Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 19, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-26630Pneumolysin as a target for new therapies against pneumococcal infections: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mar, 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 31.01.2023. 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:
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, Raj Kumar Koiri 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No, The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "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 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 Reviewer #3: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I read your article with great interest and would like to present forward the following comments/ suggestions: 1) Study selection paragraph - a) Possible typing error in line 239 -- will be 2 case reports, not 3 (as per PRISMA diagram) b) Lines 241-244 -- Out of 141 articles 108 were excluded and 8 articles from citation were added to select total 41 articles, however complete breakup of these 108 articles are not given. (break-up of 100 articles excluded are given, 66+31+3) 2) It is clear that there was considerable heterogeneity between all the studies selected. Also, there were no comparison studies. Both of these indicate that the level of evidence generated by these studies would be on the lower side. Hence, there was no statistical analysis done and neither were there any conclusions drawn regarding the topic related to clinical decision making. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read and underlines that a lot of ground needs to be covered in this area before we can apply it to clinical practice. Reviewer #2: The authors performed a systematic review on pneumolysin as a target for therapies in pneumococcal infections. The authors should consider adding conclusion section other than discussion section in the abstract. The authors should discuss in the introduction section the clinical relevance of their study specially how it is compared to the current standard of clinical practice in managing pneumococcal infection (antibiotics and vaccines). Despite the authors stating in the discussion section that mortality is high from pneumococcal infection, actually the mortality is declining due to childhood vaccination, please see reference below: Grau I, Ardanuy C, Cubero M, Benitez MA, Liñares J, Pallares R. Declining mortality from adult pneumococcal infections linked to children's vaccination. J Infect. 2016;72(4):439-449. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2016.01.011 Would consider adding more points in the discussion about the presumable effects of these compounds and the relevance to pneumococcal infection as it is more focused on their effect in COVID. I commend the authors for the effort they put in this study, but I would like to see more points about the clinical relevance of this review given that the included studies are mainly animal experiments. Reviewer #3: The Review article targets one of the most important virulence factor of pneumococci and summarizes potential intervention strategies to neutralize the mode of action of pneumolysin. The Review is thereby focusing on plant-derived compounds, although antibodies and there inhibitory effect are also discussed and listed in table 1. The Review is in time and important, because pneumolysin and it´s cytolytic and cytotoxic effects are a major driver in the pathogenesis of this pathogen. Blocking pneumolysin and preventing binding to the host cell or oligomerization prior to pore-formation are therefore perfect mechanism to combat severe pneumococcal invasive infections. Overall, the reviewer is not convinced about the structure, because reading is not enjoyable despite the topic is of high interest. The separation of Results and Discussion is not beneficial in the view of the reviewer. In particular when the Review starts with the “Types of molecules and drugs tested”, the discussion can be included and combined with the summarized studies. This would result in a nice flow and avoid redundancies. A major flaw of the Review is the partially inaccurate literature research, which is quite obvious in the introduction (see a few examples in the point by point comments) and a critical issue. In addition, the linguistic expression and English can be improved (examples: lines 115, 147 -149, 152 (the brain does not react – this is an inflammation of the meninges), 373 (possess and causes), 515 (protector? (protective) effect), 576 (when starting with Regarding then the sentence is incomplete (similar to other sentences)), line 600 (Mycoplasma pneumoniae), line 633 and others Major comments: 1. Pneumolysin is a CDC but also binds according to the literature to MRC-1 (see e.g. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0280-x, doi:10.15252/emmm.202012695.) and this should be mentioned in the Introduction 2. Serotype 1 and 8 with mild infections is not overall correct; see newer publications: doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15751-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2021.11.007. 3. It is not correct that oligomerization is with up to 400 and 500 toxin monomers (the pore is a 400 Å); these are approx. 42 monomers – see publications (e.g. doi: 10.7554/eLife.23644) 4. Line 121: influx of cytosolic calcium? 5. Line 125: sensing TLR4 is under debate, this has to be mentioned because of contradictory results 6. Line 159: the authors are not familiar with the newest publications; the statement is not correct anymore (see doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002372) 7. Combining results and discussion will be highly beneficial for this Review 8. When the effect of antibodies are discussed, the authors have also to consider these studies: doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002372, doi: 10.1055/a-1723-1880 Minor comments: 1. Line 94: change LPXTG proteins to “sortase-anchored proteins 2. Line 99: Re-check your statement in line 99-100 that pneumolysin is expressed in the late-log phase. This is not correct, instead PLY is produced constitutively and the free or released PLY is higher in the late log phase because of autolysis and the heterogeneity in the culture 3. Line 103: again, this is not exact what happens; re-write after checking the literature ********** 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: Dr. Saikat Banerjee, MD Respiratory Medicine, ERS HERMES Diplomate, Micromasters in Statistics and Data Science from MIT Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Sven Hammerschmidt ********** [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 |
|
Pneumolysin as a target for new therapies against pneumococcal infections: A systematic review PONE-D-22-26630R1 Dear Dr. DEL MAR, 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, Raj Kumar Koiri Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The author has suitably addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. The manuscript can be accepted. 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 #3: 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 ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 ********** 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 ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately modified their manuscript. The auhtors have considered all the comments and suggestions rased by reviewers. I have no further comments to the manuscript and suggest to accept the manuscript in the current revised version. ********** 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: Yes: Dr. Saikat Banerjee MD Reviewer #3: Yes: Sven Hammerschmidt ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-26630R1 Pneumolysin as a target for new therapies against pneumococcal infections: A systematic review Dear Dr. Del Mar García-Suárez: 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. Raj Kumar Koiri 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 .