Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 7, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-32299 Experimental uninephrectomy associates with less parasympathetic tone and facilitates sodium-dependent arterial hypertension PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pliquett, 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. Three experienced scientists in this field have reviewed your manuscript. While all three fortunately find it of interest, they also all identify a number of issues that must ALL be dealt with in your revision. The study design is confusing and should be illustrated with a diagram. The relation between uninephrectomy and blood pressure in your own data should be clarified. The objective and relevance of the comparison between Ang II infusion and high salt/low taurine needs a better justification. This should be based on a clear hypothesis. The role of innervation (of both the excised and the contralateral) kidneys should at least be adequately discussed. The other comments must also be addressed. 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:
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, Jaap A. Joles, DVM, 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 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "the authors are appreciate the grant support (RUP) by Deutsche Nierenstiftung." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "RUP received grant from "Deutsche Nierenstiftung" 2008 (https://www.nierenstiftung.de). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No 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: Pliquett et al. reported that the parasympathetic tone of uninephrectomized mice was decreased, when compared to that of normal mice without uninephrectomy. In addition, the authors indicated that the levels of blood pressure in uninephrectomized mice with salt overload and taurine deficiency were comparable to those in uninephrectomized mice with angiotensin II infusion. This manuscript is important, because the physiological underpinnings of the blood pressure increase after uninephrectomy remain unclear. However, some serious concerns have been raised. (1) It is understandable that, as the authors indicated, it takes a long time to increase blood pressure if structural changes in blood vessels are the main cause. However, even though the rapid change of the decrease of parasympathetic nerve was definitely caused, the levels of blood pressure did not change at all. It is difficult for me to understand this discrepancy of the results. The authors should indicate why the levels of blood pressure by uninephrectomy did not change at all more adequately. (2) There is no data to evaluate the difference between uninephrectomized mice with angiotensin II administration or salt load and those without treatment intervention. The results are important. Therefore, the authors should show the results. (3) The authors showed the data of HF-HR and LF-SBP in page 7, 3rd paragraph. I do not know when those data were measured. The authors should indicate the time more clearly. (4) The authors indicated that the evolution of arterial hypertension was similar between sodium chloride overload and angiotensin II stimulation in Figure 3. However, the average daily systolic blood pressure was different on 3 of 7 days under investigation. I think that the levels of systolic blood pressure between sodium chloride overload and angiotensin II stimulation are not same. Therefore, the authors should revise the expression adequately. (5) Angiotensin II is correct and angiotensin 2 is not correct. Therefore, the authors should revise the word adequately. (6) The authors indicated that “As a negative finding, uninephrectomy alone did associate with arterial hypertension in this study.” in page 8, 2nd paragraph. I think that uninephrectomy alone did not associate with arterial hypertension in this study. The authors should revise the sentence adequately. (7) There are some typographical and grammatical errors in this manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript should be reviewed by the native speaker of English. Reviewer #2: Pliquett and Brandes present a study examining the effect of uninephrectomy on autonomic tone and the development of hypertension. Spectral analysis of blood pressure and heart rate variability was used as a surrogate for autonomic activity, with the authors reporting that uni-nephrectomy had no differences in resting blood pressure, heart rate or spontaneous baroreflex gain. The LF-HF ratio of SBP was shifted higher, and the HF of PI was lower suggesting a shift towards parasympathetic dominance. Two forms of secondary hypertension were induced – via angiotensin II infusion and a high salt/taurine deficient diet. The time course and magnitude of hypertension development was similar between Ang II and high salt/taurine deficiency. Major Points The overall object of comparing Ang II and high salt/low taurine hypertension is not clear. The Introduction pitches the heightened cardiovascular risk faced by kidney donors, or those born with one kidney. Is the intension to evaluate the impact of uninephrectomy on the propensity to hypertension when faced with the “challenge” of the two hypertensive models? If so, the main statistical comparisons should be between sham nephrectomy and uninephrectomy, with (1) Ang II and (2) high salt/low taurine. It isn’t clear how comparing the rise in BP between these two quite different experimental models of hypertension gives any insight into the impact of uninephrectomy itself; surely the magnitude of hypertension with Ang II is simply dependant on the dosage. Also, given that the clinical prevalence of low taurine is extremely rare, the real-world relevance of this model needs a clear justification in the text. The manuscript contains many grammatical, tense and wording errors. Given that PLOS-One does not copy edit, the authors should consider engaging a proof-reader to improve the readability. Minor Points The abstract states that blood pressure measurements were made “non-invasively” – the surgical implantation of