Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 13, 2023
Decision Letter - Daniel M. Johnson, Editor

PONE-D-23-33513Strain rate of stretch affects crossbridge detachment during relaxation of intact cardiac trabeculaePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chung,

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 30 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,

Daniel M. Johnson, PhD

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, and (2) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "Funding provided by the National Institutes of Health (R01HL149164 (BCWT), R44HL137603 (BMP), and, R01HL151738 (CSC)), the American Heart Association (23TPA1074093 (BCWT) and 18TPA34170169 (CSC)), and National Science Foundation (2312925 (BCWT) and 1660908 (BMP))." 

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.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. 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:

Both reviewers and myself found this work to be an interesting follow up from previous work from the lab. However, there were a number of issues that need to be resolved, including some mention of the additional limitation brought up by Reviewer 1, and also a number of typographical and presentation errors.

[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: 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: The study aims to explore cross bridge mechanisms responsible for the lusitropic effect of small, fast, stretches in the twitching cardiac muscle. The subject may be of interest for both basic and translational research.

I had reviewed a previous version of this manuscript that had been rejected several months ago by a different journal. I must recognize that the changes the Authors have made to the present version of their work recognize most of the limits of the previous version. The changes are in line with the criticisms the Authors had received. The new version is improved even though the Authors should recognize, as a limitation of their work, that the stress vs time data calculated as the difference between the reference and ramp-stretch twitch traces (see Fig 1 central panel) are meaningful only if they assume that the Calcium transient and the myofilament activation level are unaffected by the applied stretches, i.e. the Authors are assuming that the activation and its decay are the same in the reference twitch and in the ramp-stretch twitch. The study provides some advancement in the description of the Mechanical Control of Relaxation reported in a previous paper.

Minor points:

- the Authors should carefully check the text for typos and mistakes (e.g. Fig1 panels: the Authors should pay attention, there is no A B C panels in the Figure as indicated in the legend).

- ‘trabeculae’ is plural in Latin and ‘trabecula’ should be used for the singular case.

Reviewer #2: This is a manuscript which presents an elegant series of measurements on the effect of strain and strain rate on the relaxation of rat cardiac muscle fibers. The work is novel, technically challenging and well presented. It is a follow up to work published by the corresponding author in the J Mol Cell Cardiol in 2017 which established relaxation is dependent upon the rate of stretch just before the start of relaxation. In this study a potential confounding variable was tested (time to stretch and speed of stretch). - The conclusion is that all effects on the time of stretch were compatible with the view that cross bridge detachment and relaxation rate are accelerated by strain rate.

The work is sound and will be of interest to a specialist group of experimentalists.

The conclusions ae sound but not very remarkable.

Minor issues

Introduction Line 13: “relaxaiton”

Methods: subscripts are missing for all chemical formulae e.g. KHCO3 - KHCO3.

Just before Fig 1 legend: “was acquired by repeating the load-clamp was repeated”

Fig 1 is missing A, B, C labels.

Fig 1C It is not clear what t12 refers to. It would be useful to include t0, t1 & t2

There are two Fig 6’s, one is Fig 5

**********

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.

Revision 1

Review Comments to the Author

We thank the reviewers for their comments regarding the manuscript. In addition to Editor requested items (Funding, Data), we have worked to correct typos, minor errors, and inconsistent labeling, and we have the discussion to enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: The study aims to explore cross bridge mechanisms responsible for the lusitropic effect of small, fast, stretches in the twitching cardiac muscle. The subject may be of interest for both basic and translational research.

I had reviewed a previous version of this manuscript that had been rejected several months ago by a different journal. I must recognize that the changes the Authors have made to the present version of their work recognize most of the limits of the previous version. The changes are in line with the criticisms the Authors had received. The new version is improved even though the Authors should recognize, as a limitation of their work, that the stress vs time data calculated as the difference between the reference and ramp-stretch twitch traces (see Fig 1 central panel) are meaningful only if they assume that the Calcium transient and the myofilament activation level are unaffected by the applied stretches, i.e. the Authors are assuming that the activation and its decay are the same in the reference twitch and in the ramp-stretch twitch. The study provides some advancement in the description of the Mechanical Control of Relaxation reported in a previous paper.

RESPONSE

We thank the reviewer for their productive and positive comments. We have now expanded our discussion regarding the importance of time-varying calcium in a section called “Potential Impact of Time-varying Calcium Transients” at the end of the discussion. This section more carefully assesses how length changes might modify the calcium transient and modeling of the data. Specifically, multiple prior reports suggest that the impact within a twitch is minimal, whereas most changes would take minutes to develop and would not show up within the twitches that were analyzed in this study.

Minor points:

- the Authors should carefully check the text for typos and mistakes (e.g. Fig1 panels: the Authors should pay attention, there is no A B C panels in the Figure as indicated in the legend).

- ‘trabeculae’ is plural in Latin and ‘trabecula’ should be used for the singular case.

RESPONSE

We thank the reviewer for the careful review and comments. We have checked for errors and have carefully considered the singular or plural use of trabecula. Figure 1 has been corrected and labels in 1C added; we apologize for not catching this during the conversion of the figure for submission.

Reviewer #2: This is a manuscript which presents an elegant series of measurements on the effect of strain and strain rate on the relaxation of rat cardiac muscle fibers. The work is novel, technically challenging and well presented. It is a follow up to work published by the corresponding author in the J Mol Cell Cardiol in 2017 which established relaxation is dependent upon the rate of stretch just before the start of relaxation. In this study a potential confounding variable was tested (time to stretch and speed of stretch). - The conclusion is that all effects on the time of stretch were compatible with the view that cross bridge detachment and relaxation rate are accelerated by strain rate.

The work is sound and will be of interest to a specialist group of experimentalists.

The conclusions are sound but not very remarkable.

Minor issues

Introduction Line 13: “relaxaiton”

Methods: subscripts are missing for all chemical formulae e.g. KHCO3 - KHCO3.

Just before Fig 1 legend: “was acquired by repeating the load-clamp was repeated”

Fig 1 is missing A, B, C labels.

Fig 1C It is not clear what t12 refers to. It would be useful to include t0, t1 & t2

There are two Fig 6’s, one is Fig 5

RESPONSE

We thank the reviewer for the careful assessment. We have corrected the errors in the text and revised Figure 1 to include labels that were lost when converting to the format for submission.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: tanner et al_response.pdf
Decision Letter - Daniel M. Johnson, Editor

Strain rate of stretch affects crossbridge detachment during relaxation of intact cardiac trabeculae

PONE-D-23-33513R1

Dear Dr. Chung,

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,

Daniel M. Johnson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please check the proofs of the paper carefully, as there are still spelling errors which need to be eliminated. For example, ''Ryanode' should be 'Ryanodine' in the last part of the new section added.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Daniel M. Johnson, Editor

PONE-D-23-33513R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chung,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Daniel M. Johnson

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 .