17839R1

Dear Dr. Chen,

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,

Edwin Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: Please provide the source code of the analysis in this study publically available, which is necessary for reproducing the results.

Reviewer #2: It could be accepted now

**********

7. 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

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Edwin Wang, Editor

PONE-D-20-17839R1

Three-gene prognostic biomarkers for seminoma identified by weighted gene co-expression network analysis

Dear Dr. Chen:

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. Edwin Wang

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 .