Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 8, 2021
Decision Letter - Keivan Zandi, Editor

PONE-D-21-11598

Dabrafenib Acts as a Significant Allosteric Modulator for Dengue NS3 Protease

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maiti,

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 Aug 14 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,

Keivan Zandi

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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note that Figures 3, 4a and Scheme 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3, 4a and Scheme 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

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. 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

**********

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: The authors present a thorough in situ modeling approach to predict potential of small peptides to competitively bind to Dengue NS3 non-active site (allosterically) using routine molecular modeling tools. The authors identify 3 lead small molecules based upon their delta KCal/mol values of binding (< -9 kcal/mol): Dabrafenib, idelalisib and nintedanib.

As there is no current approved therapy or antiviral (small molecule) for Dengue, a positive control was not available. However, authors referenced in conclusions previous studies with prochlorperazine (PCZ) which also had in vitro data supporting possible antiviral activity for Dengue (targeting NS3 protease). Why was PCZ not included in initial screening as control to validate modeling assays to others in the field? Notably, in Table 2, suggest include PCZ for comparison to 3 "hit" compounds.

Secondly, why do authors focus on Dabrafenib (title) when appears 3 hits were identified. Also, could be argued that based upon FIg 5, Idelalisib is predicted to have most impact on altering structure of NS3 protease (via allosteric binding). Caution that focus on Dabrafenib suggests conflict of interest or personal interests.

Third, suggest grammar/text be reviewed by expert editor as several spacing, capitalization, spacing and subscript use is inconsistent. Most notably, Fig 6 has mislabel of top figure (labeled twice as idelalisib, suggest it should be "dabrafenib".).

Lastly, as this is only predictive, clearly in vitro work is necessary follow up and more relevant going forward to confirm antiviral potential and more importantly to determine potential toxicity. As these are anticancer drugs, toxicity is often associated. targeting protease is likely to have non-specific interaction with host proteases as well. Must test for potential tox.

Reviewer #2: the authors try to established three drug molecules (dabrafenib, idelalisib and nintedanib)against all the dengue serotypes (dengue1, dengue 2, dengue 3, dengue 4 & dengue 4T) protease. All the three drugs candidates show stable and strong binding with dengue NS3 based on the authors analysis. The author has done sufficient in silico study to investigate potentially of three drugs inhibiting dengue virus through dengue protease (NS3/NS2B). I have no objection to proceed this manuscript for publishing.

**********

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: Yes: Pouya Hassandarvish

[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

Response to the questions and queries raised by PLOS ONE editor and reviewers:

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Author response: All relevant data are given within the manuscript and the supporting documents. We don’t have any other data to provide as repository information.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Author response: We have added the ORCID iD of corresponding author.

4. We note that Figures 3, 4a and Scheme 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

Author response: We have regenerated Figures 3, 4a and Scheme 1 and replaced them accordingly. We have also modified Figures 1, 2, 4b and scheme 2 with better graphics.

5. 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.

Author response: Captions for Supporting Informations have been added accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments:

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

Author response: Reference list has been reviewed thoroughly. We have modified the list and cited some additional research articles for better understanding.

The following references have been added:

1. Kharisma V, Muhammad A, Probojati R, Tamam M, Antonius Y. Revealing Potency of Bioactive Compounds as Inhibitor of Dengue Virus (DENV) NS2B/NS3 Protease from Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) Leaves. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2021;15: 1627. doi:10.37506/ijfmt.v15i1.13644

2. Dwivedi VD, Bharadwaj S, Afroz S, Khan N, Ansari MA, Yadava U, et al. Anti-dengue infectivity evaluation of bioflavonoid from Azadirachta indica by dengue virus serine protease inhibition. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2021;39: 1417–1430. doi:10.1080/07391102.2020.1734485

3. Panda K, Alagarasu K, Patil P, Agrawal M, More A, Kumar NV, et al. In Vitro Antiviral Activity of α-Mangostin against Dengue Virus Serotype-2 (DENV-2). Molecules. 2021;26: 3016. doi:10.3390/molecules26103016