the telemetry catheter is an invasive procedure. I think what the authors mean is that telemetry recordings were made from conscious, undisturbed animals in their home cages. The term “non-invasive blood pressure” in rodents usually refers to plethysmography. The opening paragraph of the introduction raises some valid concerns around uninephrectomy but is rather vague – it would be helpful to give some numbers around the increased risk for hypertension in the patient groups mentioned. The numbers in each group should be clearly stated near the beginning of the Methods. Given that telemetric recording of BP is a very well-established and commonly used technique, the authors might consider reducing the detail around implantation and give a reference instead? The authors refer to Mean HR, BP etc being determined over 24h, but elsewhere indicate that recordings were made for 60 minutes each day. It is more common to express HRV in terms of the LF:HF ratio of PI, rather than HR alone. This is because it is possible for both LF and HF power to change. It is less common to report the LF:HF ratio for SBP as representing “autonomic balance”. The authors mention “baroreflex curves” – this is not correct for spontaneous baroreflex gain technique they have used; the full curve can generally only be examined using the Oxford technique, whereas sBRG examines ramps in BP (ie generally only on the linear portion of the baroreflex curve). In paragraph 2 of the discussion, the authors state that “uninephrectomy alone did associate with arterial hypertension” – assume this should be “did not”? Figures 1 and 2 could be combined, and Figure 3 consider maybe showing just MAP rather than SBP/DBP in separate graphs, and perhaps add in HR? The data availability statement does not appear compatible with PLOS-One guidelines, as no reason for restricting access to “request from authors” is given. Reviewer #3: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of unilaterial nephrectomy on autonomic tone and arterial blood pressure in mice. Normotensive C57Bl6N mice were subjected to sham surgery or unilateral nephrectomy. Mice were also instrumented with telemetric blood pressure sensors to monitor arterial blood pressure and heart rate. Apparently the nephrectomized mice were treated with subcutaneous infusions of angiotensin II or a sodium chloride-enriched, taurine-deficient diet. The exact protocol is not clear from the Methods section and therefore, the results are difficult to understand and to interpret. Based on spectral analysis of heart rate and blood pressure, the authors conclude that unilateral nephrectomy is associated with reduced parasympathetic tone and that the combination of unilateral nephrectomy and taurine-deficiency predisposes to sodium-chloride sensitive hypertension. General Comments The study addresses a potentially important topic. While it is known that patients with only one kidney (e.g., living donor) have an elevated risk for developing hypertension, the exact mechanism for this elevated risk is unknown. The experimental approach with telemetric blood pressure recordings and drug application using osmotic minipumps is technically challenging. Major Comments 1. The manuscript lacks a specific description of the experimental protocol and results. For example, the exact time course of the protocol is not outlined. It is unclear at which time point after the nephrectomy the data were collected. I think a Figure showing the timeline of the experimental protocol would be helpful. Apparently, the telemetric blood pressure sensors were implanted first and one week later mice were subjected to a second surgery, where the nephrectomy or sham procedure was performed. It is unclear, at which time the osmotic minipumps were implanted and if pumps were replaced after 14 days (it is stated that the mice were observed for 4-6 weeks). 2. Apparently, there were 3 groups (but not 100% sure from the Methods section): (1) A control group without nephrectomy but sham surgery that was not treated with angiotensin or high-salt diet; (2) a unilaterally nephrectomized group with angiotensin II infusion (for how long?); and (3) a unilaterally nephrectomized group with high-salt-low taurine diet. However, Figs. 1 and 2 only show two groups. Is the nephrectomized group the one with angiotension II or with high-salt-low taurine diet? Also Fig. 1 shows no effect on blood pressure, but Fig. 3 shows an increase in blood pressure in the nephrectomized groups. I believe that I don’t understand the protocol and at which time the different data were obtained. I strongly feel that the experimental protocol needs to be described in much more detail. 3. The experimental procedures are technically challenging in mice and mice may not recover easily from these type of interventions (telemetric sensor, osmotic minipumps are relatively large in respect to the small size of the animals). I wonder if more reliable data could have been obtained if the study would have been conducted in larger animals, such as rats. I strongly feel the authors need to explain why mice were used for this study. 4. The Introduction needs a clearly stated hypothesis and rationale why the study was conducted. 5. Page 5, towards the bottom: LF-SBP is not a measure of sympathetic tone. It is a measure of sympathetic modulation of vascular tone. For example, if sympathetic nerve activity is high but there is reduced vascular sympathetic responsiveness, there would be low LF-SBP but high sympathetic tone. Likewise, HF-HR is not a measure of parasympathetic tone. It is a measure of parasympathetic modulation of sinus node function. Again, parasympathetic tone may be high but if the sinus node has reduced parasympathetic responsiveness, there would be reduced HF-HR despite high parasympathetic tone. I suggest changing the wording throughout the manuscript accordingly. 6. Typically, sympathovagal balance is calculated as the ratio of LF-HR to HF-HR. The low frequency component of heart rate variability (not systolic blood pressure variability) is used. The ratio of LF-SBP to HF-HR is comparing sympathetic effects on vascular tone with parasympathetic effects on the sinus node. I don’t think this is a valid marker of sympathovagal balance. Sympathovagal balance should consider the same target organ (i.e., the sinus node). 