Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 6, 2023
Decision Letter - Gebreselassie Demeke, Editor

PONE-D-23-03391Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocyte co-culture with the monocyte cell line THP-1 does not trigger production of soluble factors reducing brain microvascular barrier functionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Storm,

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 Apr 28 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,

Gebreselassie Demeke

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. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: The authors set out “to investigate Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocyte co-culture with the monocyte cell line THP-1 does not trigger production of soluble factors reducing brain microvascular barrier function”. They co-cultured IT4var14 IE and the monocyte cell line THP-1 for 24 hours and determined whether generated soluble molecules affect barrier function of human brain microvascular endothelial cells. They found that the medium produced after co-culture did not affect endothelial barrier function and similarly no effect was measured after inducing oxidative stress. Anyway, the manuscript can be improved in the following ways:

ABSTRACT

It is better, if it includes the study period,data entry, data collection tool and data analysis methods

Itroduction

Line 35: Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum), then use the abbreviated one throughout the whole document.

Line 41: Nk cells (please use the long fom at the first time), then use the abrivated one throughout the whole document.

Line 49: DNA(please write in long form at the 1st time)

Please do the rest in the same way

METHODS

It is better, if it includes the study period, data collection tool and study area (Where??? culture done)

Please, put the materials and methods after the introduction section not after the discussion section

RESULTS: It is ok

DISCUSSION: It is ok

SUMMARY: The article is an original and it gives an important clue. But, It needs minor revision.

**********

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

**********

[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: Review Reports by Abebe Fenta.docx
Revision 1

We thank the reviewer for their comments and below is our point-by-point response to their comments and suggestions.

Abstract: It is better, if it includes the study period, data entry, data collection tool and data analysis methods.

Data collection and analysis is written in the materials and methods section, and we have added a sentence at the start of that section with the study period. We do not think it is necessary to add this information to abstract.

Introduction

Line 35: Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum), then use the abbreviated one throughout the whole document.

We have written the full name (Plasmodium falciparum) in the abstract and the first time in the introduction and then shortened to P. falciparum. It is not common to have P. falciparum in brackets after the full name, it’s not really an abbreviation.

Line 41: Nk cells (please use the long form at the first time), then use the abbreviated one throughout the whole document.

We now have written the full name (natural killer cells) in the 2 instances it appears in the manuscript.

Line 49: DNA (please write in long form at the 1st time).

We think this is not needed; it is a universal abbreviation.

Please do the rest in the same way

In addition to the abbreviations that were already defined in the manuscript, we added the full name, with the abbreviation in brackets, for the following: NLRP3, IL, PBMC, ICAM-1, LPS, SD and SEM. In a few instances we have removed the abbreviation and used the full name when it only appeared once or twice in the manuscript. These are: pathogen-associated molecular pattern, damage associated molecular patterns, glycosylphosphatidylinositol and interferon-gamma.

Methods

It is better, if it includes the study period, data collection tool and study area (Where??? culture done).

We added a sentence at the start of the materials and methods section that the experiments were conducted at LSTM from January 2019 till October 2021. Data collection is described in each of the methods sections.

Please, put the materials and methods after the introduction section not after the discussion section.

We have moved the materials and methods section after the introduction and subsequently adjusted the appearance of the full name/abbreviation in order of the text.

RESULTS: It is ok

DISCUSSION: It is ok

SUMMARY: The article is an original and it gives an important clue. But, it needs minor revision.

We are pleased that the reviewer finds our manuscript original and important and has no further requirements to revise our results and discussion sections.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Gebreselassie Demeke, Editor

Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocyte co-culture with the monocyte cell line THP-1 does not trigger production of soluble factors reducing brain microvascular barrier function

PONE-D-23-03391R1

Dear Dr. Storm,

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,

Gebreselassie Demeke

Academic Editor

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Gebreselassie Demeke, Editor

PONE-D-23-03391R1

Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocyte co-culture with the monocyte cell line THP-1 does not trigger production of soluble factors reducing brain microvascular barrier function

Dear Dr. Storm:

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. Gebreselassie Demeke

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 .