Pollen-food allergy syndrome and component sensitization in adolescents: A Japanese population-based study

Tomoyuki Kiguchi; Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada; Mayako Saito-Abe; Miori Sato; Makoto Irahara; Hiroya Ogita; Yoshitsune Miyagi; Yusuke Inuzuka; Kenji Toyokuni; Koji Nishimura; Fumi Ishikawa; Yumiko Miyaji; Shigenori Kabashima; Tatsuki Fukuie; Masami Narita; Yukihiro Ohya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249649

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 22, 2020
21 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-20-40156 Pollen-food allergy syndrome and component sensitization in adolescents: a Japanese population-based study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto‐Hanada, 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 3/21/2021. 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, Linglin Xie 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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: Partly ******** 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: 1st Review Summary: Kiguchi et al conducted a cross-sectional study using questionnaires on pollen allergy, PFAS, and OAS as well as ImmunoCAP SAC to assess IgE component sensitization among 13-year-old adolescents residing in the Tokyo region. Pollen-food allergy syndrome (PFAS) is termed for oral allergy syndrome that occurs among those with pollen allergy. The authors reported a high prevalence of PFAS than previously thought. Kiwi and pineapple were found to be common causal foods. The authors discussed the possible cross reactivity between cedar allergy with common PFAS causative foods. Despite the high PFAS prevalence, the understanding of PFAS among the participants appear to be low. The authors call for the development of prevention strategies and the education of the public regarding PFAS. Major concerns: 1. The authors mention that their findings suggest “PFAS is becoming more common in adolescents than previously thought”. However, the paper does not discuss statistical evidence that suggest a change in prevalence. I believe it would be helpful for the reader if the paper discussed relevant statistics that shows a change in prevalence over time. 2. Background information regarding IgE component sensitization would be helpful for those who are unfamiliar to the field of immunology. Minor concerns: 1. There appears to be some run-on sentences. 2. The current format of Table 9 makes the words and numbers fall into two rows. Will this table be published longitudinally to allow for the words and numbers to fit into one row for easy reading? Reviewer #2: 1. Na and n^a in the manuscript both represent "Number of participants without missing values". Maybe you could use one of them through the paper. In addition, I feel like the Na or n^a in the paper represents that number of participants who have the symptom or something like that. "Number of participants without missing values" is confusing to me. 2. Is there a connection between the seasons of the children showing symptoms of rhinitis and the allergens? 3. Group1: participants with pollen allergy but without OAS. Group2: participants with PFAS. Could you do more comparisons between the two groups so that we may find more mechanisms about the PFAS and know how to manage it? ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 1st Review. 1.12.21.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249649.r001
Revision 1
26 Feb 2021 Author Response PLOS ONE PONE-D-20-40156 Pollen-food allergy syndrome and component sensitization in adolescents: a Japanese population-based study Reviewer #1: 1st Review Major concerns: 1. The authors mention that their findings suggest “PFAS is becoming more common in adolescents than previously thought”. However, the paper does not discuss statistical evidence that suggest a change in prevalence. I believe it would be helpful for the reader if the paper discussed relevant statistics that shows a change in prevalence over time. Response: Thank you for your comment. As you have pointed out, this article does not provide epidemiological evidence to suggest changes in the prevalence of pediatric PFAS. Prevalence data for PFAS in children in Japan are inadequate. Therefore, it is inappropriate to show expressions that refer to changes in the prevalence of PFAS in children over time. We have revised the relevant parts in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections accordingly. 2. Background information regarding IgE component sensitization would be helpful for those who are unfamiliar to the field of immunology. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your comment, and we have added an explanation about IgE components in the Introduction section as follows: “Immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization to the allergen is required before an allergic reaction to that allergen occurs. Most allergens are proteins, and the protein molecules to which a specific IgE binds are called allergen components. Plant-related allergen components of fruits and vegetables include lipid transfer proteins, profilin, and PR-10 proteins. Because of the structural similarities between allergen components in plants, cross-reactivity can occur in the presence of antibodies that recognize both allergens.” We also added the following reference: Matricardi PM, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hoffmann HJ, Valenta R, Hilger C, Hofmaier S, et al. EAACI Molecular Allergology User’s Guide. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27 Suppl 23:1-250. Minor concerns: 1. There appears to be some run-on sentences. Response: Thank you for the comments. A native English editor has corrected the run-on sentences and explanations. 2. The current format of Table 9 makes the words and numbers fall into two rows. Will this table be published longitudinally to allow for the words and numbers to fit into one row for easy reading? Response: Thank you for your comment. We have changed the orientation of Table 9 from portrait to landscape in the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. Na and n^a in the manuscript both represent "Number of participants without missing values". Maybe you could use one of them through the paper. In addition, I feel like the Na or n^a in the paper represents that number of participants who have the symptom or something like that. "Number of participants without missing values" is confusing to me. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed to “Na” and “na” to “N” or “n” throughout the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we have changed the explanation from “number of participants without missing values” to “number of participants.” 2. Is there a connection between the seasons of the children showing symptoms of rhinitis and the allergens? Response: Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, our study may make it difficult to take a closer look at the association between allergens and the season of the rhinitis symptoms because the various pollen allergens in each season in Japan (e.g., Japanese cedar, cypress, birch, and alder in spring) commonly lead to multiple allergen IgE sensitizations. Therefore, it is impossible to specify the specific pollen allergen for the pollen allergy in each child. We have added this explanation to the Limitations part of the Discussion in the revised manuscript. 3. Group1: participants with pollen allergy but without OAS. Group2: participants with PFAS. Could you do more comparisons between the two groups so that we may find more mechanisms about the PFAS and know how to manage it? Response: Thank you for your important comment. Because our study is an epidemiological study, not a basic science study, the results are only suggestive of the mechanism of PFAS. However, there were several differences in the types of allergen components that caused sensitization between the pollen allergy, but without the OAS group and the PFAS group. We have added the following explanation to the revised manuscript: “Cry j 1 sensitization was high in both the PFAS and pollen allergy without the OAS groups (Cry j1 93.2% vs. 96.5%). The PR-10 protein Bet v 1 was higher in the PFAS group than the pollen allergy without the OAS group (59.3% vs. 29.1%). This tendency was the same for Aln g 1 (47.5% vs. 22.6%), Cora 1.0101 (45.8% vs. 23.1%), and Cora 1.0401 (50.8% vs. 24.1%). As for the four profilin allergens (Bet v 2, Hev b 8, Mer a 1, and Phl p 12), the PFAS group had a higher percentage of sensitization than the pollen allergy without the OAS group.” https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249649.r002
23 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor Pollen-food allergy syndrome and component sensitization in adolescents: a Japanese population-based study PONE-D-20-40156R1 Dear Dr. Yamamoto-Hanada, 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, Linglin Xie 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: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 addressed the questions and suggestions effectively. The additional information regarding IgE sensitization and the limitations of the study is well discussed. Statements about the PFAS statistics among adolescents now reflect the current data. The tables are also easier to read now. Overall, the authors effectively addressed the questions and suggestions making the paper smoother to read and understand. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249649.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-20-40156R1 Pollen-food allergy syndrome and component sensitization in adolescents: a Japanese population-based study Dear Dr. Yamamoto-Hanada: 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. Linglin Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249649.r004

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 .