Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 29, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-18420Acute innate immune activation in silkworm by the human commensal bacterium Cutibacterium acnesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Matsumoto, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Editor comments. This is a limited study and basically a confirmative approach showing that melanization is increased in rate following incubation with silkworm hemolymph and bacteria. A few experiments are performed trying to find the responsible agent for activation but this has been done more carefully several times before in several different insect species and crustaceans and therefore it is a requirement for the authors to read up on this area and cite appropriate papers and reviews. No information about hemolymph protein amount is given and that has to be included. Further the values in Figure 1 need to be extended to include at least three more time points. What is absorbance in “arbitrary units” on the y-axis. This should be explained. How do we know that 37C is the optimum temperature for this phenoloxidase? This has to be shown. In addition how do we know that the enzyme reactions are determined at proper kinetics? This has to be detailed! In Figure 3D more points (experiments) need to be performed and included. As now is, only two concentrations are given. The values on the x-axis is this some sort of concentration for the bacteria suspension?.If so give detailed information in Figure legend. Why are bacterial cells treated with DNase and RNase? . In addition to my comments all concerns raised by the two reviewers must be responded to and the manuscript revised accordingly ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 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, Kenneth Söderhäll 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. 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. [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: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 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: The manuscript reports “Acute innate immune activation in silkworm by the human commensal bacterium Cutibacterium acnes”. Although the manuscript contains results from several experiments, I found not much new informative data relevant to the roles of Cutibacterium acnes in silkworm infection model (for bacterial detection) and also about the involvement of that in acute innate immune activation in silkworm. Furthermore, the manuscript is not well organized. There are several major problems. The objective of the research is not clear. It cannot be accepted for publication as it is and required further clarification of the work and in the revision. Please consider the following comments and suggestions: : The manuscript is not well presented and there are major problems with some unclear results. : The title is too broad and not suitable to the contents of this manuscript. : Activation of PO activity in silkworm and effect by C. acnes need better control. Why they use Staphylococcus aureus to be as a comparison? Why did the authors not try PGNs from different sources of bacteria? More gram-positive bacteria and purified PGNs should be tested. : The sensitivity and specificity of this bacteria (and/or purified PGN) in the activation of silkworm melanization should be tested. : For the PO activity experiment, how do authors estimate concentration (of hemolymph protein and pgn?) Reviewer #2: The authors of this manuscript propose a method for detecting Gram-negative bacteria by applying the melanization reaction of silkworm hemolymph. Although the experimental data in this paper are interesting, as specifically commented below, there is a large variation in the measured melanization reaction data and the reliability of each measurement seems to be problematic. 1) Lines 141-142. There are only two measurement points in the graph in Fig. 1, including 1-hour and 3-hours except for 0-time. Therefore, it is not clear at what point in time the melanization reaction reached its maximum value. The authors of this manuscript should add at least 0.5- and 2- hour measurement points to estimate the time of maximum value. 2) Lines 162-164. In Fig.3B, the number of samples (n) in the experiment is set to 5, but there is a lot of variation in the difference in the melanization reaction values between the samples. The error in the reaction values of the non-heat treatment samples is particularly large. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the data difference between the non-thermal treatment samples and the thermal treatment ones is significant or not. It would be better to modify the measurement system (sample volume, incubation time or both?) to reduce the experimental error. 3) Lines 174-186. In Fig. 4C, the error in the reaction values of samples of the [AC-En] fraction is particularly large, and it is difficult to determine whether the data difference between C. acnes [AC] samples and C. acnes [AC-En] ones is significant or not, just like in the case of Fig. 3B mentioned above. In addition, the error ranges of the measurements obtained from the water-insoluble fraction (Ppt) (Fig, 5C) and BDppt (Fig. 6 C and E) are too large. ********** 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 |
|
Acute melanization of silkworm hemolymph by peptidoglycans of the human commensal bacterium Cutibacterium acnes PONE-D-22-18420R1 Dear Dr. Matsumoto, 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, Kenneth Söderhäll Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-18420R1 Acute melanization of silkworm hemolymph by peptidoglycans of the human commensal bacterium Cutibacterium acnes Dear Dr. Matsumoto: 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. Kenneth Söderhäll 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 .