Swine intestinal segment perfusion model for the evaluation of nutrients bioaccessibility

Matteo Dell’Anno; Fabio Acocella; Pietro Riccaboni; Camilla Recordati; Elisabetta Bongiorno; Luciana Rossi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283825

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 28, 2022
13 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer, Editor PONE-D-22-35014Swine intestinal segment perfusion model for the evaluation of nutrients bioaccessibilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rossi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Minor revision. The reviewers have recommended the possibility of a publication, but suggest some revisions to your manuscript. I kindly invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 27 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, Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer 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. "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: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ" Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper decribes an attempt to use a porcine intestinal segment to use as an ex vivo model for nutrient bioavailability. It is well though of and competently written study with some limitations that are however pointed out by the authors. These limitations derive from the fact that this is considered a preliminary study that should be followed by additional research. My main criticism that I want to be addressed by the authors is there is a lack of discussion on the potential effect on the reported results of the de-epithelization and necrosis observed in segment C. The authors should also hypothesize its effect across time since this is a time-dependent process. Also they should be more specific in the last paragraph before the conclusion section (L282-284) considering their future approach steps would they consider to maximize organ viability and intestinal structure. Finally I have made several corrections/suggestions to improve the final manuscript and pointed out some sentences that need rephrasing to make them clearer. These minor comments are included as cooments using the adobe acrobat tools in the attached file. Reviewer #2: The European policies on animal experimentation are aiming to increase the protection of experimental animals, thus various alternative methods have to be developed to achieve this purpose. Thus, reliable science based models are required in order to reduce and replace animals for experimental purposes. In this study, a perfusion model of the porcine duodenal segment was developed for the evaluation of the bioaccessibility and functionality of nutrients over time. The duodenum segment showed characteristics of vitality and functionality of the organ over three hours of extracorporeal circulation. It also preserved the bioaccessibility of the main nutrients, the cellular metabolism and, on histological evaluation, showed a preserved intestinal epithelial lining in the perfused portions. This study offered encouraging results for the development of a novel porcine intestinal segment perfusion model for the assessment of nutrient bioaccessibility in line with the 3Rs principle. The manuscript is well written and well organized. The information presented are new and interesting and the conclusions are supported by the data. The Introduction introduces the topic sufficiently. The methodology is sufficiently detailed to allow the experiments to be reproduced. The results of this work will be very useful for further studies and they were also appropriately discussed. Finally, the quality of the English is adequate. In my opinion the manuscript is acceptable for publication. ****** 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: PONE-D-22-35014.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283825.r001
Revision 1
16 Mar 2023 Author Response PONE-D-22-35014 Swine intestinal segment perfusion model for the evaluation of nutrients bioaccessibility PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rossi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Minor revision. The reviewers have recommended the possibility of a publication, but suggest some revisions to your manuscript. I kindly invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. ============================== 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This paper decribes an attempt to use a porcine intestinal segment to use as an ex vivo model for nutrient bioavailability. It is well though of and competently written study with some limitations that are however pointed out by the authors. These limitations derive from the fact that this is considered a preliminary study that should be followed by additional research. My main criticism that I want to be addressed by the authors is there is a lack of discussion on the potential effect on the reported results of the de-epithelization and necrosis observed in segment C. The authors should also hypothesize its effect across time since this is a time-dependent process. Also they should be more specific in the last paragraph before the conclusion section (L282-284) considering their future approach steps would they consider to maximize organ viability and intestinal structure. Finally I have made several corrections/suggestions to improve the final manuscript and pointed out some sentences that need rephrasing to make them clearer. These minor comments are included as cooments using the adobe acrobat tools in the attached file. Authors: Thank you so much for your constructive discussion. The progressive impairment of section C structure and tissue death could lead to a gradual necrosis that could involve the entire organ. The future aim for the enhancement of the following model will target to ensure a complete perfusion by shortening the segment and perfection the surgery technique in order to store vessels’ architecture that could have influenced the blood perfusion in distal section (C) (Lines 274-282). The paper has been revised according to your comments/corrections. Find our response point-by-point to your comments in the attached PDF file. Reviewer #2: The European policies on animal experimentation are aiming to increase the protection of experimental animals, thus various alternative methods have to be developed to achieve this purpose. Thus, reliable science based models are required in order to reduce and replace animals for experimental purposes. In this study, a perfusion model of the porcine duodenal segment was developed for the evaluation of the bioaccessibility and functionality of nutrients over time. The duodenum segment showed characteristics of vitality and functionality of the organ over three hours of extracorporeal circulation. It also preserved the bioaccessibility of the main nutrients, the cellular metabolism and, on histological evaluation, showed a preserved intestinal epithelial lining in the perfused portions. This study offered encouraging results for the development of a novel porcine intestinal segment perfusion model for the assessment of nutrient bioaccessibility in line with the 3Rs principle. The manuscript is well written and well organized. The information presented are new and interesting and the conclusions are supported by the data. The Introduction introduces the topic sufficiently. The methodology is sufficiently detailed to allow the experiments to be reproduced. The results of this work will be very useful for further studies and they were also appropriately discussed. Finally, the quality of the English is adequate. In my opinion the manuscript is acceptable for publication. Authors: We are grateful for the time that you dedicated to our manuscript, and we are glad that the submitted paper could be suitable for publication. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-35014_Responses to Reviewer 1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283825.r002
20 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer, Editor Swine intestinal segment perfusion model for the evaluation of nutrients bioaccessibility PONE-D-22-35014R1 Dear Dr. Rossi, 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, Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283825.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer, Editor PONE-D-22-35014R1 Swine intestinal segment perfusion model for the evaluation of nutrients bioaccessibility Dear Dr. Rossi: 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 Professor Ozlem Boybeyi-Turer Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283825.r004

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 .