Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 30, 2022
Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

PONE-D-22-29608Toward routine monitoring of the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 01 January 2023. 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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

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

“This work was supported by grants from the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB38030200), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2016YFC0901700), and the National High Technology Program of China (863 Program; Grant No. 2015AA020108) awarded to HL by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. “

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“This work was supported by grants from the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB38030200), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2016YFC0901700), and the National High Technology Program of China (863 Program; Grant No. 2015AA020108) awarded to HL by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China.”

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

4. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

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

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: 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: Comments

1. The found the MS very fascinating and well organized.

2. The biomarkers you discussed “IFI27& S100A12” are novel regarding COVID-19 severity? but you only discussed it in symptomatic subjects is it possible? if you also take sample of asymptomatic individuals and compare the activation level of both population.

3. Rephrase line 85-92.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the author for evaluating the following manuscript

Toward routine monitoring of the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

The authors addressed the two-tiered innate immune response has not been examined in COVID-19.

It is greatly suggested that the manuscript is not ready to be accepted now. I have several comments listed below.

• The tile is not specified for the findings of the study. It must be rewritten to include also the criteria tested.

• The aim of the work in the abstract should be cleared.

• Introduction must be focus on the problem the research dealt with and how will the authors solve this problem in addition to determining the gap in this point in previous researches.

• Is the author depending on databases only for its study?

• Are these databases sufficient for analysis?

• Did the geographical distribution have a role in the data analysis?

• What is the impact of the patient’s age on the severity of the disease and the expression of two-tiered innate immune response?

• The discussion must include the causes for the similarities or differences for all items not only mention what are different or similar than other researches.

• What is the author interpretation if there is any mixed infection in the patients analyzed?

• The author must add a brief conclusion for his study.

• Where is the statistical analysis for this study?

Typo issues:

• There were some errors in the structure of several sentences.

• Under all figures, all abbreviations must be mentioned as footnotes.

• The authors must write what each abbreviated word stands for before using the abbreviation for the first time.

Finally, I cannot accept publishing of this article unless all corrections are made. Therefore, the manuscript is accepted for publication after major revisions

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments D-22-29608.docx
Attachment
Submitted filename: Dr Marwa comments.docx
Revision 1

Reviewer #1: Comments

1. I found the MS very fascinating and well organized.

I appreciate the encouragement from the reviewer.

2. The biomarkers you discussed “IFI27& S100A12” are novel regarding COVID-19 severity. but you only discussed it in symptomatic subjects. is it possible if you also take sample of asymptomatic individuals and compare the activation level of both population.

To our knowledge, both the concept of two-tiered innate immune response and the two-gene marker panel are novel for COVID-19. As for the asymptomatic patients, the main aim of this study is to find convenient and efficient markers to monitor the innate immune response in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since asymptomatic patients rarely go to hospitals, they can not be monitored by medical professionals anyway. For the same reason, asymptomatic patients are not the focus of many studies. Nevertheless, asymptomatic or non-hospitalized patients were included in a few datasets analyzed in this study. But it’s uncertain how informative it is. Ideally, we would like to have reasonable sample size for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients as well as healthy controls in the same dataset. This statement has been added to the Discussion section.

3. Rephrase line 85-92.

The entire paragraph has been revised.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the author for evaluating the following manuscript

Toward routine monitoring of the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

The authors addressed the two-tiered innate immune response has not been examined in COVID-19.

It is greatly suggested that the manuscript is not ready to be accepted now. I have several comments listed below.

• The tile is not specified for the findings of the study. It must be rewritten to include also the criteria tested.

Thanks! The title has been rephrased.

• The aim of the work in the abstract should be cleared.

The aim of the work has been added to the beginning of the Abstract.

• Introduction must be focus on the problem the research dealt with and how will the authors solve this problem in addition to determining the gap in this point in previous researches.

Sorry, the aim of this study was not clearly stated in the previous version of Abstract. It has been revised. The Introduction section has also been revised accordingly.

