Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 11, 2021
Decision Letter - Elda Tagliabue, Editor

PONE-D-21-14829Association of PROGINS PgR Polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer: A meta-analysis based on 30 studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, two experts considered the manuscript interesting and well described, but it 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 Mar 24 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,

Elda Tagliabue

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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. For example: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate).

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”"

5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

This study is partially funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No.2018JJ2350) and the key project of Education Department of Hunan Province (No.19A419).

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript: 

This study is partially funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No.2018JJ2350) and the key project of Education Department of Hunan Province (No.19A419).

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: 

NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: 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. 

7. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

8. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

9. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

10. 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. 

11. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

[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: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: 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: This study is a meta-analysis of the association between PgR gene polymorphisms and female reproductive cancer. This is a very interesting study, but I would like to point out the following points.

Major comments

1. Most of the papers that authors adopted for this meta-analysis are on cancers that occur in specific organs (breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer) and gene polymorphisms in PgR. Does the role of PgR play a similar role in each of these organs? Is it justified to perform a meta-analysis together with female reproductive cancer without considering organ specificity?  For example, past epidemiological studies have shown that hormone replacement therapy, including progesterone, has different effects on breast and endometrial cancer risks.

2. From the viewpoint of Comment 1, the interpretation of the results of this study, which examined the relationship between female reproductive cancer and gene polymorphisms in PgR, is difficult to interpret and seems to have low clinical significance.  I think it is more clinically significant to focus on organ-specific meta-analysis and discuss whether there are any differences.

Minor moment

3. Abstract

In the Material and Method section, it is said that the analysis was performed for the race, cancer, and HWE groups, but the in section of Result, the description of the analysis result is only for race.

4. Figure 1

Check if the numbers in the study consort are correct.  The total number of excluded studies and the number of non-excluded studies do not match.

Reviewer #2: Detailed comments for the author's consideration

Review of the paper by �Chen Zhou, Xiangman Zou, Xiaosha Wen, Zifen Guo entitled: “Association of PROGINS PgR Polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer: A metaanalysis based on 30 studies” The work presented is interesting in terms of demonstrating the association of PROGINS PgR Polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer. The manuscript is well written and results are well described with proper statistics. The language is appropriate, technical and easy to read. However, I have some minor recommendations

Comment 1: The highlights of the manuscript should be written properly with more conclusive meaning.

Comment 2: The first sentence of the abstract is not properly written. It should be rewritten with proper meaning.

Comment 3: The first para of introduction section has 2020 data. Update the para with 2021/22 epidemological and incidence data.

Comment 4: In second para of introduction section there are some sentences related to estrogen which creates confusion. Remove the estrogen related sentences or If not rewrite the sentence with proper meaning. Additionally, in second para “vitro” should be replaced with “invitro”

Comment 5: Add some lines about PROGINS and its functions in para 3 of introduction section.

Comment 6: There are various spelling and grammatical mistakes such as “conformed” in materials and methods section. Kindly go through the whole manuscript to edit grammatical mistakes.

Comment 7: Manuscript contains old and outdated references, replace them with latest and updated references wherever possible.

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments PLOS ONE.doc
Revision 1

Dear the editor and reviewers:

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript (PONE-D-21-14829) titled Association of PROGINS PgR Polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer: A meta-analysis based on 30 studies. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers, which significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript accordingly with all changes shown in red in the paper. Please see the detailed responses below.

Reviewers 1' Comments to Author

This study is a meta-analysis of the association between PgR gene polymorphisms and female reproductive cancer. This is a very interesting study, but I would like to point out the following points.

Comment 1: Most of the papers that authors adopted for this meta-analysis are on cancers that occur in specific organs (breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer) and gene polymorphisms in PgR. Does the role of PgR play a similar role in each of these organs? Is it justified to perform a meta-analysis together with female reproductive cancer without considering organ specificity? For example, past epidemiological studies have shown that hormone replacement therapy, including progesterone, has different effects on breast and endometrial cancer risks.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions. Progesterone and progesterone receptors (PgR) are essential for the development and cyclical regulation of hormone-responsive tissues including the breast and reproductive tract. We think it is reasonable to conduct a Meta-analysis on female reproductive cancers. Human is an organic whole, and the regulation of genes by genetic polymorphisms is holistic. As a steroid hormone, the effects of progesterone exerts on the female reproductive system are complicated.

The main subtypes of PgR are PgR-A and PgR-B mediating the main progesterone responses, but the roles of PgR-A and Pgr-B in different organs are not the same. PgR-A is essential for ovarian normal function in ovarian cancer, while its expression is decreased or lost in ovarian cancer. PgR-B has the functions of anti-proliferation (such as anti-aging and anti-apoptosis), playing a dominant role in ovarian cancer. In breast cancer, PgR has been shown to rapidly activate the Src/p21Ras/Erk, PI3K/Akt, and JAK/STAT pathways that contribute to the proliferative effect of progesterone in breast cancer cells, but unliganded PgR has been shown to suppress growth and inflammatory responses in breast cancer cells. The PgR status of endometrial tumors has been controversial. One of the previous studies showed the predominance of PgR-B in advanced endometrial tumors, but another study noted the loss of both subtypes in advanced endometrial cancers; additionally, a third study showed that only PgR-A was expressed in poorly differentiated endometrial cancer cell lines. At present, the imbalance between the expression of PgR-A and PgR-B is one of the pathogenesis of endometrial cancer.

