Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disorders

Susanne Lindquist; Yuhang Wang; Eva-Lotta Andersson; Shizuko Tsuji Grebe; Gerd-Marie Alenius; Solbritt Rantapää-Dahlqvist; Lennart Lundberg; Olle Hernell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289980

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 16, 2023
29 May 2023 Decision Letter - Masanori A. Murayama, Editor PONE-D-23-09819Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disordersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lindquist, 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 Jul 13 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, Masanori A. Murayama 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting your study. Reviewers have required revision at many points, especially in various figures. So I will decide "Major Revision" in this time. Please revise. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No 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: - figure 8 is lacking in the manuscript; - in Figure 6A and Figure 7A and B, the regression curve need to be drawn, with confidence interval - in Figure 6B/ and Figure 5 A to D, the group that are compared for statistical analyses need to be better evidenced - Figure 6C simply shows that DAS28 is reduced in treated patients...no need to put this part in the manuscrit. eventually is the suppl materials - Figure 5D; the absence of effect of the WAY-121 inhibitor needs to be explained; While the KO as an effect in animal models, can a KI model, depleting enzymatic activity, confirm this chemical approach ? - Figure 3A. The absence of effect on granulocytes must be explained - Figure 2A; confocal images must be shown to prove intracellular staining Reviewer #2: The Manuscript by Lindquist et al., "Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disorders" tried to shows the correlation between BSSL and arthritic diseases (RA and pSA). The study is preliminary to conclude the hypothesis and need further clarification and submission of missing data (figure 8). 1. Did author looked at the cytokines or chemokines after stimulations of CD14 cells with BSSL. 2. Is there any reason to use different dose and values in fig 4 and 5 for BSSL? Keep the values consistent and also these 2 figures can be merge into one. 3. Is there any value range for BSSL in healthy vs RA or pSA? 4. Fig 8 is missing from the manuscript. 5. Reference 15 was used bylarge in whole manuscript. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289980.r001
Revision 1
9 Jul 2023 Author Response Response to Editor (Journal requirements): - Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLoS ONE’s style requirements. Response: We have corrected some discrepancies, including file names. - We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Response: The data referred to has been included in Fig 5 (E-F) in this revised manuscript. Reviewers’ Comments to Author: Reviewer #1: - Figure 8 is lacking in the manuscript. Response: We apologize for not having noticed that Figure 8 was missing in the original submission. This figure is now included. - In Figure 6A and Figure 7A and B, the regression curves need to be drawn, with confidence interval. Response: The figures have been updated with nonparametric local regression curves (LOESS) and 95% confidence intervals. - In Figure 6B/ and Figure 5 A to D, the group that are compared for statistical analyses need to be better evidenced. Response: Connecting lines have been drawn to indicate which bars are compared. - Figure 6C simply shows that DAS28 is reduced in treated patients...no need to put this part in the manuscript. eventually is the suppl materials. Response: We agree, the figure 6C has been withdrawn. - Figure 5D; the absence of effect of the WAY-121 inhibitor needs to be explained; While the KO as an effect in animal models, can a KI model, depleting enzymatic activity, confirm this chemical approach? Response: The text in the discussion (first paragraph) has been slightly modified to try to clarify, and data showing the effect of WAY-121,898 on BSSLs enzymatic activity has been added in Fig 5 (E-F). The reviewer’s suggestion to develop a KI model, depleting enzymatic activity, is a great idea and certainly something that we will consider in our further research planning. - Figure 3A. The absence of effect on granulocytes must be explained. Response: Exogenous BSSL binds primarily to the surface of monocytes and only a weak binding was detected to granulocytes. Hence, although a minor (dose dependent) effect of mAb AS20 can be seen on the binding to granulocytes, we cannot expect an effect as clear as for monocytes. - Figure 2A; confocal images must be shown to prove intracellular staining. Response: Additional data with immunofluorescent staining’s and confocal images have been added to the manuscript (Fig 2). A new paragraph entitled “Immunofluorescence staining and confocal imaging” has been included in Material and Methods. Reviewer #2: The Manuscript by Lindquist et al., "Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disorders" tried to show the correlation between BSSL and arthritic diseases (RA and PsA). The study is preliminary to conclude the hypothesis and need further clarification and submission of missing data (figure 8). - Did author look at the cytokines or chemokines after stimulations of CD14 cells with BSSL. Response: This is certainly an interesting question that we currently address as part of a future manuscript. We ask for the reviewer´s understanding in this regard. - Is there any reason to use different dose and values in fig 4 and 5 for BSSL? Keep the values consistent and also these 2 figures can be merged into one. Response: In Fig 4 we use BSA as a control to show that the effect on cell migration is specific to BSSL, and not an unspecific effect of any unrelated protein at similar concentrations. In Fig 5 we investigate the capacity of different test items (antibodies and WAY-121,898) to interfere with BSSL induced cell migration. In these experiments the molar ratios between BSSL and test items are most relevant, and therefore we report concentrations in µM instead of µg/ml. A few changes have been made in the last paragraph on p 15 to clarify the relationship between protein concentration (µg/ml) and molarity, i.e., BSSL at 300 µg/ml = 4 µM. - Is there any value range for BSSL in healthy vs RA or PsA? Response: These data are shown in Fig 6 (RA) and Fig 8 (PsA and healthy). Fig 8 was unfortunately missing in the original submission but is now included. - Fig 8 is missing from the manuscript. Response: Again, we apologize for not having noticed that Figure 8 was missing in the original submission. This figure is now included. - Reference 15 was used by large in whole manuscript. Response: This point is well taken. However, to the best of our knowledge there are no other papers in the literature that describe the role of BSSL in animal models of inflammatory arthritis. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_230709.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289980.r002
31 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Masanori A. Murayama, Editor Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disorders PONE-D-23-09819R1 Dear Dr. Susanne Lindquist, 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, Masanori A. Murayama Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for submitting revised manuscript. All reviewers recommend the decision "Accept". Congratulations. 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 #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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: I'm not familiar with the tests that were used to analysze correlation data. othewise, all my comments were addressed. Reviewer #2: As the author responded to the queries raised previously. I have no further question and my recommendation for acceptance. ****** 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: Philippe Georgel Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289980.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Masanori A. Murayama, Editor PONE-D-23-09819R1 Effects of bile salt-stimulated lipase on blood cells and associations with disease activity in human inflammatory joint disorders Dear Dr. Lindquist: 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. Masanori A. Murayama Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289980.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 .