PONE-D-21-33188

Association between XRCC3 p.Thr241Met polymorphism and risk of glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tan,

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: Please revise the manuscript per the following comments.

===============================================================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 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,

Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary

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

“Research in SCT’s laboratory is supported by the Research University Grant of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (No. GUP-2020-076) and the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme of the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (No. FRGS/1/2019/SKK08/UKM/02/9). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Research in SCT’s laboratory is supported by the Research University Grant of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (No. GUP-2020-076) and the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme of the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (No. FRGS/1/2019/SKK08/UKM/02/9). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Academic Editor:

1. Please follow the PLOS ONE guideline for preparing the manuscript.

2. Please revise the manuscript per the Reviewers' comments.

3. It is recommended the authors mention the importance of XRCC3 polymorphism in glioma treatment. In the current practice, temozolomide is the choice chemotherapeutic for high-grade gliomas (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8651479/). Recent evidence, has noted that XRCC3 polymorphism contributes to temozolomide resistance of glioblastoma cells by mediating DNA double-strand break repair (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29574277/). However, this may not be the whole story of XRCC3 contribution to the temozolomide resistance. Recent evidence has noted that XRCC3 contributes to mitochondrial biogenesis by facilitating the mitochondrial DNA integrity (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29158291/). Besides, it has been shown that mitochondria improves temozolomide chemoresistance (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0171/v2, AND https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20870728/). It is recommended the authors mention this crucial issue in the Discussion section and cite all the noted articles.

Reviewer #1:

This study represents the largest to date meta-analysis to look at the association between the XRCC3 p.Thr241Met (rs861539) polymorphism and Glioma. It is a well-designed study, which has employed appropriate statistical techniques, and its findings are interesting albeit relatively minor advance to our understanding of glioma genetic risk.

1. Major comment:

The authors state that the last meta study to look at rs861539 and glioma risk was over a decade ago is not true. Qi et al 2017 and Feng et al 2014 both performed similar meta-analyses but did not find there to be an association. These more recent and very similar papers should have been referenced and the authors findings discussed within the context of this early work.

2. Language:

Unfortunately, language quality in many parts was poor, with many sentences consisting of peculiar or inappropriate wording. Thus, I feel it is very important the authors re-write the manuscript with assistance of a copy editor.

Reviewer #2:

1. Materials and Methods - Literature search (page 8, line 111): It may be not clear to readers why the authors consider the case-control type of studies only rather than others.

2. Materials and Methods - Literature search (page 8, line 115): It is vague for the exclusion "(iii) they were duplicates(s)."

3. Materials and Methods - Extraction of data and quality appraisal (page 9, line 126): I would encourage the authors to describe more in detail about the methods and procedures of quality appraisal.

4. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 133): Please highlight and broaden the foundations and considerations of the five genetic models here or elsewhere appropriate.

5. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 137): I would suggest provide a reference for the statement "... as high when P < 0.1 or I2 > 50%, ..."

6. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 136-139): Please check the methods applied in the study, which is my great concern, that could influence the whole results and correctness of the study. It should be that a random-effects model applys to estimate studies when their heterogeneity is high; otherwise, a fixed-effects method should be used in the case of where there is no heterogeneity between studies.

7. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 140-142): It would be better that the selected variables which used to subgroup analyses should be given with their justifications

Reviewer #3:

1. Literature search: Some Keywords or MESH terms are missed in this review that might impact the literature search results—for example, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, GBM, and glioblastoma multiforme.

2. Methodology: Was the grey literature considered in this review?

3. Figures 2 and 3 cannot be opened and processed. Please re-submit Figures 2 and 3 in the supported format.

4. The manuscript requires English copy-editing.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study represents the largest to date meta-analysis to look at the association between the XRCC3 p.Thr241Met (rs861539) polymorphism and Glioma. It is a well-designed study, which has employed appropriate statistical techniques, and its findings are interesting albeit relatively minor advance to our understanding of glioma genetic risk.

Major comment:

The authors state that the last meta study to look at rs861539 and glioma risk was over a decade ago is not true. Qi et al 2017 and Feng et al 2014 both performed similar meta-analyses but did not find there to be an association. These more recent and very similar papers should have been referenced and the authors findings discussed within the context of this early work.

Language:

Unfortunately, language quality in many parts was poor, with many sentences consisting of peculiar or inappropriate wording. Thus, I feel it is very important the authors re-write the manuscript with assistance of a copy editor.

Reviewer #2: 1. Materials and Methods - Literature search (page 8, line 111): It may be not clear to readers why the authors consider the case-control type of studies only rather than others.

2. Materials and Methods - Literature search (page 8, line 115): It is vague for the exclusion "(iii) they were duplicates(s)."

3. Materials and Methods - Extraction of data and quality appraisal (page 9, line 126): I would encourage the authors to describe more in detail about the methods and procedures of quality appraisal.

4. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 133): Please highlight and broaden the foundations and considerations of the five genetic models here or elsewhere appropriate.

5. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 137): I would suggest provide a reference for the statement "... as high when P < 0.1 or I2 > 50%, ..."

6. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 136-139): Please check the methods applied in the study, which is my great concern, that could influence the whole results and correctness of the study. It should be that a random-effects model applys to estimate studies when their heterogeneity is high; otherwise, a fixed-effects method should be used in the case of where there is no heterogeneity between studies.

7. Materials and Methods - Meta-analysis (page 9, line 140-142): It would be better that the selected variables which used to subgroup analyses should be given with their justifications.

Reviewer #3: 1. Literature search: Some Keywords or MESH terms are missed in this review that might impact the literature search results—for example, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, GBM, and glioblastoma multiforme.

2. Methodology: Was the grey literature considered in this review?

3. Figures 2 and 3 cannot be opened and processed. Please re-submit Figures 2 and 3 in the supported format.

4. The manuscript requires English copy-editing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

Association between XRCC3 p.Thr241Met polymorphism and risk of glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-33188R1

Dear Dr. Tan,

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,

Yanhong Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been carefully and detailedly addressed in terms of my comments and I have no further questions.

**********

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

**********