7. It is unclear where the data from Figs. 1 and 2 come from. One column is labeled as “Uninephrectomized”. However, my understanding of the protocol is that there were two “uninephrectomized” groups. Which one is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and why is the other uninephrectomized group not shown? You may include the data from the sham operated group in Fig. 3. All figure legends should list the number of animals for each data point shown. 8. What is causing the decrease in parasympathetic modulation of sinus node function in the mice with unilateral nephrectomy? If the authors propose a role for afferent renal nerve traffic, renal denervation experiments should be performed to test this hypothesis. Minor Comments 1. Abstract, Results section, 1st line: …were not different “n” uninephrectomized mice … “n” should be “in”. 2. Keywords: Avoid keywords that are already in the title. 3. Page 7, line 6 from bottom: “hypetension” should read “hypertension”. 4. Page 7, bottom, last line: the numbers need units. 5. Page 9, 1st line: … a dedicated study … (not studies). 6. Page 8, line 10 from bottom, “model” not “models”. 7. References: Some of the references are dated. Is there newer literature on some of these topics? 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 Reviewer #3: 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 |
|
PONE-D-21-32299R1Experimental uninephrectomy associates with less parasympathetic modulation of heart rate and facilitates sodium-dependent arterial hypertensionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pliquett, 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 three reviewers have evaluated your revised manuscript. All three find that the revised paper is better than the original manuscript and so do I.However, only #1 is completely satisfied.Reviewers #2 and reviewer #3 still raise a number of important points that need attention.Considering the number of issues and the recommendation of both reviewers I have chosen major revision and not minor revision. We look forward to a further revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 06 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:
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, Jaap A. Joles, DVM, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 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: Because the authors have made adequate corrections based on my advice as much as possible, I have no special concerns in the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: Thank you to the authors for the considerable revisions to this paper, which have greatly improved clarity and readability. In particular, the scientific writing is much improved, which makes reviewing the manuscript markedly easier. There remain some significant issues with the experimental design and interpretation of results. Major: The statement “uninephrectomy and taurine-deficiency predisposes to salt-sensitive hypertension” is not supported by the data. To demonstrate that uninephrectomy makes a subject more vulnerable to hypertension, the authors would need to show that taurine-deficiency and high salt do not induce hypertension in a sham group (or that the magnitude of hypertension was less, or the onset delayed in sham animals). There remains no clear reason to include the Ang II “positive control” group. The authors state that “during the week of hypertension development…mean BP was similar (between Ang II and taurine/NaCl) on 4/7 days, but peak BP was higher in 5/7 days”. This is not a meaningful comparison, as the rate of onset and the degree of hypertension with Ang II is almost entirely dependant on the dose given – repeating this study with a lower or higher dose of Ang II selected would almost certainly give different findings. If the comparison were instead between an identical dose of Ang II in uninephrectomized vs sham groups, then the authors could draw some valid conclusions about the susceptibility to Ang II hypertension. I believe that the authors have misinterpreted how to apply the literature on the spectral analysis of blood pressure and heart rate in mice and invite them to carefully reconsider (and potentially re-analyze) their results. The papers cited (Baudrie, 2007 with an editorial commentary by Stauss, 2007) are investigations of the appropriate frequency bands specific to mice, including validation using various drugs to block components of the autonomic nervous system. The authors are correct that the literature most clearly supports the LF(SBP) power (0.15-0.6 Hz) generally correlating with sympathetic vasomotor tone, and the HF(PI) power (2.5-5 Hz) with cardiac vagal tone (largely respiratory). However, it is definitely not appropriate to combine the power outputs from SBP and PI into a single LF:HF ratio. I cannot find any examples of this in the literature, in any species. If the authors wish, they may like to report the LF:HF ratios for both SBP and PI separately. But in general, the evidence is more supportive of the LF:HF ratio for PI being the most appropriate indication of cardiac autonomic balance – the LF:HF ratio for SBP is rarely reported (unlike LF(SBP) alone). Thireau et al have published a guide on performing spectral analysis in mice (https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2007.040733) or the authors could refer to many more recent publications where frequency domain analyses of HR and BP in mice have been published (eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989555/, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17690-7, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.617698/full, https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy2.12811). Minor Introduction “hypertension developed…in kidney donors at 5, 10 and 40 years” should add “years post-transplant” (assuming this is what is meant?) to avoid confusion with the preceding sentence about children born with 1 kidney developing hypertension by the age of 18. The methods now read “telemetric blood pressure readings…were obtained every 5 minutes until animals were sacrificed”. Could the authors simply state how long each scheduled recording of BP was for? Ie 30s every 5 mins Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript has been improved. Specifically, adding the new Fig. 1 helps to better understand the protocol. I still have a couple of issues that should be addressed: (comments and page numbers refer to the red-lined version) 1. Abstract, Methods section: “A transfemoral aortic catheter with telemetric unit was implanted “and” telemetry readings …” 2. Abstract, Results and Conclusions: These sections still refer to “parasympathetic tone”, which was not really assessed in this study. Please use the term “parasympathetic modulation of sinus node function” instead. 