Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 22, 2021
Decision Letter - Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Editor

PONE-D-21-33867Motility phenotype in a zebrafish vmat2 mutantPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karlsson,

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.I am sorry for the delay in the reviewing process. One reviewer's comment was late. As you see from the attached comments, both reviewers only ask for minor revisions. I will leave the additional neurotoxic experiment at your discretion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2022 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: https://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,

Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: KÆK and HÞ are co-founders and shareholders in 3Z”

Please confirm that this 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 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 your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. 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.

6. 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: This manuscript describes behavioral studies done on zebrafish with a targeted mutation in the slc18a2 (vmat2) gene. The mutants have been the object of previous publications by other groups but the aspects covered in the current manuscript are novel. The work is properly carried out.

I am moderately impressed by the magnitude of the effects observed by the authors. This may relate to the differential effects of the DA agonist and of the precursor. This surprising/interesting result is, however, extensively discussed by the authors. However, it may provide some warning as to the suitability of this model for drug screening. I would be hesitant to embark on a large-scale screen using this model and the studied parameters. This being said, it affects in no way the suitability of the manuscript for the journal.

I only have minor specific comments:

Lines 265 to 284 (page 10) The order of paragraphs in text does not follow the order of panels in Figure 1. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this but thought I would mention it.

Figure 2 : I have seen much better IHCs for TH than those shown in Figure 2. Can the authors provide better photographs?

Typos etc..

Line 87 : add space between “line” and “carries”

Line 338: “reduced”

Reviewer #2: The authors describe in detail the motility phenotype of vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (vmat2) by performing photomotpr assay, sleep assay, thigmotaxis assay on the mutant zebrafish larvae. Subsequently the authors used dopamine precursor and dopamine agonist as well as GDNF to observe potential rescue effects on the behavioral phenotype of the mutant larvae.

1. The authors need to compare and contrast the behavioural phenotype of vmat2 mutant zebrafish model with other zebrafish PD genetic models.

2. Did the authors try using a neurotoxin like MPTP/MPP+ on the vmat2 mutant larvae and analyzed the phenotype. It will be interesting to see the phenotype upon treating vmat2 mutant with a neurotoxin.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Dear Editor. What follows is a complete list of the changes made in the manuscript. First, the checklist provided by PLoS and, second, the specific comments raised by the reviewers.

1. Plos Style policy: The manuscript now adheres to PLoS style policy.

2. Funding information: I have verified that the grant numbers as stated in the manuscript are correct: GM067841 (RAC) and AR062547 (RAC). And the funding statements in the submission format and manuscript now match.

3. Competing interests statment: The correct statement is now in the manuscript.

4. Data availability: All data used in the paper is now submitted as S1.

5. Data not shown: The phrase „data not shown“ has been removed. Now we simply state „N.S.“ since 0.05 has been defined as the significance level elsewhere in the manuscript. The relevant data is of course stored with full data set (see comment 4 above).

6. Reference section: References 49-54 have been added to the reference section (see comment a) from Reviewer #2).

7. Reviewer #1 comments:

a. Order of paragraphs P10: The order of the paragraphs have been changed to match the order of panels in Figure 1.

b. IHC pictures: We feel that the IHC pictures are of sufficient quality to convey the key message of reduced DA cell count.

c. Line 87: typo: Fixed.

d. Line 338: typo: Fixed

8. Reviewer #2 comments:

a. Contrast to other PD models: We added a short paragraph on comparison to other genetic PD models, and the appropriate references, to the fourth paragraph of the discussion. A full comparison of all zebrafish PD models is beyond the scope of this paper as can be seen in reference #49.

b. MPTP/MPP+ additional experiment: The reviewer raises an interesting point. In fact, a subset of the authors have performed this experiment, as a part of seperate study that we cannot add to this one. But, the reviewer was indeed onto something since the vmat2 mutants seem to be hypersensitive to MPP+.

We feel that we have fully and completely addressed all questions, comments and suggestions made. We thank the reviewers for their contribution in improving our manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reply to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Editor

Motility phenotype in a zebrafish vmat2 mutant

PONE-D-21-33867R1

Dear Karl,

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,

Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Editor

PONE-D-21-33867R1

Motility phenotype in a zebrafish vmat2 mutant

Dear Dr. Karlsson:

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. Stephan C.F. Neuhauss

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 .