Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 15, 2021
Decision Letter - Paolo Magni, Editor

PONE-D-21-12590

The metabolic hormone adiponectin modifies the association between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous children

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Verhagen,

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 August 1, 2021. 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: http://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,

Paolo Magni

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. Please provide the catalog numbers and sources of all kits referred to in lines 177-183.

3. Please provide the registration information for the original clinical study.

4. Please list the names of the nine indigenous Warao communities where participants were from.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The original study was supported by Pfizer Venezuela and the Fundacion para la Investigación en Micobacterias, Caracas, Venezuela. Lilly M. Verhagen was supported by a Clinical Research Talent fellowship of the UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]. 

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study: Pfizer Venezuela

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation 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 this adherence statement is not accurate and  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 both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

6. 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.

7. 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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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: 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: 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: 1) Figures 2A-2C only showed the simple regression lines of IgG levels ~ metabolic hormone levels. The data points should also be plotted with different color /shape for the three categories. The significance levels of the interaction terms in the multiple regression models should be reported here to quantitatively show whether the correlations are different between categories.

2) Table 1, it’s still unclear to me how to interpret the different superscript letters. Please be more specific.

3) Table 2, it is unclear the GMRs were between which two groups. For example, for All children category, how was GMR calculated? If it’s a ratio, what are numerator and denominator, respectively? Note that for results in Table 3, it’s clear the comparison is between under-/over-nutrition group and normal group. However, it’s unclear here.

4) Table 3, note that unadjusted GMR are the same for under- and over nutrition groups, and it’s the same as that in Table 2 (1.11, 1.06, and 1.01). Again, please clarify.

5) In the main text, GMR was interpreted as OR, which is incorrect.

**********

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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Dear dr. Magni,

We thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Your comments are highly appreciated, and we have incorporated the provided feedback accordingly. The revised manuscript has been uploaded; please find our response to each specific comment below.

Journal 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_affilaffilaf.pdf

We have adjusted the manuscript style according to the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Please provide the catalog numbers and sources of all kits referred to in lines 177-183.

We have added the catalog numbers and sources of all kits to the ‘sampling and laboratory methods’ section.

3. Please provide the registration information for the original clinical study.

The original study was registered in a primary registry of the World Health Organization (ICTRP / RPCEC) with identifier number RPCEC00000158. We have included this in the methods section.

4. Please list the names of the nine indigenous Warao communities where participants were from.

The nine indigenous Warao communities are named in the revised version of our manuscript.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The original study was supported by Pfizer Venezuela and the Fundacion para la Investigación en Micobacterias, Caracas, Venezuela. Lilly M. Verhagen was supported by a Clinical Research Talent fellowship of the UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study: Pfizer Venezuela

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

None of the authors has or had an affiliation to Pfizer Venezuela. Jacobus de Waard has received funding from Pfizer Venezuela for the here presented study. However, the funder did not provide support in the form of salaries for authors, nor did they have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Pfizer Venezuela only provided financial support in the form of vaccine (PCV13) supply and research materials.

The specific roles of the authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation 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 this adherence statement is not accurate and 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.

There were no competing interests, as clarified above. We have also included this in the updated Funding Statement and Competing Interest Statement in our cover letter.

6. 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.

We have uploaded the data in accordance with the provided guidelines and adjusted the text accordingly. The data are now freely available via the following URL: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/LUfQ9WNDrEOw5Aq9YIpEcugbAU7FHfyE0oVmK_abeC4

However, please note that this is a temporary URL because the status of our project is currently set to ‘private for peer review’. We will replace this URL with a definite one upon acceptance of our manuscript.

7. 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.

We have added the captions for our supporting table at the end of our manuscript.

Reviewers’ comments

1. Figures 2A-2C only showed the simple regression lines of IgG levels ~ metabolic hormone levels. The data points should also be plotted with different color /shape for the three categories. The significance levels of the interaction terms in the multiple regression models should be reported here to quantitatively show whether the correlations are different between categories.

We have adjusted the figures 2A-2C. The figures now also include the plotted data points in addition to the regression lines. The significance levels of the interaction terms in the multiple regression models are added to the legend of the figures.

2. Table 1, it’s still unclear to me how to interpret the different superscript letters. Please be more specific.

Significantly different median values in the same row are indicated with different superscript letters, while median values that are not significantly different are indicated with identical superscript letters. We have further clarified the interpretation of the superscript letters in the footnote.

3. Table 2, it is unclear the GMRs were between which two groups. For example, for All children category, how was GMR calculated? If it’s a ratio, what are numerator and denominator, respectively? Note that for results in Table 3, it’s clear the comparison is between under-/over-nutrition group and normal group. However, it’s unclear here.

We indeed noted that our presentation of the results was unclear using a GMR. Therefore, we have now used linear regression coefficients for the presentation of the results in tables 2 and 3.

We have also clarified the comparator groups in the methods section. To avoid over-adjusting, we did not include all malnutrition measures in the same regression model, but instead created two different regression models for undernutrition and overnutrition. We clarified how we analysed malnutrition indicators in the Methods section of the revised manuscript.

4. Table 3, note that unadjusted GMR are the same for under- and over nutrition groups, and it’s the same as that in Table 2 (1.11, 1.06, and 1.01). Again, please clarify.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The unadjusted GMR were the same for all variables, except for nutritional status, because these represented the univariate correlations between e.g. metabolic hormones and antibody concentrations. To be comprehensive, we had initially added these univariate analysis to both tables. However, we acknowledge the unclarity this may have caused and we have now removed the GMR and added linear regression coefficient, in response to the previous comment.

