Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-22609Smart Thermosensitive Poloxamer Hydrogels Loaded with Nr-CWs for the Treatment of Diabetic WoundsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jin, 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. As you can see from the comments, the reviewers felt that the scientific soundness of this study should be improved before the acceptance of this work. I hope the specific comments from the reviewers will be useful for the major revision suggested by the reviewer. To help me expedite processing, please explicitly address the questions raised by the reviewers in your cover letter and also point out the changes made in the manuscript. I will go back to the reviewers for further input and advice before any final decision on possible publication is made. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 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, Bing Xu, 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 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. 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. 4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.
In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [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: Partly ********** 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: No 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: Nocardia rubra cell wall skeleton (Nr-CWs) has been reported to accelerates wound healing. Authors here reported an improved wound healing property by delivering Nr-CWs with hydrogel. I find the results to be informative to a broad audience in drug delivery if the authors can address the following comments. I was unable to find the figure legend in the submission and believe some of my concerns can be addressed by clarity in the legend. 1. How much Nr-CWs was loaded into the hydrogel delivery system? This is unclear throughout the manuscript. It would be important to quantify after preparing Nr-CWs in hydrogel, how much of Nr-CWs actually remain in the hydrogel as this determines the effective dosage. 2. In the cell viability plots generated by FACS, can author explicitly point out the time point when the data was taken post treatment? 3. Can authors clarify the relevance of HUVEC and FGF models for in vitro studies? 4. It is unclear to me the differences between Fig 2C vs 2D and Fig 2E and 2F. 5. To measure the release profile, authors labeled Nr-CWs with Cy5. Please add details of this process in the method section. Can authors be sure that measured release is Nr-CWs instead of Cy5 alone? Fig 3B should include Nr-CWs alone without hydrogel. 6. In Figure 3C, the release curve extended to day 14. Can the authors explain why retention of the Nr-CWs inside hydrogel improves wound healing? Doesn't it mean less released? What did I miss here. 7. "The release of hydrogel is slow released and has a good effect on the absorption of drugs." I found this statement unfounded here. Can authors comment on how absorption was measured? Related to last comment. If not, is this a hypothesis? 8. None of the groups in Figure 6 western blots were labeled. Minor comment - abstract had missing parts of a sentence. Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Wang et al. aims to access the effectiveness of a thermo-sensitive hydrogel supplemented with Nr-CWS in treating diabetic wounds. The authors claimed that this gel formulation is superior because it would reduce inflammation, increase angiogenesis and wound healing. The experiments are in general well designed and carried out, however, there are major concerns over the author’s writing style and the conclusion drawn regarding the intracellular cellular pathways related to the MOA of the gel. 1. The authors claim that the activation of PI3K/Akt, JAK/STAT3 and MAPK/ERK pathways explains the effectiveness of their hydrogel in promoting wound healing. However, two of these pathways, JAK/STAT3 and PI3K/Akt are also involved in inflammatory cytokine signaling transduction. For example, IL6 significantly up-regulates these pathways during tissue inflammation. Therefore, using these pathway activation as an indication of enhanced tissue healing is problematic. 2. There are no Figure Legend in this manuscript!! 3. The authors need to greatly improve their writing before the next submission. Currently there are too many grammatical errors throughout the manuscript and sentences that are phrased awkwardly, which make their statement hard to comprehend. 4. The authors need to improve their introduction. Currently, the authors mixed what they did in this manuscript and what has been discovered previously throughout the introduction section. Please make sure that you layout the currently issues of field, and proper background of hydrogel and Nr-CWS, SEPARATELY from your aim and what you have done in this paper. 5. Fig.4 needs to be improved or better explained. In 4D, the authors read out different cell type infiltrating the wound simply by looking at H&E staining. However, it is hard for the reader to follow what each arrows are pointing at. They need to explain what feature in H&E do you define as fibroblast etc, epithelial, etc. in 4F, the authors did PAS staining to look at collagen deposition. However, this methods was never mentioned in this manuscript. Additionally, collagen deposition is not always related to good healing, it rather indicate tissue fibrosis in many cases. The authors need to explain what they are looking at in these PAS staining images and why it helps support their claims. Minor concerns: 1. The figures need to be called in sequence. For example, Fig. 2B is called in section 3.2 before Fig. 2A. In this case, you may want to change the order of the two figures or change the order of how you discuss your data. Same issue in Fig. 3. 2. How is Fig. 2C and 2D different? 3. Authors need to better describe their methods. For example, in Fig. 2, they used FACS to determine cell apoptosis by staining Annexin. However, they did not provide enough explanation on what they measured and why they used is as the marker for apoptosis. Readers who are not familiar with this method would not understand this experiment. Please provide more information. ********** 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 |