• Is the author depending on databases only for its study?

Yes, this study is based on reanalysis of public datasets.

• Are these databases sufficient for analysis?

This study included 1421 samples from 17 independent datasets generated around the globe. The two-tiered innate immune response and the activation pattern of the two marker genes are well reproduced across so many independent datasets. Therefore, the results are quite robust.

• Did the geographical distribution have a role in the data analysis?

The samples were collected from around the globe, including Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. The patterns were consistent in different datasets.

• What is the impact of the patient’s age on the severity of the disease and the expression of two-tiered innate immune response?

Based on our previous works, age does not have an effect on the expression of IFI27 or S100A12. But it’s a well-known fact that age is a major contributing factor to COVID-19 severity. This statement has been added to the Discussion section in the revised manuscript.

• The discussion must include the causes for the similarities or differences for all items not only mention what are different or similar than other researches.

The Discussion section has been revised accordingly.

• What is the author interpretation if there is any mixed infection in the patients analyzed?

According to previous studies, bacterial co-infection in COVID-19 patients is not as common as expected earlier (<5%). Therefore, it’s unlikely to have a major effect on the analysis. A comparison of COVID-19 patients with or without coinfection is presented in Figure 9A.

• The author must add a brief conclusion for his study.

A Conclusion section has been added to the revised manuscript.

• Where is the statistical analysis for this study?

For datasets with sufficiently large sample, p-values for group comparison have been calculated and added to the revised manuscript.

Typo issues:

• There were some errors in the structure of several sentences.

The manuscript has been extensively revised to avoid errors.

• Under all figures, all abbreviations must be mentioned as footnotes.

This issue regarding figure captions has been taken care of.

• The authors must write what each abbreviated word stands for before using the abbreviation for the first time.

The issue regarding abbreviations has been taken care of.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response letter.docx
Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

PONE-D-22-29608R1A two-gene marker for the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2023 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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

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.

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Comments:

1. The author is suggested to revise the manuscript, and thoroughly read for English correction.

Reviewer #2: Comments for evaluating the following manuscript

A two-gene marker for the two-tiered 1 innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

The authors addressed the two-tiered innate immune response has not been examined in COVID-19.

I would like to thank the author for revision, but I have some comments listed below.

• The goal must be written at the end of the introduction section and the authors must arrange the ideas in introduction serially to introduce the problem and how to solve. Moreover, the introduction must not have detailed materials and methods.

• The author should illustrate the role of geographical distribution on his results.

• The discussion needs to be improved regarding the causes for the similarities or differences for majority of the items.

• Under all figures, there were many abbreviations those must be mentioned as footnotes.

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Comments:

1. The author is suggested to revise the manuscript, and thoroughly read for English correction.

Thanks! The whole manuscript has been checked and revised.

Reviewer #2: Comments for evaluating the following manuscript

A two-gene marker for the two-tiered 1 innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

The authors addressed the two-tiered innate immune response has not been examined in COVID-19.

I would like to thank the author for revision, but I have some comments listed below.

• The goal must be written at the end of the introduction section and the authors must arrange the ideas in introduction serially to introduce the problem and how to solve. Moreover, the introduction must not have detailed materials and methods.

Thanks! The last paragraph of the Introduction section has been revised.

• The author should illustrate the role of geographical distribution on his results.

The role of geographic distribution has been added to the Discussion.

• The discussion needs to be improved regarding the causes for the similarities or differences for majority of the items.

The Discussion section has been further revised.

• Under all figures, there were many abbreviations those must be mentioned as footnotes.

The figure legends have been further revised for clarity.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response letter-Rev2.docx
Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

A two-gene marker for the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

PONE-D-22-29608R2

Dear Dr. Lei,

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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

ref46 needs to be corrected

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

PONE-D-22-29608R2

A two-gene marker for the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

Dear Dr. Lei:

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. Benjamin M. Liu

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 .