3. Page 4, Methods, subsection “Animal Models”: I think Darmstadt is in Hessen (not Hesse, although the local dialect in Darmstadt may call it “Hesse”). 4. Throughout the manuscript: present vs. past tense does not appear to be used properly. 5. Page 6 top: How can the pulse interval be defined as “consecutive dP/dt”? Maybe dP/dtmax was used to identify the start and end of individual heart beats? 6. Page 6 bottom: “quantitative measure of sympathetic modulation” should read “… of sympathetic modulation of vascular tone”. Likewise “parasympathetic modulation of sinus node function” (not just modulation). 7. Again, I disagree with the use of the LF-SBP to HF-HR ratio. This ratio does not make any sense physiologically. You are building a ration of responses in different target organs. Furthermore, this ratio is not really needed for the purpose of this study. Since there was no indication of any effects on sympathetic modulation of vascular tone, the use of a ratio is not needed. You can simply use the measured of parasympathetic modulation of sinus node function. With this regard, I think you should calculate and report RMSSD to supplement the frequency-domain analysis and confirm the HF spectral power data. 8. Figure 2: The values on the y-axis for LF-SBP are wrong. A spectral power of 80,000 mmHg2 would correspond to an amplitude of blood pressure fluctuations of 280 mmHg !!! (not possible). Please check your numbers. I think you forgot to multiply with the spectral resolution (but I am not sure). Anyway, these data are wrong. 9. Throughout the Results section the references to Figure numbers do not match with the actual Figures. 10. The first paragraph of the Discussion is redundant and simply repeats the Results. This paragraph should be deleted and replaced with a meaningful discussion of the data. 11. Summary paragraph at the end of the Discussion: Capital T for the sentence starting in “The present study …”. Last word of this paragraph “… hypertension there”. I don’t think you need the word “there”. 12. If uninephrectomy really were associated with less cardiac parasympathetic tone, why then was heart rate not higher? ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Harald M. Stauss [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 2 |
|
PONE-D-21-32299R2Experimental uninephrectomy associates with less parasympathetic modulation of heart rate and facilitates sodium-dependent arterial hypertensionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pliquett, 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. Reviewer #2 is satisfied but reviewer #3 still has a major problem with the LF BPV data (see below). He is an expert in the field. Therefore this must be corrected, otherwise the manuscript cannot be accepted.In fact, he feels that besides correcting the data in the present manuscript an erratum should be published for the previous publication (Ref. 13). Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 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:
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, Jaap A. Joles, DVM, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Except my previous comment #8, the authors have addressed all my previous comments appropriately. However, the data for LF BPV shown in Figure 2 are wrong and not compatible with life. The animals would likely be dead if BPV was that high. A LF spectral power of BP of 80,000 mmHg2 is simply not possible !!!! The fact that the authors reported incorrect LF spectral powers in Fig. 4 of their previous publication (Ref 13), does not make these data correct. Again, my assumption is that the authors forgot to multiply the spectral powers with the spectral resolution, which was 0.019 Hz in this study. If the spectral powers reported in Fig. 2 of the current manuscript are multiplied with 0.019 Hz, the values would make sense. I.e., 80,000 mmHg2 (corresponding to BP amplitudes of 282 mmHg!) would become 1,520 mmHg2 (corresponding to BP amplitudes of 39 mmHg, which may be possible in hypertensive animals). ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 3 |
|
Experimental uninephrectomy associates with less parasympathetic modulation of heart rate and facilitates sodium-dependent arterial hypertension PONE-D-21-32299R3 Dear Dr. Pliquett, 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, Jaap A. Joles, DVM, 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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: (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 #3: (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 #3: (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 #3: The authors have addressed all remaining issues. I have no more comments or suggestions. I think the journal of Ref. 13 is no longer existing. Not sure if an erratum is possible? ********** 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 #3: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-32299R3 Experimental uninephrectomy associates with less parasympathetic modulation of heart rate and facilitates sodium-dependent arterial hypertension Dear Dr. Pliquett: 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. Jaap A. Joles 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 .