Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-30462 Anti-asthmatic effect of nitric oxide metallo-donor FOR811A [cis-[Ru(bpy)2(2-MIM)(NO)]3+(PF6)3] in the respiratory mechanics of Swiss mice PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stefanie Waller, 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. This paper is interesting but it needs a significant revision following reviewers' suggestions. In conclusion the author should not use the term respiratory failure which means alteration in gas exchange but it is correct the term respiratory mechanics. In addition, the authors should cite at least 1 or 2 reviews on the role of nitric oxide in respiratory system, especially in a model of bronchoconstriction. Please submit your revised manuscript by December 15th. 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:
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, Fabio Luigi Massimo Ricciardolo 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 2. At this time, we request that you please report additional details in your Methods section regarding animal care, as per our editorial guidelines: (1) Please state the original source of mice used in the study (2) Please describe any steps taken to minimize animal suffering and distress from the asthma challenge, such as by administering anaesthesia (3) Please describe the post-challenge care received by the animals, including the frequency of monitoring and the criteria used to assess animal health and well-being. Thank you for your attention to these requests. 3. In your Methods section, please state the source of the ovalbumin used in your study. 4. Please ensure your Methods and reagents are be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described. Specifically, please provide further details on the synthesis of FOR811A, including a short summary of the synthesis conditions, and any chemical characterisation that was performed. 5. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide the method of euthanasia in the Methods section of your manuscript. 6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This paper is interesting but it needs a significant revision following reviewers' suggestions. In conclusion the author should not use the term respiratory failure which means alteration in gas exchange but it is correct the term respiratory mechanics. In addition, the authors should cite at least 1 or 2 reviews on the role of nitric oxide in respiratory system, especially in a model of bronchoconstriction. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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: 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: In their manuscript, Costa and collaborators demonstrated that the administration of FOR811A, a compound containing ruthenium, is able to preserve inspiratory abilities in a mouse model of asthma. However, the authors mention in their introduction that another ruthenium-containing compound (TERPY) is already capable of controlling asthma. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of FOR811A compared to TERPY? Why did the authors choose to use female Swiss mice? Have any sampling power studies been performed? Furthermore, the ways of sacrificing animals are not described in the manuscript. Finally, the interaction studies between molecules seem to have been done exclusively through software simulation. Would it be possible to carry out an experimental analysis in order to actually verify the identified interactions and possibly exclude others that were not detected? Reviewer #2: Costa and coworkers assessed the effect of a new metallodrug known as FOR811A on allergic asthma murine model. The authors revealed improvements in the pulmonary mechanics in mice treated with FOR811A suggesting that the effectiveness of FOR811A is due to the interaction between the drug and the soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC). Thus resulting in a significant increase in the production of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). It is an interesting study, but the following should be addressed: Major comments: 1) In my opinion, the abstract need to be rewritten because of its confusing structure. 2) The authors performed their experiments on 40 Swiss female mice. What was the reasoning behind the choice to use only female mice as a model? 3) In the results section (page 11, lines 301-302) the authors state: “These findings highlighted that the metallodrug FOR811A allowed the bronchoconstriction activity because it decreased alveolar collapse during asthma.” Please explain the meaning of the sentence more clearly. 4) In the discussion section Costa et al., declare that the anti-asthmatic effect of FOR811A can be explained by the activation of the enzyme soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) in the cysteine portion, causing the release of NO by the metallodrug (page 14, lines 421-423). The data reported in this article do not support the conclusion provided by the authors. They should attempt to validate this hypothesis with experimental data. The authors could measure the sGC activity by enzyme assay. 5) The paper needs to be proofread by a native English speaker to correct several inaccuracies in English. Minor comments: 1) In the “Experimental Design and Treatments” the authors should define the meaning of “Sal” (page 4, line 107). 2) Please rewrite Figure Legend 1 because is confused and unclear. 3) In the caption of Table 1 the authors state: “Values significantly different (p<0.05) by one-way ANOVA followed by Student–Newman–Keuls test compared to the Ctl+Sal group (*), and no difference compared to Ctl+Sal group (a).” In my opinion, the authors could avoid indicating the absence of statistically significant differences and remove “a”. 4) Figure 3 (legend): the authors should describe the figure more clearly. ********** 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 |
|
Anti-asthmatic effect of nitric oxide metallo-donor FOR811A [cis-[Ru(bpy)2(2-MIM)(NO)]3+(PF6)3] in the respiratory mechanics of Swiss mice PONE-D-20-30462R1 Dear Dr. Stefanie Waller, 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, Fabio Luigi Massimo Ricciardolo 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: Yes 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: The authors responded adequately to the points previously highlighted. No further changes would seem necessary Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the authors amended the text and answered to the reviewer questions appropriately. I have no further concerns. The paper is now considered to be suitable for publication in Plos One ********** 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 |
|
PONE-D-20-30462R1 Anti-asthmatic effect of nitric oxide metallo-donor FOR811A [cis-[Ru(bpy)2(2-MIM)(NO)](PF6)3] in the respiratory mechanics of Swiss mice Dear Dr. Waller: 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 Professor Fabio Luigi Massimo Ricciardolo 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 .