Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study

Smaranika Rahman; Amena Alam Shanta; Sohel Daria; Zabun Nahar; Mohammad Shahriar; MMA Shalahuddin Qusar; Sardar Mohammad Ashraful Islam; Mohiuddin Ahmed Bhuiyan; Md. Rabiul Islam

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264404

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 30, 2021
6 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Kenji Hashimoto, Editor PONE-D-21-34686Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Islam, 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 two reviewers addressed several major and minor concerns about your manuscript. Please revise your manuscript carefully. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 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, Kenji Hashimoto, 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 [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: 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: 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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-34686 Title: Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study Journal: PLOS ONE MY REPORT Dear Prof. Dr. The authors aimed to investigate resistin and G-CSF in MDD patients and controls to explore their role in the pathogenesis and development of depression. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript, but after a minor revision. The novelty is good. The title and abstract are matched with the rest of the article. The methodology of the study is valid, reliable, and defined appropriately. The data are presented in an appropriate way. However, the discussion, the findings are rather hard to tease out upon a single reading. Can the authors add a diagram/schematic figure that could explain their findings? Also, the authors should add complete sections about the future directions and recommendations. The References are relevant and appropriate for the study. The authors followed the general guidelines of the journal. Finally, the paper will be acceptable for publication if all the above points have been applied. Thank you very much for your courtesy and time. With My Kindest and warmest regards Sincerely yours, ************************* Prof. Dr./Ahmed Ragab Gaber (Ahmed R. G.) Zoology department, Faculty of science Beni-suef University, Egypt E-mails; ahmedragab08@gmail.com Mobil phone: +02-01091471828. Reviewer #2: RE: PONE-D-21-34686 The authors tested the association between clinical diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD) and depressive symptom rating scales, and two blood-based biomarkers measured in serum: resistin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Only resistin levels were elevated in MDD patients compared with controls. Scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D) significantly and moderately strongly correlated with serum resistin levels. The association was unadjusted. Serum resistin had a modest predictive association with MDD by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis (AUC = 0.75). There is little new in this analysis which is cross-sectional, in a small number of cases, and unadjusted. Only two cytokines are reported, making resistin’s unique association difficult to interpret. Both resistin’s association with depressive symptoms and G-CSF’s lack of association have been previously reported in this journal, [1] and yet that reference is not cited. That association was longitudinal, multiply adjusted, and showed a specific mediation of depression’s association with cognitive impairment, and that too was not discussed. Figure 2 is almost uninterpretable. The axes should be reversed and regressions fit to the entire sample. The gender split adds little. There was no test of significance but it looks insignificant. This analysis is better suited for a letter or brief report of a confirmatory finding. 1. Royall DR, Al-Rubaye S, Bishnoi R, Palmer RF. Serum protein mediators of depression’s association with dementia. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0175790. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264404.r001
Revision 1
15 Dec 2021 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study" (Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-34686). All the comments were valuable and helpful to the revision and improvement of the manuscript. We have carefully studied the comments and made corrections, which we hope will merit your approval. We marked the revised portions using track changes. Our point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments appear at the end of this letter. We earnestly appreciate the Editors'/Reviewers' work. We hope that after this revision, the paper will be deemed fit for publication. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Best regards, Md. Rabiul Islam, PhD Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, 74/A Green Road, Farmgate, Dhaka-1215, Bangladesh. Email: robi.ayaan@gmail.com; Cell: +8801916031831 Point by point authors’ responses to the reviewers Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-34686 Title: Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study Reviewer #1 Comment to author: Dear Prof. Dr. The authors aimed to investigate resistin and G-CSF in MDD patients and controls to explore their role in the pathogenesis and development of depression. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript, but after a minor revision. The novelty is good. The title and abstract are matched with the rest of the article. The methodology of the study is valid, reliable, and defined appropriately. The data are presented in an appropriate way. However, the discussion, the findings are rather hard to tease out upon a single reading. Can the authors add a diagram/schematic figure that could explain their findings? Also, the authors should add complete sections about the future directions and recommendations. The References are relevant and appropriate for the study. The authors followed the general guidelines of the journal. Finally, the paper will be acceptable for publication if all the above points have been applied. Thank you very much for your courtesy and time. With My Kindest and warmest regards Sincerely yours, Author responses Thank you for your review and valuable observation. We appreciate your encouraging comments on our manuscript. Following your suggestion, we have added a diagram about the summary of this study that we believe would help the readers to understand the present study and its findings easily. This diagram can be viewed as Figure 4. Also, we added a separate section in the revised version regarding the future directions and recommendations based on the present study findings (page 15, line 298-304, page 16, line 305-308, in revised version). Reviewer #2 Comment to author: The authors tested the association between clinical diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD) and depressive symptom rating scales, and two blood-based biomarkers measured in serum: resistin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Only resistin levels were elevated in MDD patients compared with controls. Scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D) significantly and moderately strongly correlated with serum resistin levels. The association was unadjusted. Serum resistin had a modest predictive association with MDD by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis (AUC = 0.75). There is little new in this analysis which is cross-sectional, in a small number of cases, and unadjusted. Only two cytokines are reported, making resistin’s unique association difficult to interpret. Both resistin’s association with depressive symptoms and G-CSF’s lack of association have been previously reported in this journal, [1] and yet that reference is not cited. That association was longitudinal, multiply adjusted, and showed a specific mediation of depression’s association with cognitive impairment, and that too was not discussed. Figure 2 is almost uninterpretable. The axes should be reversed and regressions fit to the entire sample. The gender split adds little. There was no test of significance but it looks insignificant. This analysis is better suited for a letter or brief report of a confirmatory finding. 1. Royall DR, Al-Rubaye S, Bishnoi R, Palmer RF. Serum protein mediators of depression’s association with dementia. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0175790. Author responses Thank you for your observation. The small sample size, case-control nature, unadjusted associations, and modest predictive performance of ROC of the present study have been mentioned as potential limitations in the revised manuscript (page 16, line 313-314). Also, we suggested future directions and recommendations based on the present findings (page 15, line 298-304, page 16, line 305-308, in revised version). Following your observation and suggestion, we have now discussed the suggested literature in the revised manuscript. We believe this discussion would add value to the present study (page 15, 289-293). Also, we believe resistin levels in y-axis and severity scale in x-axis seem okay to show the associations between them (Figure 2). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264404.r002
10 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Kenji Hashimoto, Editor Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study PONE-D-21-34686R1 Dear Dr. Islam, 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, Kenji Hashimoto, PhD Section 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: (No Response) ******** 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:** Ahmed R.G., Faculty of Science, Beni-Seuf University https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264404.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Kenji Hashimoto, Editor PONE-D-21-34686R1 Increased serum resistin but not G-CSF levels are associated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder: Findings from a case-control study Dear Dr. Islam: 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. Kenji Hashimoto Section Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264404.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 .