Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 3, 2021
Decision Letter - Chi-Hua Chen, Editor

PONE-D-20-40638

Identify specific gene pairs for subarachnoid hemorrhage based on wavelet analysis and genetic algorithm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

Before review process, some comments should be addressed for manuscript revision.

Therefore, I invite the authors to resubmit the revised manuscript for further reviews.

1. The authors should address the format of PLOS ONE to revise the whole paper.

2. The research questions should be defined.

3. The contributions of this study should be highlight in the first section.

4. A literature review section should be given and discussed.

5. The authors should recognize the section of method. They only listed some ideas in the second section. However, they should present the method and how the method can solve the research questions. The quality of presentation should be improved. 

6. The authors should recognize the section of results. They only listed some results in the third section. However, they should discuss the results and why the method can solve the research questions. The quality of presentation should be improved. 

7. The authors should present the limitation of this study.

8. Future work should be discuss and given in the last section.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2021 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,

Chi-Hua Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Before review process, some comments should be addressed for manuscript revision.

Therefore, I invite the authors to resubmit the revised manuscript for further reviews.

1. The authors should address the format of PLOS ONE to revise the whole paper.

2. The research questions should be defined.

3. The contributions of this study should be highlight in the first section.

4. A literature review section should be given and discussed.

5. The authors should recognize the section of method. They only listed some ideas in the second section. However, they should present the method and how the method can solve the research questions. The quality of presentation should be improved. 

6. The authors should recognize the section of results. They only listed some results in the third section. However, they should discuss the results and why the method can solve the research questions. The quality of presentation should be improved. 

7. The authors should present the limitation of this study.

8. Future work should be discuss and given in the last section.

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 note that PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors, including the title. Please also refer to our submission guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research), and note that outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels, such as "surviving among the disabled" should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology.

*PLOS ONE has specific criteria for papers that describe new methods or software for applications. Specifically, these reports must meet the criteria of utility, validation, and availability, which are described in detail at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods-software-databases-and-tools. Please ensure that you detail in your methods section in what way the method presented in your manuscript represents a proven advantage over existing alternatives.

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4. 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.

5. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, on some of which you may be an author.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcp.28442

https://www.eurekaselect.com/172331/article

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biochem.6b01134

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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

1. The authors should address the format of PLOS ONE to revise the whole paper.

Reply to editor: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according

to the MANUSCRIPT BODY FORMATTING GUIDELINES. The font and text size

have been modified accordingly.

2. The research questions should be defined.

Reply to editor: We highlighted this study's aim and the issues we want to address in the

abstract section. The primary subjective is to find out new biomarkers for subarachnoid

hemorrhage and build a diagnostic predictor.

3. The contributions of this study should be highlight in the first section.

Reply to editor: Thanks for your suggestion. We have included the contributions of this

study to the abstract section. The significant contribution is that we developed a new

protocol pairing genes and screened significant gene pairs based on the feature selection

algorithm. A classifier was constructed with the selected gene pairs and achieved a high

performance.

4. A literature review section should be given and discussed.

Reply to editor: We included the literature review in the discussion part. Multiple studies

are discussed and verified our signature genes. The conclusion of this study is well

concordant to the earlier studies.

5. The authors should recognize the section of the method. They only listed some ideas in

the second section. However, they should present the method and how the method can

solve the research questions. The quality of the presentation should be improved.

Reply to editor: The method section has been reorganized. We added the description

regarding how each method can solve the research questions.

6. The authors should recognize the section of the results. They only listed some results in

the third section. However, they should discuss the results and why the method can solve

the research questions. The quality of the presentation should be improved.

Reply to editor: The result section is also revised. We added descriptions about why the

result contributes to this study.

7. The authors should present the limitation of this study.

Reply to editor: The limitation of this study has been included in the discussion.

8. Future work should be discussed and given in the last section.

Reply to editor: We stated some drawbacks of this study, and even though they are out of

the scope of our current study, they will be included in our future work.

Finally,Thank you very much for your comments on the language of the article, and we have modified it again. However, considering the professionalism and rigor of the language, if you think there are still some problems with the language, I would like to ask if your journal has a channel for polishing it. If so, please tell me the link, thank you. If you have any other questions, please contact me and thank you again.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Chi-Hua Chen, Editor

PONE-D-20-40638R1

Identify specific gene pairs for subarachnoid hemorrhage based on wavelet analysis and genetic algorithm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 May 29 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chi-Hua Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (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: (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: (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: Interesting.

Please consider discussing your findings within the context of these two recent publications:

Xu, H., Stamova, B., Ander, B.P. et al. mRNA Expression Profiles from Whole Blood Associated with Vasospasm in Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care 33, 82–89 (2020).

Heinsberg, L.W., Arockiaraj, A.I., Crago, E.A. et al. Genetic Variability and Trajectories of DNA Methylation May Support a Role for HAMP in Patient Outcomes After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care 32, 550–563 (2020).

**********

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

[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 2

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Reply to editor: Thanks for your suggestions. We have checked the reference list and found no retracted papers.

2. Please consider discussing your findings within the context of these two recent publications:

Reply to editor: Thanks for your suggestions. We read the above two articles carefully, Xu et al compared the mRNA expression in whole blood of SAH patients with and without vasospasm. The results demonstrate that mRNA expression level signatures can be applied to distinguish SAH patients from normal controls. Another study also evaluated the relationship between aSAH patient outcomes and genetic variants and DNA methylation. The author found that DNA methylation of hepcidin geneplayscritical roles in patients following aSAH. Both studies imply the potential application of gene signatures as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for aSAH patients. We have added the above in the introduction(Manuscript Page2) and have added references from both articles to our list of references(Manuscript Page13).

3. Please include a separate legend for each figure in your manuscript.

Reply to editor: Thanks for your suggestions.I have added all the legends at the end of this article.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(new).docx
Decision Letter - Chi-Hua Chen, Editor

Identify specific gene pairs for subarachnoid hemorrhage based on wavelet analysis and genetic algorithm

PONE-D-20-40638R2

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Chi-Hua Chen, Ph.D.

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: (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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (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: (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: (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 have adequately responded to prior comments/critiques. Thank you.

**********

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

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Chi-Hua Chen, Editor

PONE-D-20-40638R2

Identify specific gene pairs for subarachnoid hemorrhage based on wavelet analysis and genetic algorithm

Dear Dr. Zhang:

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 Chi-Hua Chen

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 .