|
PONE-D-22-22609R1Smart Thermosensitive Poloxamer Hydrogels Loaded with Nr-CWs for the Treatment of Diabetic WoundsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jin, 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. As you can see from the enclosed reviews, the reviewers find your manuscript potentially suitable for publication in PLoS One. However, some of them raised a few specific issues that must be addressed before the final acceptance of your manuscript. Hence, I am requesting that you submit a revised version of this manuscript to address the comments. To help me expedite processing, please explicitly address the questions raised by the reviewer in your cover letter and point out the changes made in the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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:
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, Bing Xu, PhD Academic Editor 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. [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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: N/A ********** 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: No ********** 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: 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: In method section regarding release profile of Nr-CWS from hydrogel in vivo, authors still did not clarify the chemistry used for the cy5 conjugation. Is this NHS chemistry? Please add this information into your method beyond 'covalent'. How is the free dye removed and validated? This is critical information in deciding the validity of all of the drug release data. In addition, how does Cy5 disrupts this protein treatment if the modification is covalent? Another way of asking this question would be, is the Nr-CWS hydrogel treatment even more effective without Cy5 labeling? Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: In this manuscript, the author reported hydrogel loading Nocardia rubra cell wall skeleton (Nr-CWs) to accelerates wound healing. This hydrogel would reduce inflammation, increase angiogenesis and wound healing. In general, this work is well designed and carried out. However, there also have some minor issues need to be revised: 1. Why did the author choose P407 and P188 as the composition of hydrogels? The degradation of hydrogels in vivo needs to be confirmed. 2. Please confirm that Nr-CWS was successfully loaded inside the hydrogel. 3. The biocompatibility of the hydrogel needs to be confirmed before in vivo animal experiments. 4. Diabetic wound healing is a complex and continuous process. The manuscript indicates that Nr-CWS in the hydrogel releases about 60% of the original within 12 h. This does not seem to meet the need for sustained wound repair. Once the release of Nr-CWS in the hydrogel is terminated, how the hydrogel promotes wound repair? 5. Whether collagen deposition at the wound site after hydrogel treatment causes excessive fibrosis of the wound, explain them. 6. Why did the author not continue the drug release test for Nr-CWS release performance? 7. In the manuscript, the experimental results are described excessively, and the discussion of scientific problems is lacking. The author had better analyze the scientific problems in the manuscript in detail. In addition, the novelty of this work still needs to be highlighted in the introduction and conclusion. Reviewer #5: In manuscript ‘Smart Thermosensitive Poloxamer Hydrogels Loaded with Nr-CWs for the Treatment of Diabetic Wounds’, the authors designed a P188/P407 poloxamers hydrogel mixed with Nr-CWS to promote angiogenesis and wound repair. This paper will be of interest in readers working in the field of Full-thickness skin defect repair. Some revisions are required to make it appropriate for publication, and the issues related to these revisions are listing below: Q1. There are not enough data to explain the characteristics and innovations of this study. Q2 In ‘The slow release prolongs the duration of the drug's effect on the wound in vitro and in vivo’ why did only test the drug’s release in 12 hours? More time points should be tested. Q3. We found no description of the degradation performance of poloxamers hydrogels. Q4. In ‘Fig.4D’, we didn’t see the scale bar in both 6 and 14 days. Q5. In ‘Fig.4F’, we can hardly see the difference in collagen deposition between four groups in 14 days. Q6. There were still format problems. For example, the title ‘Western blot analysis’ should be bold. ‘Establishment of Diabetic diabetic wound model’ should be deleted ‘Diabetic’; the ‘°C’ in line 106 and 159 were different and we didn’t see a space between ‘0.5h,shaken’ in line 160 so on. ********** 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: 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 |
|
Smart Thermosensitive Poloxamer Hydrogels Loaded with Nr-CWs for the Treatment of Diabetic Wounds PONE-D-22-22609R2 Dear Dr. Jin, 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, Bing Xu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-22609R2 Smart Thermosensitive Poloxamer Hydrogels Loaded with Nr-CWs for the Treatment of Diabetic Wounds Dear Dr. Jin: 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. Bing Xu 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 .