Long non-coding RNA SNHG17 may function as a competitive endogenous RNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression by sponging miR-34a-5p

Shengjuan Lu; Lin Zeng; Guojun Mo; Danqing Lei; Yuanhong Li; Guodi Ou; Hailian Wu; Jie Sun; Chao Rong; Sha He; Dani Zhong; Qing Ke; Qingmei Zhang; Xiaohong Tan; Hong Cen; Xiaoxun Xie; Chengcheng Liao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294729

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 19, 2023
21 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Lucia Magnelli, Editor PONE-D-23-18237Long non-coding RNA SNHG17 may function as a Competitive Endogenous RNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression by sponging miR-34a-5pPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liao, 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 Oct 05 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, Lucia Magnelli 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 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. 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: No ****** 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 Lu et al., have determined the role of LncRNA SNHG17 in the progression of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). They have shown that SNHG17 is a ceRNA and acts as a sponge for miR-34a-5p and regulates the EZH2 signaling pathway, and have identified SNHG17 as a potential therapeutic target for DLBCL. Minor Comments: The authors should proof read for grammatical and typographical errors. Line 45, Page 9: miR-34a-5p is typed twice. Please rephrase to convey the interaction between SNHG17 and miR-34a-5p; and miR-34a-5p and EZH2. Reviewer #2: This article is interesting and deserves to be published but needs some revisions. In general, English corrections must be made in the drafting of the English form and the organization of the text must be improved, making it more fluid and avoiding repetitions. Legends to figures needs more care. In the introduction section the aim of the paper must be better enucleated. More specific points are in the attached file. ****** 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: LUCIA MAGNELLI ******** [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: reviewer requests.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294729.r001
Revision 1
13 Oct 2023 Author Response 99 GSE10846 and GSE31312 datasets were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) 100 database. describe at least the main features of the chosen datasets: i.e. disease, treatment, number of subjects Response：Firstly, we are so sorry for not mentioning this part. We have added the main characteristic of the GSE10846 and GSE31312 datasets in the methodology section of this paper, including Pathological Subtype, ECOG, Stage, Gender, and Age(they are showed in Table 1). 123 serum. The cells were cultured in DMEM/ RPMI-1640 (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented 124 with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco) and 100 U/mL penicillin and streptomycin (Gibco) at 37 °C in 125 a 5% CO2 incubator. Which kind of cells? Response：We are very sorry that our wording was not rigorous enough. We thank you for helping us identify mistake, and we have made correction according to the Reviewer ' s comments . These cells include PBMC cells, B lymphocyte cell lines (Daudi, Ramos, DoHH2, Farage, and Raji), and 239T cells mentioned above. 168 detected using a chemiluminescence detection system (GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA). The 169 primary antibodies used in this study were as follows: anti-EZH2 (1:2000,Abcam Technology Inc.), 170 anti-PARPparp (1:1500,Abcam Technology Inc.), and anti-caspase-3 (1:1500,Abcam Technology Inc.) and Specify the name of ab clones. Response： Thank you for the your suggestion. We have added the names of ab clones of anti EZH2, anti PARP in the method section of our paper. 253 3.3 SNHG17 is highly expressed in DLBCL patients’ tumor cells and in B-lymphoma cell lines (or DLBCL cell lines, as you call them in the latest part of the paper) Response： Thank you for helping us to correct. We have made corrections based on the your comments. SNHG17 is highly expressed in DLBCL patients’ tissues and cell lines 541 Figure 2. SNHG17 is highly expressed in DLBCL patients’ tumor cells and in B-lymphoma cell lines. (A) Survival Response： We have made the corrections based on the reviewer's comments. 542 analyses of GSE10846 (n=70) DLBCL patients with high and low expression of SNHG17 in our cohort. Response： Thank you for pointing out and making corrections. We have fixed them. 545 patients with OS. (G) Expression of SHG17 in DLBCL patients’ tumor and normal tissues, tumor: diffuse 546 large B-cell lymphoma. Explain better they are from CGA Response：Thanks. As Reviewer suggested that the content of our statement is not complete enough. We have revised the legend. Also, we have described this in detail in the methods section. 