Hence, we have changed tables 2 and 3 so that the stratified univariate analysis is shown in table 2 while table 3 now contains the multivariable linear GEE models.

5. In the main text, GMR was interpreted as OR, which is incorrect.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. Since we now use linear regression coefficients in response to the comments above, we adjusted the text accordingly in the results section.

We hope that our modifications render our revised manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

On behalf of all authors,

Lilly M. Verhagen

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Olivier Neyrolles, Editor

PONE-D-21-12590R1The metabolic hormone adiponectin modifies the association between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous childrenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Verhagen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Before formal acceptance, I invite you to address the minor points raised by Reviewer #2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 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,

Olivier Neyrolles

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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

**********

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: All my comments have been satisfactorily addressed; there is no more comment.

All my comments have been satisfactorily addressed; there is no more comment.

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper addressing a possible role of metabolic hormones and vaccine response, undertaken in a remote indigenous community.

Are there any data on invasive pneumococcal disease in the population studied or other indigenous populations? This would add to the justification for the study & would be useful to know

Minor editorial advice follows below:

Abstract

Line 40: Replace ‘which’ with ‘whom’

Lines 41-2: Replace ‘compared to’ with ‘than’

Introduction

Lines 99-100: Delete ‘described as’

Line 109: Delete ‘observed’

Lines 117-8: Delete ‘in the literature’

Lines 121-2: Replace ‘plays an important role as’ with ‘is’ and delete ‘; it is’

Lines 128-9: Replace ‘the production of adiponectin’ with ‘adiponectin production’

Line 131: Replace ‘is a hormone with’ with ‘has’

Line 137: Replace ‘compared with’ with ‘than’

Methods

Line 147: Delete ‘le’ in reachedle’

Line 191: Why is HMW Adiponectin measured rather than total levels?

Lines 193-7: This is better in the ‘Result’ section

Line 194-7: Replace ‘Values of ….’with ‘In samples with sufficient volume, leptin, adiponectin and ghrelin values were well above…’

Results

Lines 226-7: Delete ‘children’ in ‘80 stunted children, 81 normal weight children and 49 overweight children’.

Discussion

Lines 322-3: Replace ‘Another mechanism that may contribute to the mediating effect of adiponectin is related to the role of inflammasomes’ with ‘Inflammasomes may also contribute to the mediating effect of adiponectin. Inflammasomes are…’

Line 377: Replace ‘the here presented results’ with ‘Our results are specific for PCV 13 vaccination and may be different for live attenuated or inactivated vaccines’

**********

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

[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

Dear dr. Neyrolles,

It is a great pleasure to submit to PLOS ONE our revised manuscript entitled ‘The metabolic hormone adiponectin affects the correlation between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous children’.

We again thank the Editor and Reviewer for their constructive comments and suggestions. All extra suggestions made by the Reviewer as well as the editorial comments have been implemented in the revised manuscript. The explanatory details are listed below.

Editor comments

1. 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.

We have meticulously gone through the reference list but could not find any retracted paper.

We have made one small adjustment to the reference list; in the methods section, we previously referred to the article of Verhagen et al. considering the determination of antibodies using fluorescent bead-based multiplex immunoassay, however, to fully capture the technical details of the assay, we now refer to the article of Stoof et al.

Following a previous comment of the editor, we have adjusted the title of our manuscript slightly to remove any implication of causality, into 'The metabolic hormone adiponectin affects the correlation between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous children'.

Reviewers’ comments

1. Are there any data on invasive pneumococcal disease in the population studied or other indigenous populations? This would add to the justification for the study & would be useful to know

Although there are no specific data on invasive pneumococcal disease in our study population, high prevalence rates of acute respiratory tract infections and pneumococcal carriage rates have been observed in this population. These high rates are also seen in other indigenous populations. We have added this as extra information in the introduction section of our revised manuscript.

2. Minor editorial advices:

We have changed the grammatical adjustments accordingly. Also, we have moved lines 193-7 to the result section. Regarding the question why HMW adiponectin is measured rather than total levels; the Lumipulse assay used for HMW measurements is a very reliable method and it has previously been shown in a comparative analysis that total and HMW adiponectin have similar utility when assessing adiponectin levels in blood (van Andel M, Drent ML, van Herwaarden AE, Ackermans MT, Heijboer AC. A method comparison of total and HMW adiponectin: HMW/total adiponectin ratio varies versus total adiponectin, independent of clinical condition. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;465:30–3).

We are confident that the current manuscript meets the quality criteria of PLOS ONE, and that the subject will be appreciated by the Journal’s readership.

Sincerely,

On behalf of all authors,

Lilly M. Verhagen

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Olivier Neyrolles, Editor

The metabolic hormone adiponectin affects the correlation between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous children

PONE-D-21-12590R2

Dear Dr. Verhagen,

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.

Again, we apologize for the delay in processing your manuscript.

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,

Olivier Neyrolles

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Olivier Neyrolles, Editor

PONE-D-21-12590R2

The metabolic hormone adiponectin affects the correlation between nutritional status and pneumococcal vaccine response in vulnerable indigenous children

Dear Dr. Verhagen:

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. Olivier Neyrolles

Section 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 .