Comment 2:From the viewpoint of Comment 1, the interpretation of the results of this study, which examined the relationship between female reproductive cancer and gene polymorphisms in PgR, is difficult to interpret and seems to have low clinical significance. I think it is more clinically significant to focus on organ-specific meta-analysis and discuss whether there are any differences.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. As to the data presented in this paper, the risk propensity for female reproductive cancers is the same as that for ovarian, breast, and endometrial cancers. The data in table 4 suggest that PROGINS gene polymorphisms may be associated with a slightly increased risk of ovarian, breast, and endometrial cancers.

Comment 3: Abstract,In the Material and Method section, it is said that the analysis was performed for the race, cancer, and HWE groups, but the in section of Result, the description of the analysis result is only for race.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We added the analysis results of cancer and HWE groups to the Abstract.

Abstract: Subgroup analysis by cancer, PROGINS polymorphism increase the risk of cancer in the Allele model, Dominant mode and Heterozygous model, but the confidence interval for this result spanned 1 and was not statistically significant. At the same time, this sensitivity was also verified in studies with HWE greater than 0.5.

Comment 4: Figure 1,Check if the numbers in the study consort are correct.  The total number of excluded studies and the number of non-excluded studies do not match.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We verified the data in Figure 1 and corrected this error.

Fig 1. Flowchart showing the meta-analysis literature screening process

Reviewers 2' Comments to Author:

The work presented is interesting in terms of demonstrating the association of PROGINS PgR Polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer. The manuscript is well written and results are well described with proper statistics. The language is appropriate, technical and easy to read. However, I have some minor recommendations.

Comment 1: The highlights of the manuscript should be written properly with more conclusive meaning.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We have refined the highlights.

Highlights

Alu insertion may be a susceptible factor for reproductive cancer in white and Asian populations, and the V660L polymorphism may be a susceptible factor for female reproductive cancer in African populations.

Comment 2: The first sentence of the abstract is not properly written. It should be rewritten with proper meaning.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We rewrote this sentence.

Aims: The progesterone response of the nuclear progesterone receptor plays an important role in the female reproductive system.

Comment 3: The first para of introduction section has 2020 data. Update the para with 2021/22 epidemological and incidence data.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We have updated the latest epidemiological data for 2022.

Despite extensive research to prevent cancer, cancer cases continue to increase sharply. Data from the American Cancer Society in 2022 predicts 1.9 million new cancer cases in 2022. More than 609,360 Americans die of cancer annually, which is equivalent to greater than 1,700 people dying of cancer daily [3].

Comment 4: In second para of introduction section there are some sentences related to estrogen which creates confusion. Remove the estrogen related sentences or If not rewrite the sentence with proper meaning. Additionally, in second para “vitro” should be replaced with “invitro”.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We rewrote the sentence to clarify it and replaced the word.

Progesterone inhibits the proliferation of reproductive tract cells by excessive estrogen via the progesterone receptor (PgR) [4-6], and excessive estrogen stimulation increases the risk of female reproductive tract cancer [7].

Comment 5: Add some lines about PROGINS and its functions in para 3 of introduction section.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We added the functions of PROGINS to the Introduction.

The PROGINS polymorphism of the human progesterone receptor diminishes the response to progesterone [12]. The PROGINS allele was significantly associated with decreased serum progesterone levels in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) [13].

Comment 6: There are various spelling and grammatical mistakes such as “conformed” in materials and methods section. Kindly go through the whole manuscript to edit grammatical mistakes.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We carefully revised the sentences in the article, and we have updated and revised our manuscript through the language editing service from AJE (Verification Code: 0283-9E24-1846-6C24-A673). Certificate of language editing as follows:

Comment 7: Manuscript contains old and outdated references, replace them with latest and updated references wherever possible.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the good advice. We updated the current references, but the references the data extracted from could not be replaced.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Elda Tagliabue, Editor

Association of the PROGINS PgR polymorphism with susceptibility tofemale reproductive cancer: A meta-analysis of 30 studies

PONE-D-21-14829R1

Dear Dr. Guo,

After a careful assessment of the revised version of the manuscript by the Editor, 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,

Elda Tagliabue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Elda Tagliabue, Editor

PONE-D-21-14829R1

Association of the PROGINS PgR polymorphism with susceptibility to female reproductive cancer: A meta-analysis of 30 studies

Dear Dr. Guo:

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. Elda Tagliabue

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 .