Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 5, 2022
Decision Letter - Francesco Bertolini, Editor

PONE-D-22-00370

A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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 by both Reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 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,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

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 including your ethics statement:  "N/A".   

For studies reporting research involving human participants, PLOS ONE requires authors to confirm that this specific study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) before the study began. Please provide the specific name of the ethics committee/IRB that approved your study, or explain why you did not seek approval in this case.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. 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.

4. 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. 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: Congratulations on the excellent article. Some considerations:

- in keywords: you do not need to include those that are already mentioned in the title (pyridinesulfonamide; acute myeloid leukemia; Apoptosis)

- objectives are not well highlighted

- in some tests, in the text of materials and methods, it is not clear whether triplicates and 3 independent experiments were carried out, or only 3 independent experiments. They are only explained in the subtitles.

- in figure 4c the name of the cell lines was missing

- the work has been done with two cell types, but in RNAseq only one cell line was chosen, but there was no explanation for this.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia” by Chen et al. presents the results on therapeutic activity of novel and highly active FD268 inhibitor of PI3K. The authors found that FD268 inhibits the viabilities of AML cells with the efficacies superior to other two PI3K inhibitors, PI-103 and CAL-101. They showed that FD268 suppresses cell proliferation, induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of AML cells through the inhibition of PI3K activity.

In my humble opinion, I think that this work will be of interest to a broad audience.

Overall, the manuscript is well written and experiments were properly designed and executed. However, some minor corrections and improvements are necessary prior to its acceptance.

Comments and Suggestions:

Line 90: repeating words “and and”.

Line 108: Should read “…and treated with FD268…”

Line 178: Should read “…plates and treated with FD268 (0.125, 0.5 µM) or DMSO for 24 h. Cells were harvested…”

Line 225: Should read “The values were shown as the…”

Lines 249-250: Fig. 3C: there is no dose dependent inhibition of cleavage of caspase 3 and PARP, but increase instead. The sentence should be corrected as “…proteins were consequently examined by western blot assay, which showed a dose dependent increase of both caspase-3 and PARP cleavage (Fig 3C).”.

Line 258: Should read “Statistical significance is represented with asterisks *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001.”, as there is no **P < 0.01. It might be also better to use white background for S phase data, as labels/asterisks are barely visible in Figure 2B.

Figure 4C: Indicate which blots represent HL-60 and MOLM-16 cells. Label for cell lines is missing.

Line 288: The authors should mention here that the protein levels of other markers of apoptosis, e.g. Bcl-2, Bax and Bcl-XL, did not change significantly in FD268-treated cells.

Figure 5C: Label of MOLM-16 has to be corrected (swapped letters). The same applies to Figure 6A and 6B.

Figure 9: Shouldn´t the cleaved caspase-3 and PARP lead to cell death/apoptosis, instead of cell survival (check the bottom right corner)?

********** 

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

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied all comments carefully and have made conscientious correction in the manuscript. Revised portion are marked in red and highlighted in this paper.

Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: in keywords: you do not need to include those that are already mentioned in the title (pyridinesulfonamide; acute myeloid leukemia; Apoptosis).

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion about the key words. The key words that mentioned in the title has been replaced with the the following words: PI3K inhibitor, Haematological cancer and HL-60.

Comment 2: objectives are not well highlighted.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable feedback. Our research have documented for the first time that a novel pyridinesulfonamide scaffold possesses significant anti-leukemic activity towards AML cells, the objective of our paper is about the early exploration of the mechanism of novel drug development. In the text of this paper, the objectives was not well highlighted due to the ways of language expression. We have further clarified this in the end of the Introduction section (lines 69-71), and the Conclusion section ( lines 457-461).

Comment 3: in some tests, in the text of materials and methods, it is not clear whether triplicates and 3 independent experiments were carried out, or only 3 independent experiments. They are only explained in the subtitles.

Response 3: Thank you for your questions. All the cells in each cell-based assay were seeded and harvested in triplicates, and at least three independent experiments were carried out in the CCK-8 cell proliferation assay and cell apoptosis assay. We have in added examinations in the text of materials and methods (lines 104-105, lines 120-121 and lines 145-146).

Comment 4: in figure 4c the name of the cell lines was missing.

Response 4: Thanks for pointing out about the missing details, the name of cell lines has been added in Figure 4C.

Comment 5: the work has been done with two cell types, but in RNA-seq only one cell line was chosen, but there was no explanation for this.