261 constructed DoHH2 and Daudi cells with SNHG17 knocked down by stably transforming transfecting sh- -Fig 2 from I to J and its description are neither pertinent to point 3.3., nor relevant at all. At most you can enter them in supplementary data. The denomination sh-SNHG17 can be introduced elsewhere, such as in the next paragraph or in “cell culture and transfection” Response：We are so sorry for our incorrect writing and inappropriate data formatting. Thank you for pointing out and making revisions for us. We have revised the data layout based on the reviewer's suggestions, deleted the image from Fig 2 from I to J, and included them in the supplementary data. 274 of DoHH2 and Daudi cells (Fig. 3B). Western blotting showed SNHG17 knockdown increased parp 275 protein levels in DoHH2 and Daudi cells (Fig. 3C). In conclusion, SNHG17 knockdown inhibited 276 proliferation and promoted apoptosis of DLBCL cells. Response：Thank you for pointing out this problem. We have replaced SNHG17 knockdown with sh-SNHG17. 283 Through qPCR and western blot detection, the mRNA and protein levels of caspase-3 decreased and 284 parp mRNA increased in SNHG17-knockdown tumor tissues (Fig. 3H, I). Be careful: a decrease in caspase 3 level is not a pro-apoptotic marker. What you really show in picture, considering the molecular weight of 32 kDa, is a decrease in pro-caspase-3 level, which is really a pro-apoptotic marker. Pro-caspase-3 mRNA reduction, on the contrary, has a questionable meaning, but not in an apoptotic sense. Furthermore, PARP as an apoptotic marker must be analyzed at the protein level, where the value considered is the ratio between the caspase-cleaved fragment and the full-length form. To evaluate PARP as an apoptotic marker the wb analysis must be repeated considering both the full length and the cleaved form. Response：Thanks for your questions and explanation. We also found Figure 3C have similar problem.We already have used flow cytometry to detect apoptosis in sh-NC, sh-SNHG17, DOX, sh-SNHG17+dox DoHH2 and Daudi cells, as shown in Figure 3B. Therefore, we have removed Western blot in Figure 3C that was considered unnecessary and incorrect. However, in order to ensure the reliability of the experimental data, we have performed an independent set of experiments. We used the re-analysis the full length parp, including the cleaved form with Western blot. We have included the new experimental results in the supplementary data, as shown in Extended Data Figure S6. For Fig. 3H, I, The problem was fixed.We used flow cytometry to detect apoptosis rather than measure caspase-3. Fig 3. DOXO concentration should be indicated at least in the legend Response：The concentration of DOX has been indicated in the legend. 318 < 0.01), but no significant effect was observed in SNHG17-MUT cells (Fig. 5FI-II). qPCR results 319 showed that compared with PBMC, the expression of miR-34a-5p in DLBCL cells was significantly 320 downregulated (Fig. 5D, G). In addition, SNHG17 knockdown increased the expression of miR-34a- 321 5p in DoHH2 cells (Fig.5G). This result indicated that miR-34a-32a- 5p DoHH2 is negatively regulated by SNHG17 in this cell line. Response：We are very sorry that we did not match the data graph with the stated content one by one and made errors in the stated content. We have made corrections and double-checking. 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 Reply to Editor:Thank you for providing The PLOS ONE style templates. These two documents are very helpful for the revision and improvement of our paper. We have made modifications according to PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) Reply to Editor:Thank you for providing These professional scientific editing service.We have employed the Editage website (www.editage.com) to help us revise our paper,such as language usage, spelling, and grammar. 3. 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. Reply to Editor:Yes,we will check Funding Information. 4. 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. Reply to Editor:OK. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Reply to Editor:Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. As Reviewer suggested that we have removed the ethical statement written outside the methods section of our manuscript. 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. Reply to Editor: we will resubmit our revised manuscript with uncropped images. 7. 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 Reply to Editor:Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have reviewed our reference list one by one and have not withdrawn any papers. We ensure that they are complete and correct. Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ 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 Lu et al., have determined the role of LncRNA SNHG17 in the progression of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). They have shown that SNHG17 is a ceRNA and acts as a sponge for miR-34a-5p and regulates the EZH2 signaling pathway, and have identified SNHG17 as a potential therapeutic target for DLBCL. Minor Comments: The authors should proof read for grammatical and typographical errors. Line 45, Page 9: miR-34a-5p is typed twice. Please rephrase to convey the interaction between SNHG17 and miR-34a-5p; and miR-34a-5p and EZH2. Reply to Reviewer # 1:Thank you for pointing out this error for us.It was fixed. Reviewer #2: This article is interesting and deserves to be published but needs some revisions. In general, English corrections must be made in the drafting of the English form and the organization of the text must be improved, making it more fluid and avoiding repetitions. Legends to figures needs more care. In the introduction section the aim of the paper must be better enucleated. More specific points are in the attached file. Reply to Reviewer # 2:Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have carefully reviewed and made corrections to our manuscript, and have employed a professional scientific editing service(www.editage.com)recommended by the editor. We have made corrections in language usage and spelling according to the requirements of editors, commentators, and PLOS ONS. In addition, in the introduction section, we have added an explanation of the purpose of the paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294729.r002
27 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Lucia Magnelli, Editor PONE-D-23-18237R1Long non-coding RNA SNHG17 may function as a Competitive Endogenous RNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression by sponging miR-34a-5pPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liao, 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 Dec 11 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, Lucia Magnelli Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. Additional Editor Comments: The Ms by Liao et al. has been greatly improved according to the reviewers' suggestions'. Anyway, the Authors didn't satisfy a requisite of PLOS ONE, as they do not provide original uncropped wb figures. Uncropped images must include the entire blot image with molecular weight standards. Minor points. Funding section incomplete: include initials of the authors who received each award and the URL of each funder website. Regarding PARP, although the figure showing both the high molecular weight form and the fragment resulting from the cleavage was inserted in fig s6, results are not modified accordingly (line 301-302) [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0294729.r003
Revision 2
2 Nov 2023 Author Response Journal Requirements: 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. Reply to Editor:Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion.We have checked all the reference,there are not retracted papers in our reference list.We ensure that they are complete and correct. Additional Editor Comments: The Ms by Liao et al. has been greatly improved according to the reviewers' suggestions'. Anyway, the Authors didn't satisfy a requisite of PLOS ONE, as they do not provide original uncropped wb figures. Uncropped images must include the entire blot image with molecular weight standards. Minor points. Funding section incomplete: include initials of the authors who received each award and the URL of each funder website. Regarding PARP, although the figure showing both the high molecular weight form and the fragment resulting from the cleavage was inserted in fig s6, results are not modified accordingly (line 301-302) Reply to Editor:Thank you for pointing out this error for us.We uploaded the entire blot images with molecular weight standards(S1_raw_images.pdf).We have fixed Funding section and offered extra-file for funding.We have revised the results about PARP. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294729.r004
8 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Lucia Magnelli, Editor Long non-coding RNA SNHG17 may function as a Competitive Endogenous RNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression by sponging miR-34a-5p PONE-D-23-18237R2 Dear Dr. Liao, 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, Lucia Magnelli Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Dr Liao, thank you for complying with the requests. Given the new requests from scientific journals, I advise you, for the future, to acquire images of whole wb, with all molecular weights, before cutting the membranes Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294729.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Lucia Magnelli, Editor PONE-D-23-18237R2 Long non-coding RNA SNHG17 may function as a competitive endogenous RNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression by sponging miR-34a-5p Dear Dr. Liao: 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. Lucia Magnelli Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294729.r006

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 .