Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 3, 2023
Decision Letter - Nileshkumar Dubey, Editor

PONE-D-23-19389Age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties in human skinPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Quan,

This is to inform you that your manuscript "Age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties in human skin" requires a minor revision. Your manuscript was reviewed by expert referees who have made a number of recommendations regarding the suitability of your paper for publication in the PLOS ONE. The reviewers’ comments are provided below for your assistance in revising the paper. 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 Sep 29 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,

Nileshkumar Dubey

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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the National Institute of Health to TQ.”

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.

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

“This work was supported by the National Institute of Health (R01ES014697 and R01ES014697- 03S1 to TQ), and the Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan.”

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 work was supported by the National Institute of Health to TQ.”

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

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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.

7. We note that Figures 2, 3 and 4 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

8. 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: Authors have drafted interesting piece of work which well aligned and well addressed.

Data of manuscript has been well articulated and hypothesis has well explained which fluently understandable by readers.

1. I recommend authors to go through entire manuscript once more for minor grammatical errors. I recommend to1

change term Organ culture to Organotypic culture, to show the skin biopies were cultured and maintained under in vitro conditions.

2. Authors are recommended toreplace old citation and cite recently published articles and to stick max 5 years old references only. ( 2018-2023).

Reviewer #2: Authors tried to clarify the age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties (surface roughness, stiffness, and hardness) using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and nanoindentation. They found that in the aged dermis, the surface of collagen fibrils was rougher, and fiber bundles were stiffer and harder, compared to young dermal collagen and that the age-related elevation of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) and advanced glycation end products (AGEs) might be responsible for rougher and stiffer/harder dermal collagen, respectively. These findings are interesting but there are some points to improve this paper.

Comment 1

Although some studies have already been carried out to clarify the age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties by using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and nanoindentation, authors did not describe these works in the introduction, Authors should describe them and emphasize the importance of this work.

Comment 2

In histology and morphometry (Page7), a scale of 1-9 for each parameter was used for the analysis. However, they did not describe the details of the difference of 1 to 9 scales. To understand the importance of Fig. 1b, they should show the differences of scales in thinness, space, and disorganization of dermal collagen fibers.

Comment 3

In Figs 3 and 4, in addition to AFM data, skin section data should be necessary to be shown as the effects of MMP-1 digestion and ribose crossing on the dermis. Moreover, for Fig. 4, the presence of a glycated collagen matrix should be shown by histological immunostaining.

Comment 4

In the paper, published in International Journal of Nanomedicine 2017:12 3303–3314, “Combining nano-physical and computational investigations to understand the nature of “aging” in dermal collagen”, an age-related decrease in the Young’s modulus of the transverse fibril (from 8.11 to 4.19 GPa in young to old volunteers, respectively, P,0.001) was reported. Authors should discuss the discrepancy.

Comment 5

In Figs 3c and 4c, the spelling of punch in “Young skin puch biopsy” should be corrected.

**********

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: Yes: HARISH KIRAN HANDRAL

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.

Revision 1

PONE-D-23-19389

TITLE: Age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties in human skin

We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewers to provide their thoughtful comments regarding our manuscript.

In response to their suggestions, we conducted additional experiments (depicted in Fig 3cs and Fig 4a) and revised the manuscript.

Changes made to the manuscript are marked in the text.

Point-by-point responses to reviewers’ comments are below.

Reviewer #1:

Authors have drafted interesting piece of work which well aligned and well addressed.

Data of manuscript has been well articulated and hypothesis has well explained which fluently understandable by readers.

1. I recommend authors to go through entire manuscript once more for minor grammatical errors. I recommend to 1 change term Organ culture to Organotypic culture, to show the skin biopies were cultured and maintained under in vitro conditions.

Response: “Organ” culture changed to “Organotypic culture”, also corrected any grammatical errors.

2. Authors are recommended to replace old citation and cite recently published articles and to stick max 5 years old references only. (2018-2023).

Response: The citations have been updated (please refer to the "References" section), yet certain references remained unaltered due to the lack of more up-to-date sources.

Reviewer #2:

Authors tried to clarify the age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties (surface roughness, stiffness, and hardness) using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and nanoindentation. They found that in the aged dermis, the surface of collagen fibrils was rougher, and fiber bundles were stiffer and harder, compared to young dermal collagen and that the age-related elevation of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) and advanced glycation end products (AGEs) might be responsible for rougher and stiffer/harder dermal collagen, respectively. These findings are interesting but there are some points to improve this paper.

Comment 1

Although some studies have already been carried out to clarify the age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties by using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and nanoindentation, authors did not describe these works in the introduction, Authors should describe them and emphasize the importance of this work.

Response: By revisiting the Introduction section, we incorporated and deliberated upon the content of these papers (refer to the "Introduction" and “References” sections for more information).

Comment 2

In histology and morphometry (Page7), a scale of 1-9 for each parameter was used for the analysis. However, they did not describe the details of the difference of 1 to 9 scales. To understand the importance of Fig. 1b, they should show the differences of scales in thinness, space, and disorganization of dermal collagen fibers.

Response: We apologize for any confusion related to the scales utilized in our histological analysis. We have made revisions to the histological analysis scales and have provided a corresponding reference. Detailed information regarding these scales is available in the "Materials and Methods" section within the "Histomorphometry Analysis" category. Additionally, you can find supplementary information in the figure 1 legend.

Comment 3

In Figs 3 and 4, in addition to AFM data, skin section data should be necessary to be shown as the effects of MMP-1 digestion and ribose crossing on the dermis. Moreover, for Fig. 4, the presence of a glycated collagen matrix should be shown by histological immunostaining.

Response: Following the suggestions, we carried out additional experiments to verify the processes of MMP-1 induced collagen degradation (as shown in Fig 3c) and ribose-induced collagen glycation (depicted in Fig 4a). We would like to inform you that our endeavor to perform AEGs immunostaining was unsuccessful due to the issues with tissue freshness (new fresh skin tissue yielded positive results). In light of this, we quantified collagen glycation through fluorescence measurements (λex 370 nm/λem 440 nm). Further details regarding this methodology can be found in the "Materials and Methods" section of our study.

Comment 4

In the paper, published in International Journal of Nanomedicine 2017:12 3303–3314, “Combining nano-physical and computational investigations to understand the nature of “aging” in dermal collagen”, an age-related decrease in the Young’s modulus of the transverse fibril (from 8.11 to 4.19 GPa in young to old volunteers, respectively, P,0.001) was reported. Authors should discuss the discrepancy.

Response: We referenced and discussed above paper (see “Discission” for details).

Comment 5

In Figs 3c and 4c, the spelling of punch in “Young skin puch biopsy” should be corrected.

Response: The typos are corrected.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PlosOne letter for Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Nileshkumar Dubey, Editor

Age-related changes in dermal collagen physical properties in human skin

PONE-D-23-19389R1

Dear Dr. Quan,

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,

Nileshkumar Dubey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

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 .