Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 4, 2022
Decision Letter - Pierre Bobé, Editor

PONE-D-22-27387

Increased levels of immature and activated low density granulocytes and altered degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps in granulomatosis with polyangiitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alexander,

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.

We consider that the manuscript lacks precision in various aspects, and the data presented need to be completed and strengthened. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process (see below Reviewer's comments).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 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,

Prof. Pierre Bobé

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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. Please clarify whether minors (participants under the age of 18 years) were included in this study. If yes, in your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 "This work was supported by core funding by the Max Planck Institute of Infection Biology, provided by the Max Planck Gesellschaft, and the Leibniz Science Campus Chronic Inflammation (www.chronischeentzuendung.org). " 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

 "No authors have competing interests"

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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 is a small inception cohort study examining NET production in GPA (n=12) and SLE (n=21) receiving a wide array of medications. The healthy donor control group was 95% female and much younger than the GPA cohort, making it difficult to separate out gender and age effects. There was significant variability in virtually all readouts, indicating that the study is underpowered to assess most parameters studied. The study confirms previous findings of LDG expansion and impaired NET degradation in GPA.

• The cohorts should be separated into those with active and remission disease (the BVAS range included 0 so remission patients were apparently included). It is likely that disease activity (and, more importantly, the high dose corticosteroids associated with this active disease, will have a big effect on NETosis).

• Note that, although table 1 describes the full cohort, studies examining NETs had fewer participants; these cohorts should be described in a supplementary table.

• Fig S1A: it’s not clear what the y-axis represents. Neutrophils in the PBMC layer are LDGs, but the figure refers to NDGs.

• I suggest that, for all figures, the individuals receiving high dose corticosteroids (say >20mg/day) are identified using, for example, open circles. Also, in addition to correlating NET degrading capacity with BVAS, figure 5 should also correlate against steroid dose in both SLE and GPA patients.

• Are flow cytometry data available for whole blood samples? This is important to clarify the effect of cell isolation on markers such as CD16 and CD63. Indeed, it is not clear why the results pertaining to LDGs are emphasised, given that NETOsis, the focus of the paper, was not studied in this cell population.

• The anti-PR3 antibody levels, rather than c-ANCA levels, should be reported. I presume that none were anti-MPO positive.

• Fig 4: There does appear to be a decline in NET degrading capacity with increasing disease activity, although BVAS is a poor means of quantifying the degree of vasculitic injury. Is the same observed with SLEDAI in the lupus participants? Again, it is important to consider the confounding effect of concurrent corticosteroid therapy, which may in fact be the main reason for this decline in NET degradation capacity.

• The authors comment on some unexpected null findings in the discussion, for example, no increased circulating NETs in GPA. The most likely reason for this is the fact that the study is underpowered, which should be alluded to in the discussion.

• The methods section contains descriptions of quantification of DCs, B cells and other cell types that have no counterpart in the results section. Were these experiments performed? If not, it is not necessary to describe the respective methods.

• The strongest result is the reduction in NET degradation capacity of GPA serum. Were DNAse-1 levels measured in serum? This would be an obvious next step in determining the mechanism of this observation.

**********

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: Yes: Mark Little

**********

[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,

enclosed please find the revised version of the above-mentioned manuscript. In a separate file (rebuttal letter) we respond to each point raised by the reviewer.

According to editorial issues you raised we can confirm the following:

1. Ethical: No minors (participants under the age of 18 years) were included in this study.

2. Financial disclosure: This work was supported by core funding by the Max Planck Institute of Infection Biology, provided by the Max Planck Gesellschaft, and the Leibniz Science Campus Chronic Inflammation (www.chronischeentzuendung.org). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

3. Competing interest: No authors have competing interests

4. Data Availability: The study's minimal data set are uploaded as Supporting Information files.

5. My ORCID iD (0000-0003-1193-0097) will be uploaded as requested.

We hope that revised manuscript has been modified to your satisfaction can be considered for publication. Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain with best regards.

Sincerely,

Tobias Alexander, MD

Charité – University Medicine Berlin, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R1.docx
Decision Letter - Pierre Bobé, Editor

Increased levels of immature and activated low density granulocytes and altered degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps in granulomatosis with polyangiitis

PONE-D-22-27387R1

Dear Dr. Tobias,

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,

Prof. Pierre Bobé

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Pierre Bobé, Editor

PONE-D-22-27387R1

Increased levels of immature and activated low density granulocytes and altered degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps in granulomatosis with polyangiitis

Dear Dr. Alexander:

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

Prof Pierre Bobé

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 .