Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 26, 2021
Decision Letter - Michael Bader, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-21-2424517R/S-Benzo-RvD1, a synthetic resolvin D1 analogue, attenuates neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of acute vascular injuryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Conte,

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 Dec 03 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,

Michael Bader

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia.

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:

MSC - co-Founder of VasaRx and co-inventor of IP related to this work with the Regents of University of California and Brigham and Women's Hospital”

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. 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

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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: The paper proposed by Kim AS et al is titled : « 17R/S-Benzo-RvD1, a synthetic resolvin D1 analog, attenuates neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of acute vascular injury ».

The authors demonstrated that neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) is attenuated by RvD1 treatment following acute arterial injury in rats.

The authors adopted an interesting translational approach to describe their message.

They used VSMC, endothelial cells, HUVEC, and an in vivo model of induced intimal hyperplasia in rats.

Their multidisciplinary methods include migration assay, cell shape measurement, cytotoxicity, cell proliferation, immunostaining, in vivo analyses.

Although the paper is well designed and written, some minor concerns need to be addressed before acceptance.

1- Add a reference for the two first sentences of the introduction.

2- In the statistical analysis paragraph of the Material and methods section, add information about the minimum p from which data were considered significant. For example, p<0.05.

3. In multiple group analyses, one way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni or Tuckey post-hoc tests may better apply in this context. The authors can either repeat the appropriate statistics tests when applicable, or justify their choice in a limitation section.

4. As the `n` are low, for transparency, the authors are invited to present all bar graphs as scatter/dot plot graphs, showing mean’s and SEM’s bars. (except graphs shown in supplementary figures, as scatter/dot plot may be less readable than bar graphs).

5. Figure 3 and 4, add a scale for the pictures.

6. Add a limitation section after the discussion and before the conclusion to address the main challenges met by this study, the limitations, and possible ways to overcome them in future investigations. This can include justification of the small number of samples n = 4 or 3; feasibility of further experiments or analyses (qPCR, western blot, etc).

7. Add a Highlight section with up to 5 bullet points to describe the main findings of the paper or/and patient-oriented potential applications.

**********

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: Roddy Hiram

[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

Michael Bader, Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Re: PONE-D-21-24245

17R/S-Benzo-RvD1, a synthetic resolvin D1 analogue, attenuates neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of acute vascular injury

Dear PLOS-One Reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing our submitted work. Below are our responses to the comments and questions from the review:

Responses to general guidelines

1. Edited manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including the file name

2. Added (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and analgesia

3. Included statement “This does not alter our adhered to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials” and included updated Competing Interests statement on cover letter

4. Included ORCID iD for Michael S. Conte

5. Included supplemental figure data pertinent to the section that previously stated “data not shown” (toxicity) proliferation figure is now supplemental figure 2.

Responses to individual reviewer questions/comments

1. Add a reference for the two first sentences of the introduction

a. Added references for the two first sentences of the introduction

2. In the statistical analysis paragraph of the Material and methods section, add information about the minimum p from which data were considered significant. For example, p<0.05.

a. Added information regarding the minimum p from which data were considered significant, which was p<0.05

3. In multiple group analyses, one way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni or Tuckey post-hoc tests may better apply in this context. The authors can either repeat the appropriate statistics tests when applicable, or justify their choice in a limitation section.

a. We performed ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey for individual group comparisons and edited the manuscript text to reflect this.

4. As the `n` are low, for transparency, the authors are invited to present all bar graphs as scatter/dot plot graphs, showing mean’s and SEM’s bars. (except graphs shown in supplementary figures, as scatter/dot plot may be less readable than bar graphs).

a. All bar graphs (with exception of supplemental figures) were switched to scatter plots with means and SEM bars.

5. Figure 3 and 4, add a scale for the pictures.

a. Figure 3 and 4 – added scale bars

6. Add a limitation section after the discussion and before the conclusion to address the main challenges met by this study, the limitations, and possible ways to overcome them in future investigations. This can include justification of the small number of samples n = 4 or 3; feasibility of further experiments or analyses (qPCR, western blot, etc).

a. Added a limitation section following the discussion

7. Add a Highlight section with up to 5 bullet points to describe the main findings of the paper or/and patient-oriented potential applications.

a. Highlight section added with 3 bullet points to describe the main findings of the paper

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript for publication. We look forward to any additional comments or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Conte MD

Alexander Kim MD

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Updated v2.docx
Decision Letter - Michael Bader, Editor

17R/S-Benzo-RvD1, a synthetic resolvin D1 analogue, attenuates neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of acute vascular injury

PONE-D-21-24245R1

Dear Dr. Conte,

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,

Michael Bader

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Michael Bader, Editor

PONE-D-21-24245R1

17R/S-Benzo-RvD1, a synthetic resolvin D1 analogue, attenuates neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of acute vascular injury

Dear Dr. Conte:

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

Prof. Michael Bader

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 .