Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 20, 2022
Decision Letter - Erika Di Zazzo, Editor

PONE-D-22-34859Cytosolic EpCAM cooperates with H-Ras to regulate epithelial to mesenchymal transition through ZEB1PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sankpal,

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 06 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,

Erika Di Zazzo

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

  "This research was supported by a startup grant from Norton Thoracic Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center to NS. NO."

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.

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

   "This research was supported by a startup grant from Norton Thoracic Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center to NS. We thank Dr. T. Mohanakumar for reviewing and Billie Glasscock and Kristine Nally for assistance with editing and manuscript preparation."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not 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 research was supported by a startup grant from Norton Thoracic Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center to NS. NO."

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

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[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: No

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: A western blot analysis of EpCAM is suggested to implement figure 1

Indicate the time of experiments shown in figure 2.

Statistical analysis is lacking in all the panel figures.

Proliferation assays at different time points is suggested and a different representation (curve instead of histograms)

Add a western blot analysis of all EMT markers tested in all experiments.

To Assess the efficacy of inhibitors on several signalling pathways a western blot analysis should be included.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the role of cytosolic EpCAM in MCF-10A cell line modified to overexpress the H-Ras oncogene. The manuscript is well written and well structured, with several experiments aimed at defining the interconnected role of H-Ras overexpression and EpCAM in EMT. Figures and graphs are well defined.

There are only a few comments to further improve the work and make it even more complete.

Point 1: The role and possible collateral effects that targeted inhibition of EpCAM would have in epithelial tumors should be expanded.

Point 2: Did you analyze and define the type of cell death involved in the treatment with Paclitaxel and Quercetin? If yes, it would be interesting to add it in the results.

Point 3: In the materials and methods section please add more information about the inhibitors used to test the EpCAM-transformed cells.

Point 4: In the materials and methods section there are some subsections in which the number of cells seeded to perform the experiments has not been included. Please add them.

Point 5: Again, in the materials and methods section, expand the statistical analysis part.

**********

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: PLOSONE PONE-D-22-34859 revision.docx
Revision 1

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for reviewing our manuscript (Title: Cytosolic EpCAM cooperates with H-Ras to regulate epithelial to mesenchymal transition through ZEB1, PONE-D-22-34859).

Your comments on this revision were very valuable and helpful for improving the quality of this manuscript. Reviewer’s comments are laid out below in italicized font. Our responses are given in normal font.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

A western blot analysis of EpCAM is suggested to implement figure 1

Response: Thank you for the an important suggestion, we have added western blot data for EpCAM together with Ras and loading control Beta actin as a new Figure 1E.

Indicate the time of experiments shown in figure 2.

Response: Figure 2A, B, C and D experimental times are noted in Figure 2 legends and result section (Page 12).

Statistical analysis is lacking in all the panel figures.

Response: Thank you for raising important point. We have re-analyzed the data and statistical analysis is done on all figures, new figures are presented and analysis part mentioned in method section.

Proliferation assays at different time points is suggested and a different representation (curve instead of histograms)

Response: Thank you for very valid suggestion. Two proliferation assays at Figure 2A and Figure 6C are changed to different time points and plotted as curve.

Add a western blot analysis of all EMT markers tested in all experiments.

Response: Thank you for bringing this up, to support our Figure 4A and B, we have added western blot panel as Figure 4C we have added, Ras, EpCAM and related EMT markers (E-cadherin, Zeb1, FRA1, VImentin, Snil and CTNNB1) as suggested.

To assess the efficacy of inhibitors on several signaling pathways a western blot analysis should be included.

Response: Thank you for suggestion. We have ran western blot analysis as suggested for all the signaling pathway inhibitors used in the studies including ERK, JNK,P38,AKT, NF-kB, and Src. Phosphorylated/Activated and the total proteins are loaded and shown in new figure 6B.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the role of cytosolic EpCAM in MCF-10A cell line modified to overexpress the H-Ras oncogene. The manuscript is well written and well structured, with several experiments aimed at defining the interconnected role of H-Ras overexpression and EpCAM in EMT. Figures and graphs are well defined. There are only a few comments to further improve the work and make it even more complete.

Point 1: The role and possible collateral effects that targeted inhibition of EpCAM would have in epithelial tumors should be expanded.

Response: Thank you for suggesting important part. We are expanding the study in lung and other cancers where we have seen up to 5% mutations in EpCAM gene. Inhibition of EpCAM can be achieved by antibody, shRNA or CRISPR. The current study used normal cell line. The limitation in the current study is that, we already have transduced cells 2 times with Ras and EpCAM, additional viral transductions generates stress affecting cell growth and overall cell morphology.

Point 2: Did you analyze and define the type of cell death involved in the treatment with Paclitaxel and Quercetin? If yes, it would be interesting to add it in the results.

Response: We understand your valid point. Our initial goal was to seek and target the cell death. However, we are still working the major apoptosis mechanism in different mutation. Our goal of this study was to demonstrate that EpCAM mutations can be targeted successfully which we have presented. However, we have added a separate figure panel showing caspase-3 and PARP as the major contributor. The related text has been added on page 16 in result section.

Point 3: In the materials and methods section please add more information about the inhibitors used to test the EpCAM-transformed cells.

Response: Thank you noticing our missed point from our side. We have added all inhibitors and their doses used the studies in methods section, page and Figure 6 legends.

Point 4: In the materials and methods section there are some subsections in which the number of cells seeded to perform the experiments has not been included. Please add them.

Response: Thank you for pointing the missing part, in 6 different subsections. We have added number of cells in each section of methods.

Point 5: Again, in the materials and methods section, expand the statistical analysis part.

Response: As suggested we have expanded the statistical analysis part in method section and revised all the related figures.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Erika Di Zazzo, Editor

Cytosolic EpCAM cooperates with H-Ras to regulate epithelial to mesenchymal transition through ZEB1

PONE-D-22-34859R1

Dear Dr. Sankpal,

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,

Erika Di Zazzo

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 .