Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 20, 2023
Decision Letter - Yuzhen Xu, Editor

PONE-D-23-03945Negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK pathway may be a shared biological pathway between IS and epilepsyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gong,

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 May 25 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,

Yuzhen Xu

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 work was supported by Xi 'an Science and Technology Plan (21YXYJ0116), the Key Research And Development Project of Shaanxi Province (Grant No.2022ZDLSF04-01, and No.2019KW-071), The National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81971766, and Grant No. 81903268), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.2021M692577).”

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 your Competing Interests section: 

“The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

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.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. 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: N/A

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: i accept the manuscript titled "Negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK pathway may be a shared

biological pathway between IS and epilepsy " as the study concluded that the first comorbidity common between

epilepsy and ischemic stroke.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Longhui Fu et al. reported the combined RNA expression analysis of ischemia stroke and epilepsy by using published bulk and single cell sequencing datasets. They found that negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK signaling pathway may functions in a conserved and mechanistic way in the pathogenesis of these two diseases. Further DEG analysis revealed the hub genes, in addition to the potential drugs revealed by prediction of compounds binding. Findings from this study provide novel insights into the common pathogenic mechanisms and drugs underlying ischemia stroke and epilepsy. The expriments are well designed and performed in a high standard. I have some concerns regarding the methods, text format and data analysis.

1. Move the figure legends from the main text to somewhere indicated by the publish policy of Plos One.

2. Authors should consider to change the name of method 2.1 “microarray datasets”, since this part includes bulk and single cell data as well.

3. Detailed parameters used in the software should be disclosed in the method part for reproducibility. For example, in method 2.3, the specific commands used for Metascape and ClueGO, Cytoscape and GSEA should be fully listed. Similar requirements are applied to other packages.

4. The session “Data Availability Statement” should be presented somewhere before “Reference”. Authors may have to rearrange some sessions according to the regulation of Plos One.

5. For scRNA-seq analysis in Figure 4, authors should present the cell markers of each cluster annotated in the main figure, in the format of either dotplots or heatmap. This will make the analysis transparent and readable to the readers.

6. For scRNA-seq analysis in Figure 4, authors should explain the phenotypes that some cell clusters consist of subpopulations characterized by different sample origin (Sham vs Mcao), especially in the clusters of microglia and ¬endothelial cells. The segregation by conditions indicate that these subsets of cells are condition-specific, and may represent a different cell type/status. Authors should address these issues, and consider to reannotate the clusters accordingly. In addition, the resolution of UMAPs is too low to clearly identify cell labels. High resolution images are required all through the figures.

**********

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: Yes: Le Xu

**********

[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

Reviewer #1: i accept the manuscript titled "Negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK pathway may be a shared biological pathway between IS and epilepsy " as the study concluded that the first comorbidity common between epilepsy and ischemic stroke.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your recognition of our research.

Reviewer #2: 

1. Move the figure legends from the main text to somewhere indicated by the publish policy of Plos One.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. According to the “Submission Guidelines” of Plos One: Figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately. Therefore, the figure legends will still appear main text. But thanks for your reminding, we have checked the format of the article and found some formatting problems such as the reference format, and revised this.

2. Authors should consider to change the name of method 2.1 “microarray datasets”, since this part includes bulk and single cell data as well.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. It was a lack of thought, and we apologize for that. We have changed the name of method 2.1 “microarray datasets” to “Datasets acquisition”.Details see page 2, line 71.

3. Detailed parameters used in the software should be disclosed in the method part for reproducibility. For example, in method 2.3, the specific commands used for Metascape and ClueGO, Cytoscape and GSEA should be fully listed. Similar requirements are applied to other packages.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. Our description of the method part is really not detailed enough. We have revised this part according to your comments, focusing on the addition of specific implementation methods including detailed parameters. Details see page 3-4, line 91-116.

4. The session “Data Availability Statement” should be presented somewhere before “Reference”. Authors may have to rearrange some sessions according to the regulation of Plos One.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. This was indeed an oversight on our part, and we adjusted the organizational structure of the article. Details see page 2, line 71.

5. For scRNA-seq analysis in Figure 4, authors should present the cell markers of each cluster annotated in the main figure, in the format of either dotplots or heatmap. This will make the analysis transparent and readable to the readers.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a bubble chart to show the top 5 marker genes for all 9 cell types, and explained it in the “Results”. Details see page 5, line 145-169, and Fig 4C, D.

6. For scRNA-seq analysis in Figure 4, authors should explain the phenotypes that some cell clusters consist of subpopulations characterized by different sample origin (Sham vs Mcao), especially in the clusters of microglia and ¬endothelial cells. The segregation by conditions indicate that these subsets of cells are condition-specific, and may represent a different cell type/status. Authors should address these issues, and consider to reannotate the clusters accordingly. In addition, the resolution of UMAPs is too low to clearly identify cell labels. High resolution images are required all through the figures.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. As a unified annotation method is required for cells in the MCAO group and the Sham group, we did not use an isolated method to annotate cells in the two groups separately. But we also recognize that the lack of group-based discussion is unconvincing in this section. After thinking, we made some modifications and showed the expression of hub genes based on MCAO and Sham groups respectively, and explained it in the “Results”. We also have some discussion about the subtypes of endothelial cells, as we think they play an important role in both diseases. In addition, we have re-provided TIF files with higher resolution. Details see page 5, line 170-189; page 7-8, line 265-270; Fig 4D, E; Fig 5.

Other changes are marked in red.

Thank you for your comments that help us a lot.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yuzhen Xu, Editor

Negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK pathway may be a shared biological pathway between IS and epilepsy.

PONE-D-23-03945R1

Dear Dr. Gong,

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,

Yuzhen Xu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no further comments and suggest the next step towards publication.

**********

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 #2: No

**********

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments.docx
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yuzhen Xu, Editor

PONE-D-23-03945R1

Negative regulation of angiogenesis and the MAPK pathway may be a shared biological pathway between IS and epilepsy

Dear Dr. Gong:

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 Yuzhen Xu

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 .