Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2021
Decision Letter - Abhishek Kumar, Editor

PONE-D-21-03311

Placental DNA methylation changes and the early prediction of autism in full-term newborns

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Radhakrishna,

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 10 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,

Abhishek Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please 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.

3. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

4.  Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: "Department of Healthcare Analytics,"

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Firstly, I am sorry that for delays but it was required for reviewing process.

Please provide answers to question raised by the reviewer. I want to add a few points for the improvement of this manuscript.

a) Please provide a pipeline figure for methods followed in this study.

b) Provide details of the pathway data in the result section and roles of these four pathways in autism.

Looking forward for these changes.

Sincerely

Dr. Abhishek Kumar

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Current Manuscript describes the use of placental DNA methylation alterations and the early prediction of autism in full-term newborns. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been previously linked with abnormal brain development and epigenetic dysfunctions during early development stages. The authors hypothesized if placental DNA methylation changes could be used as a prediction tools to elucidate the early pathogenesis of ASD. They performed genome-wide methylation analysis of 14 patients and 10 controls using placental tissue followed Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, six Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms including Deep Learning (DL) to investigate the predictive accuracy of CpG markers for autism detection. They identified important biological pathways and genes involved early fetal neurodevelopmental process that influence later cognition and social behavior. Overall, this is an excellent study that provides important insights about the biological pathways involved in ASD. The authors should address the following minor concerns in order to improve the quality of their manuscript.

1. The authors performed genome-wide methylation analysis using 14 patients and 10 controls. The gender of these individuals is not clear. The authors should clearly specify this in the table and methods section.

2. There are few incomplete statements in the manuscript. Line 239, they stated “Further functional studies are required to explore its role in ASD”. What do you mean by further functional analysis here? Little more clarity would be helpful.

3. The authors should consider including few statements in the discussion section if the biological pathways identified in this study are druggable.

4. There are multiple typos, grammatical and syntax errors that the authors should correct.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions which have helped us improve the quality of the article. We believe that the revisions based on these comments have made this a better and clearer paper.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please provide answers to question raised by the reviewer. I want to add a few points for the improvement of this manuscript.

a) Please provide a pipeline figure for methods followed in this study.

Author's Response: Thank you for your comment. We have included the Schematics of the study design in the methodology section as fig 1.

b) Provide details of the pathway data in the result section and roles of these four pathways in autism.

Author's response: We have specified the biological process and provided the significance in terms of p-value in the result section. Added the details of hypo- and hyper-methylated genes and have discussed their relevance to autism in the discussion section.

Result section: The biological functional enrichment showed four biological functions to be significantly overrepresented. The four functions are: (i) Quantity of synapse (p-6.37E-19), (ii) Microtubule dynamics (p-6.06E-8), (iii) Neuritogenesis (p-1.68E-7) and (iv) Abnormal morphology of neurons (p-5.99E-7) (Fig 1). Among the enriched genes in the above said biological functions, about 93% were hypomethylated and 7% were hypermethylated genes. These molecular pathways are relevant to neuronal dynamics, cognition, and autism. The relevance of these biological functions is further discussed.

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: Current Manuscript describes the use of placental DNA methylation alterations and the early prediction of autism in full-term newborns. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been previously linked with abnormal brain development and epigenetic dysfunctions during the early development stages. The authors hypothesized if placental DNA methylation changes could be used as prediction tools to elucidate the early pathogenesis of ASD. They performed genome-wide methylation analysis of 14 patients and 10 controls using placental tissue followed Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, six Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms including Deep Learning (DL) to investigate the predictive accuracy of CpG markers for autism detection. They identified important biological pathways and genes involved in the early fetal neurodevelopmental process that influence later cognition and social behavior. Overall, this is an excellent study that provides important insights about the biological pathways involved in ASD. The authors should address the following minor concerns to improve the quality of their manuscript.

1. The authors performed genome-wide methylation analysis using 14 patients and 10 controls. The gender of these individuals is not clear. The authors should specify this in the table and methods section.

Author's Response: Thank you for your advice, now we have included the details in the methods section.

2. There are few incomplete statements in the manuscript. Line 239, stated, “Further functional studies are required to explore its role in ASD”. What do you mean by further functional analysis here? A little more clarity would be helpful.

Author's response: The statement has been modified “However, molecular studies are required to explore its role in ASD.”

3. The authors should consider including few statements in the discussion section if the biological pathways identified in this study are druggable.

Author's response: We have included the statement in the discussion section (line 324-326)

4. There are multiple typos, grammatical and syntax errors that the authors should correct.

Author's response: We have made language corrections in the manuscript. (track changes).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: 1-Response to Reviewers May 9 2021.docx
Decision Letter - Abhishek Kumar, Editor

Placental DNA methylation changes and the early prediction of autism in full-term newborns

PONE-D-21-03311R1

Dear Dr. Radhakrishna,

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,

Abhishek Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We are glad to inform that this manuscript is accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Abhishek Kumar, Editor

PONE-D-21-03311R1

Placental DNA methylation changes and the early prediction of autism in full-term newborns

Dear Dr. Radhakrishna:

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. Abhishek Kumar

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 .