4. Millies B, von Hammerstein F, Gellert A, Hammerschmidt S, Barthels F, Göppel U, et al. Proline-Based Allosteric Inhibitors of Zika and Dengue Virus NS2B/NS3 Proteases. J Med Chem. 2019;62: 11359–11382. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01697

5. Hassandarvish P, Rothan HA, Rezaei S, Yusof R, Abubakar S, Zandi K. In silico study on baicalein and baicalin as inhibitors of dengue virus replication. RSC Adv. 2016;6: 31235–31247. doi:10.1039/C6RA00817H

6. Protein-Ligand Complex. [cited 5 Aug 2021]. Available: http://www.mdtutorials.com/gmx/complex/index.html

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors present a thorough in situ modeling approach to predict potential of small peptides to competitively bind to Dengue NS3 non-active site (allosterically) using routine molecular modeling tools. The authors identify 3 lead small molecules based upon their delta KCal/mol values of binding (<-9 kcal/mol): Dabrafenib, idelalisib and nintedanib.

Comment: As there is no current approved therapy or antiviral (small molecule) for Dengue, a positive control was not available. However, authors referenced in conclusions previous studies with prochlorperazine (PCZ) which also had in vitro data supporting possible antiviral activity for Dengue (targeting NS3 protease). Why was PCZ not included in initial screening as control to validate modeling assays to others in the field? Notably, in Table 2, suggest include PCZ for comparison to 3 "hit" compounds.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for raising this issue. Prochlorperazine (PCZ) has been reported as an entry blocker/ inhibitor and not a NS3 protease inhibitor of DENV. As the proposed mechanism of action and the target protein of PCZ is completely different, we did not include PCZ as control. We have clarified this issue in the revised manuscript.

Comment: Secondly, why do authors focus on Dabrafenib (title) when appears 3 hits were identified. Also, could be argued that based upon FIg 5, Idelalisib is predicted to have most impact on altering structure of NS3 protease (via allosteric binding). Caution that focus on Dabrafenib suggests conflict of interest or personal interests.

Author response: It is true that according to Fig 5. Idelalisib seems to be more impactful on alteration of DENV NS3 protein structure. On contrary, dabrafenib showed better (lowest) binding energies (kcal/mol) against all of the dengue serotypes. From S6 Fig, it can also be seen that upon binding to dabrafenib, radius of gyration value (Rg) significantly decreased. However we want to declare that there is no conflict of interest or personal interest from our end. We have changed the title of the revised manuscript to accommodate the three identified hits.

Comment: Third, suggest grammar/text be reviewed by expert editor as several spacing, capitalization, spacing and subscript use is inconsistent. Most notably, Fig 6 has mislabel of top figure (labeled twice as idelalisib, suggest it should be "dabrafenib".).

Author response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the mistake. We have corrected the labels of Fig 6 in the revised manuscript. We have also thoroughly revised the text to rectify any typos, inconsistent formats and grammatical mistakes.

Comment: Lastly, as this is only predictive, clearly in vitro work is necessary follow up and more relevant going forward to confirm antiviral potential and more importantly to determine potential toxicity. As these are anticancer drugs, toxicity is often associated. targeting protease is likely to have non-specific interaction with host proteases as well. Must test for potential tox.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In future we plan perform in-vitro assays and cytotoxicity tests against all three potential drug candidate in collaboration with experimental research groups.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Keivan Zandi, Editor

Dabrafenib, Idelalisib and Nintedanib Act as Significant Allosteric Modulator for Dengue NS3 Protease

PONE-D-21-11598R1

Dear Dr. Maiti,

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,

Keivan Zandi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Keivan Zandi, Editor

PONE-D-21-11598R1

Dabrafenib, Idelalisib and Nintedanib Act as Significant Allosteric Modulator for Dengue NS3 Protease

Dear Dr. Maiti:

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. Keivan Zandi

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 .