Response 5: We appreciate for this question. Based on the previous studies of compound FD268, we found that FD268 has potential AML cell proliferation inhibitory activity, and further screening assay showed that the HL-60 cell line was more sensitive to compound FD268, so in the subsequent mechanistic explorations we chose HL-60 for the RNA-seq analysis.

Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: Line 90: repeating words “and and”.

Comment 2: Line 108: Should read “…and treated with FD268…”

Comment 3: Line 178: Should read “…plates and treated with FD268 (0.125, 0.5 µM) or DMSO for 24 h. Cells were harvested…”

Comment 4: Line 225: Should read “The values were shown as the…”

Response 1-4: Thanks for the kind comments. The tense and repetition mistakes have been corrected in the manuscript.

Comment 5: Lines 249-250: Fig. 3C: there is no dose dependent inhibition of cleavage of caspase 3 and PARP, but increase instead. The sentence should be corrected as “…proteins were consequently examined by western blot assay, which showed a dose dependent increase of both caspase-3 and PARP cleavage (Fig 3C).”

Response 5: Thanks for the comments. In Figure. 3C, the western blot was applied to detect cleaved PARP, cleaved caspase-3 and caspase-3 as indicators of apoptotic cell death. The cleavage of caspase-3 and PARP increased dose dependently. We have changed the sentences as suggested. (Lines 249-250)

Comment 6: Line 258: Should read “Statistical significance is represented with asterisks *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001.”, as there is no **P < 0.01. It might be also better to use white background for S phase data, as labels/asterisks are barely visible in Figure 2B.

Response 6: Thanks for the valuable suggestion and we have removed the “**P < 0.01” in statistical significance annotation of Figure 2. The background for S phase data bar have been re-edited to highlight labels/asterisks.

Comment 7: Figure 4C: Indicate which blots represent HL-60 and MOLM-16 cells. Label for cell lines is missing.

Response 7: Thanks for pointing out about the missing, the name of cell lines has been added in Figure 4C.

Comment 8: Line 288: The authors should mention here that the protein levels of other markers of apoptosis, e.g. Bcl-2, Bax and Bcl-XL, did not change significantly in FD268-treated cells.

Response 8: Thanks for this kind suggestion. At protein level, FD268 increased the expression of Bad, meanwhile inhibited Mcl-1 in both HL-60 and MOLM-16 dose-dependently. While, the protein levels of other markers of apoptosis, Bcl-2, Bax and Bcl-XL, did not change significantly in FD268-treated cells. We have added a sentence to to clarify this. (Lines 291-292)

Comment 9: Figure 5C: Label of MOLM-16 has to be corrected (swapped letters). The same applies to Figure 6A and 6B.

Response 9: Thanks for pointing out the mistakes, the label of MOLM-16 have been corrected in Figure 5C, 6A and 6B.

Comment 10: Figure 9: Shouldn´t the cleaved caspase-3 and PARP lead to cell death/apoptosis, instead of cell survival (check the bottom right corner)?

Response 10: Thank you for this valuable comment. In this diagram, we meant to show that the compound FD268 induced apoptosis through the activation of caspase-3 and PARP cleavage, so the label “cell Survival” have been changed into “Cell Apoptosis”.

After careful revision, we worked on the manuscript for a long time and fixed all of these format or grammar issues on the manuscript. Thanks again to the reviewers and editors for you hard work!

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Yaming Zhou

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Francesco Bertolini, Editor

PONE-D-22-00370R1A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid LeukemiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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 insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

  • Indicate which changes you require for acceptance versus which changes you recommend
  • Address any conflicts between the reviews so that it's clear which advice the authors should follow
  • Provide specific feedback from your evaluation of the manuscript
Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 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,

Jianhong Zhou

Support Staff - Editorial

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Now, The manuscript is much better! All notes have been answered.

The reading is better understood after all mistakes are solved.

Reviewer #2: The authors have revised the manuscript according to my suggestions and recommendations. I have no further comments.

**********

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 reviewers,

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript (ID: PONE-D-22-00370R2). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have considered all comments carefully and made conscientious correction. Attached please find the revised manuscript entitled “A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia” for your consideration. Point-to-point responses for the original manuscript were given in the file ‘Response to reviewers.docx’ and the correction were highlighted in the revised manuscript with track changes. There is no correction according to the recent comments for the R1 version.

Thank you very much for your time! We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

Sincerely yours

Prof. Yaming Zhou

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor

A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PONE-D-22-00370R2

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor

PONE-D-22-00370R2

A Pyridinesulfonamide Derivative FD268 Suppresses Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis via Inhibiting PI3K Pathway in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Dear Dr. Zhou:

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. Francesco Bertolini

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 .