Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or P. falciparum in Colombia: Histopathology and mediators in placental processes

Jaime Carmona-Fonseca; Jaiberth Antonio Cardona-Arias

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263092

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 24, 2021
4 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Shawky M Aboelhadid, Editor PONE-D-21-30845Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or P. falciparum in Colombia: histopathology and mediators in placental processesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cardona-Arias, 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. ============================== The manuscript deals with placental malaria with different parameters. The authors said they collected data by a questionnaire and the study includes 15 years of study, so, if they applied this questionnaire during this period? Beside the manuscript needs language editing in some parts. There are some issues addressed by the reviewers. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 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: 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, Shawky M. Aboelhadid, PhD 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. 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. [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: There are a number of issues that the authors need to address to improve the clarity of their manuscript: 1. Abstract: needs attention to English grammatical errors, and also some adjustment to incorporate findings relating to infection with P. falciparum. As it stands, the abstract focuses solely on findings related to infection with P. vivax. 2. How accurate are the estimates of term based on date of last menstruation? In the same context, the Methods refer to term falling between 38-42 weeks, whilst the legend to Figure 1 states 37-42 weeks. There needs to be consistency here. Also in the same context, the authors refer to malaria episodes during pregnancy. How were these documented/recorded? Were such events diagnosed and treated accordingly, and if so, did the authors account for possible bias in the data collected from women with these specific histories? 3. It is unclear (i) how different blood samples (perupheral and placental) were collected - venipuncture for peripheral blood is standard, but more detail of how placental blood was collected needs to be given; (ii) there is no description of the methods used for collection and storage of placental tissue samples - the relevant Methods section refers to the PCR-based methods used with blood samples; (iii) in which samples cytokine expression levels were measured - the Methods refer to analyses in placental tissue samples, whilst the Results section refers to SC correlations using data derived from analyses with cytoline expression levels in maternal peripheral blood samples 4. In the Methods, the authors state that, for immunohistochemical, cytokine and physiological process evaluations, 25 samples per group were selected at random. That being said, it would be informative to know if the general characteristics of these individuals were similar to those of the whole group. In the same context, Table 3 presents data for the cytokine expression levels for which the group sizes vary markedly both above and below the number of 25 per group. This should be clarified, and the authors should also explain why the immunohistochemical results for immunomarker expression (CD4/CD8 etc) are presented in Table 2 with histopathological data. 5. It is unusual to include citations to non-English bibliography, many, it appears, published in journals that are not international in scope, and actually unacceptable to therein include citations that cannot be accessed by reviewers or readers. 6. The authors have chosen to ignore several relevant articles in the literature. To cite just 2 obvious examples: (i) Chaikitgosiyakul et al Malaria Journal 2014; (ii) Muehlenbachs et al Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010 ****** 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: Yes:** Adrian JF Luty [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263092.r001
Revision 1
17 Dec 2021 Author Response Medellín, Colombia, December 17th, 2021 PhD Shawky M. Aboelhadid Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reference: Response to reviewers PONE-D-21-30845 Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or P. falciparum in Colombia: histopathology and mediators in placental processes Kind regards, We thank you for your valuable evaluation, which allows us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Through this letter we inform the realization of all the changes suggested by the journal and reviewers. Below we describe in detail the changes made consistent with each observation of reviewers Editor' comments Observation 1. The manuscript deals with placental malaria with different parameters. The authors said they collected data by a questionnaire and the study includes 15 years of study, so, if they applied this questionnaire during this period? R/ Yes. It is a questionnaire to extract variables from the medical chart of each participant, which did not change during the study period (in Colombia, the clinical history of gynecological and obstetric data has not changed in recent decades). Observation 2. Beside the manuscript needs language editing in some parts. There are some issues addressed by the reviewers. R/ We make editing corrections throughout the entire text Journal Requirements Observation 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 R/ The adjustments were made. Observation 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. R/ We agree with the journal's message about “we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data”. Observation 3. 