Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionApril 23, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-13499 Characterization of the spontaneous degenerative mitral valve disease in FVB mice: a new model for pathophysiological and pharmacological studies PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Monassier, 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. All reviewer's comments need to be addressed. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 16 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:
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, Cécile Oury 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. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "All animal care and procedures are in accordance with institutional guidelines and European regulations. The protocol has been submitted to French regulation authorities and ethical committee (CREMEAS) according to the new European guidelines. It obtained its authorization from the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation with the following registration number 11732-2017121309379999.". Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named ethics committee specifically approved this study. For additional information about PLOS ONE submissions requirements for ethics oversight of animal work, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). 3.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "They also thank CEVA Santé 456 Animale (Libourne, France), the Fédération Française de Cardiologie (FFC) and the Medical Faculty 457 and the University of Strasbourg for financial and administrative support." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The authors received no specific funding for this study" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. [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 ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ********** 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: No ********** 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: This is an observational animal study conducted at Strasbourg University in France to investigate mitral valve degeneration in FVB strains and C57BL/6J strain mice. Blood and urine samples, echocardiographic data, and histological analyses were compared between the strains at 12-24 weeks. The authors report left ventricular (LV) remodeling, increased LV weight, and increased mitral valve thickness in the FVB group compared to the C57BL/67 mice, together with the presence of mitral regurgitation (MR) in 30% of FVB mice. In addition, they reported increased 5-HIAA and platelet counts in the FVB mice, suggesting a possible contribution of systemic serotonergic activation. Surgical treatment, including endovascular treatment, is the gold standard for degenerative MR. However, when degeneration progresses to bileaflet lesions, repair surgery becomes more challenging. Therefore, the prognosis of patients with MR may be improved if degeneration can be prevented or treated with drugs. The creation of an experimental animal model for this purpose is interesting from a translational perspective. Therefore, the manuscript is studying an important topic. Unfortunately, although it seems like the FBV strains develop increased mitral valve remodeling, the presented data was not very strong and there were inappropriate data interpretations throughout the manuscript. In humans, serotonin is inactivated in the lungs and mostly affects the tricuspid valve, suggesting that myxomatous changes in the mitral valve are generally attributed to reasons other than serotonin. More strong and direct evidence of serotonin involvement needs to be presented to support its contribution. The following are critiques/suggestions for improving the Manuscript. Major 1. Data interpretation is inappropriate in many places: - Line 208 “tendency to a higher concentration being observed in FVB animals”. There is a large variability in 5-HIAA level for each time point and there seems to exist no consistent tendency that indicates clear upregulation of 5-HIAA only in the FVB lines. Line 209 “This increase reached statistical significance in pooled FVB/NJ vs C57BL/6J at W20” is likely by chance, since the C57BL/6J animals also show that level of 5-HIAA at other time points. (it is also not corrected for multiple comparisons). Same applies to pro-ANP. -Line 217 “their platelets release more 5-HT and/or have a reduced 5-HT loading capacity” is not supported by data. 2. Urine 5-HIAA is an indirect method and does not necessary indicate that it contributed to the mitral valve remodeling. Acutual serotoning signaling in mitral valve needs to be examined for this purpose. 3. Line 304 “we observed an increase in LVW on body weight ratio (Figure 4B) in FVB/NJ mice”. In the absence of difference in actual LV weight, this only suggests the bias in echo results. 4. Mitral leaflet thickness is already increased at 12 weeks in FVB lines and no clear separation between the strains can be found thereafter from the Figure. This questions if the model is suitable for testing therapeutic approaches to prevent mitral valve remodeling, at least within the studied age range. (Authors state 91.8% increase at week 24, but the average thickness in FBV/NJ is not different from week12.) Minor 5. The presented data does not support the utility of FBV mice as a model to study pharmacological studies. Please remove the subtitle. 6. There are several paragraphs with "data not shown". Authors should make efforts to include them in the supplemental data. 7. Please describe actual p values instead of stating larger or smaller than 0.05. 8. Fig. 1B is mentioned after Fig.3 in the manuscript. Since Fig 1B is not so related to Fig 1A, please move this fig in the order it appears. 9. Please clarify the grade of MR. 10. Line 191 “part of the HR increase was compensated by a blood pressure reduction” is not an appropriate statement which is unlikely to be true and ignores the complex cardiovascular physiology. 11. Line 251, “Therefore, this result shows the absence of mitral valve prolapse in FVB compared to our C57BL/6J control”. To begin with, "prolapse" is a word to describe leaflet motion. How did the author judge the presence of prolapse with histopathological assessment? 12. Fig3 control Alcian blue staining should be presented. The legend statement “Finally, clusters of rounded shape cells bordering the valvular surface and penetrating the interstitial matrix were observed in FVB mice” is probably not specific to FVB mice and control seems to also have the clusters. 13. Fig 4. Actual echo images should be accompanied to support the statements. Please include the labels for what is measured in each graph. 14. IVRT is unlikely to be reliable in such high HR conditions with difference in HR between the groups ********** 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 |
|
Characterization of the spontaneous degenerative mitral valve disease in FVB mice PONE-D-21-13499R1 Dear Dr. Monassier, 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, Cécile Oury Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-13499R1 Characterization of the spontaneous degenerative mitral valve disease in FVB mice Dear Dr. Monassier: 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. Cécile Oury 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 .