Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2022
Decision Letter - Arijit Biswas, Editor

PONE-D-22-10383Optimization and evaluation of a two-stage chromogenic assay procedure for measurement of emicizumab plasma levelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamedani,

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 Aug 04 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,

Arijit Biswas

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information on the patients/donors and ensure you have included details on (1) source of patients/donors(2) inclusion/exclusion criteria for recruitment

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

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 notic

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: 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: Dear editor of PLOS ONE journal

The manuscript entitled “Optimization and evaluation of a two-stage chromogenic assay procedure for measurement of emicizumab plasma levels” was reviewed. The comments have been listed below:

1- The study has been designed well.

2- Different parts of manuscript have been written appropriately.

3) Which criteria were used for patient selection? Please explain completely.

4) How many healthy blood donors were selected for this study?

Regards

Reviewer #2: 1- The advantage of heat-inactivation should be explained more precisely

2. The authors should explain why the patients‘ samples are too

3. Please specify if the chromogenic FXa method was a kinetic or an endpoint method.

4. What are “general chemicals”. This should be specified when describing the details of

the assays. Accordingly, the first sentence can be eliminated.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Point-by-point response to reviewers

Submission ID: PONE-D-22-10383

Optimization and evaluation of a two-stage chromogenic assay procedure for measurement of emicizumab plasma levels

Dear Editor,

Here we would like to express our sincere thanks for considering our manuscript to be published in “PLOS ONE”. Please find enclosed a point-to-point response to the reviewers’ comments. We would like to emphasis that the additional journal requirements number 1 to 3 are addressed in the main text.

We hope that the revised version is suitable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Nasim Shahidi Hamedani

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

General authors’ comments:

We would like to thank the reviewers for their critical evaluation of our manuscript. Applying mentioned changes helped us to improve the scientific impact of our manuscript. All the changes are made using tracked changes.

Comment #1, Reviewer #1:

The study has been designed well.

Response: We would like to thank the positive evaluation of the reviewer.

Comment #2, Reviewer #1:

Different parts of manuscript have been written appropriately.

Response: We would like to thank the positive evaluation of the reviewer

Comment #3, Reviewer #1:

Which criteria were used for patient selection? Please explain completely.

Response: All plasma samples were obtained from adult and adolescent hemophilia A (HA) patients developing inhibitory antibody against FVIII and receiving subcutaneous injection of emicizumab. The patients having the residual activity of FVIII upper than 2% were excluded from the study. The source of the patients/donors was clarified as well. All the changes are indicated in the Material and Methods, Plasma samples section.

Comment #4, Reviewer #1:

How many healthy blood donors were selected for this study?

Response: Three healthy blood donors were selected for this study and the plasma samples obtained from these donors were subjected to the spike and recovery experiment. The results were included in the Table 2.

Comment #1, Reviewer #2:

The advantage of heat-inactivation should be explained more precisely.

Response: The heat-inactivation process is described in more details in the material and methods section and its importance is explained precisely in discussion part.

Comment #2, Reviewer #2:

The authors should explain why the patients‘ samples are too

Response: The comment is not described in full sentence. We estimate it as if the patients’ samples are too small. This is the only limitation of our study that at the time of the study the number of hemophilia patients eligible to receive emicizumab was less in our hemophilia center but according to the Bland-Altman method agreement analysis, the automated emi-tenase and the mOSC-assay which were performed on 17 plasma samples obtained from patients under emicizumab treatment showed high correlation of results whereat relative differences did not exceed 25%. Increasing the sample amount can either improve the agreement between two methods and support more our findings or leave the agreement values the same but not decrease it. Therefore, we are convinced that the number of patients and the design of the study is sufficient to conclude that the two-stage chromogenic assay is in accordance with one-stage clotting assay to quantify the emicizumab plasma levels.

Comment #3, Reviewer #2:

Please specify if the chromogenic FXa method was a kinetic or an endpoint method.

Response: A kinetic measurement of substrate conversion for 5 minutes is added to the materials and methods section (line 149).

Comment #4, Reviewer #2:

What are “general chemicals”. This should be specified when describing the details of the assays. Accordingly, the first sentence can be eliminated.

Response: The changes are applied.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Arijit Biswas, Editor

Optimization and evaluation of a two-stage chromogenic assay procedure for measurement of emicizumab plasma levels

PONE-D-22-10383R1

Dear Dr. Hamedani,

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,

Arijit Biswas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Arijit Biswas, Editor

PONE-D-22-10383R1

Optimization and evaluation of a two-stage chromogenic assay procedure for measurement of emicizumab plasma levels

Dear Dr. Hamedani:

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. Arijit Biswas

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 .