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. R/ The change was made Reviewers' comments Observation 1. Abstract: needs attention to English grammatical errors, and also some adjustment to incorporate findings relating to infection with P. falciparum. As it stands, the abstract focuses solely on findings related to infection with P. vivax. R/ The change was made Observation 2. How accurate are the estimates of term based on date of last menstruation? In the same context, the Methods refer to term falling between 38-42 weeks, whilst the legend to Figure 1 states 37-42 weeks. There needs to be consistency here. Also in the same context, the authors refer to malaria episodes during pregnancy. How were these documented/recorded? Were such events diagnosed and treated accordingly, and if so, did the authors account for possible bias in the data collected from women with these specific histories? R/ The estimates of term based on date of last menstruation are precise, this coincides with the gestational age according to the ultrasound report (but in this study the ultrasound data was not obtained for all the subjects). We make the correction of the number 38. The information about previous cases of malaria during the current pregnancy was by self-report (according to the self-report of the pregnant women, all previous cases were treated, and therefore no bias is incurred). Observation 3. It is unclear (i) how different blood samples (perupheral and placental) were collected - venipuncture for peripheral blood is standard, but more detail of how placental blood was collected needs to be given; (ii) there is no description of the methods used for collection and storage of placental tissue samples - the relevant Methods section refers to the PCR-based methods used with blood samples; (iii) in which samples cytokine expression levels were measured - the Methods refer to analyses in placental tissue samples, whilst the Results section refers to SC correlations using data derived from analyses with cytoline expression levels in maternal peripheral blood samples. R/ i) Clarification regarding the taking of placental blood samples (lines 137 - 140) was made. ii) The storage process is not described, since all the placental samples were processed immediately they were collected, and what was collected for this study were the results of these analyzes in a databse. However, it is important to clarify that the research group conserves the blood samples and histopathology, with the quality standards that are required for correct fixation, conservation and preservation (as indicated in other parts of the methods, for example lines 214-216). iii) To the cytokines indicated in the lines 210-213. Most of the results refer to the placenta as a unit of analysis and not as a biological sample (in the latter case, the samples correspond to those described in the methods for blood or placental tissue) Observation 4. In the Methods, the authors state that, for immunohistochemical, cytokine and physiological process evaluations, 25 samples per group were selected at random. That being said, it would be informative to know if the general characteristics of these individuals were similar to those of the whole group. In the same context, Table 3 presents data for the cytokine expression levels for which the group sizes vary markedly both above and below the number of 25 per group. This should be clarified, and the authors should also explain why the immunohistochemical results for immunomarker expression (CD4/CD8 etc) are presented in Table 2 with histopathological data. R/ The basic characteristics of the subgroup are similar to the total studied (this was not added to the text due to this unnecessarily extend the manuscript). Regarding the variability in the sample size of the subgroups, this is explained in two matters: some samples did not meet the pre-analytical conditions, which led to a reduction in the number analyzed, and in other cases it was possible to obtain financial resources to increase the sample size. In general, these subgroup analyzes are exploratory and therefore we were unable to apply robust parameters for a sample size calculation, given that there are no analytical studies that would allow us to establish a minimum expected difference between the three groups compared. Lymphocytes were included in table two, since conceptually, cells are part of the histological component. Observation 5. It is unusual to include citations to non-English bibliography, many, it appears, published in journals that are not international in scope, and actually unacceptable to therein include citations that cannot be accessed by reviewers or readers. R/ This is due to two facts: i) low number of similar studies, ii) need to make comparisons with similar populations that have been described in publications with languages other than English. Observation 6. The authors have chosen to ignore several relevant articles in the literature. To cite just 2 obvious examples: (i) Chaikitgosiyakul et al Malaria Journal 2014; (ii) Muehlenbachs et al Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010 R/ These were added to the new version of the manuscript. Kind regards, The authors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263092.r002
12 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Shawky M Aboelhadid, Editor Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or P. falciparum in Colombia: histopathology and mediators in placental processes PONE-D-21-30845R1 Dear Dr. Cardona-Arias, 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, Shawky M Aboelhadid, PhD 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: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes:** Adrian J F Luty https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263092.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Shawky M Aboelhadid, Editor PONE-D-21-30845R1 Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or P. falciparum in Colombia: histopathology and mediators in placental processes Dear Dr. Cardona-Arias: 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 Shawky M Aboelhadid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263092.r004

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 .