Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: A bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study

Menghao Teng; Jiachen Wang; Xiaochen Su; Ye Tian; Jiqing Wang; Yingang Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299192

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 12, 2023
6 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, Editor PONE-D-23-32641Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis and cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please attend to reviewers' comments. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2024 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, Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the Shaanxi Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (No. 2021-04-ZZ-003). Financial support had no impact on the outcomes of this study." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: Title I suggest removing the word “and” before cataract so as to be ‘Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study’ Introduction Page 4 line 47,48: “Currently, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, 48 with a prevalence rate of 1%”. The reference used is 2016 which is not recent at all. Materials and Methods The number of cases and controls in the east Asian population is significantly lower than European ancestry. Also, the years of selection are in 2 different decades. Results The results of sensitivity tests written in text are different from table 2. Examples: Page 11 line 201-205: “Notably, Cochran's Q test revealed the presence of heterogeneity in all associations 202 (all P<0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test suggested the existence of horizontal pleiotropy in all associations (all P values of MR-PRESSO global test<0.05)”. While in table 2, results of p-values are different. Page 13 line 230-234: “Notably, heterogeneity was not observed in these associations according to Cochran's 230 Q test (all P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P=0.021). The Egger 231 intercept also provided no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (all 232 P>0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test found no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in 233 most associations, except the connection of RA on glaucoma (P of MR-PRESSO global 234 test=0.030)” Where are these p-values in table 2? If results in table 2 are the finalized results and different from that of text plz clarify this Discussion I would like to thank the authors for these detailed and well-explained discussion. However, there are many confounding factors that could contribute to development of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients e.g., steroid intake in these patients which is known cause of cataract and glaucoma and daily doses can differ between patients. So, absence of assessment of drug history in these patients could have biased the results. Page 15 line 282: “However, it is essential to underscore that further validation of this result is imperative”. This sentence needs re-phrasing for more clarification. Page 16 line 289, 290: “Inflammatory factors such as TNF, IL and MMP can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [40, 41]” Which ILs are involved in development of glaucoma? In comparison to those responsible for RA. The full name of RGCS should be mentioned. Reviewer #2: I am pleased to review the manuscript. Here are some comments to the authors: 1. Abstract: It is recommended to show the data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes in this section. In addition, the authors are also suggested to add the number of SNPs in this part. 2. Introduction, lines 60-63: Need references for the content. 3. Introduction: In this part, the authors are recommended to show some previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies related to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, PMID: 37039764, 34015765, 35303571, and 36514134. 4. Materials and methods: A STROBE-MR checklist (PMID: 34702754) will be useful for readers to know the components of the current MR study. 5. IV selection: To ensure the SNPs were not related to potential covariates, sometimes we can select SNPs that were exclusively associated with the exposures. Such a method can be added a sensitivity analysis for the present study. 6. Statistical analysis: The authors should clearly state what types of IVW they used (fixed-effects or random-effects). 7. Discussion, lines 257-259: Need references for the content. ****** 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: Sally S Mohamed 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.0299192.r001
Revision 1
8 Jan 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Submission Number: PONE-D-23-32641 Title of Paper: Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis and cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study Dear Editors, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We addressed each of the points raised by the reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in Yellow. Response to Editor According to your suggestions, we have made the following changes in the revised manuscript: 1: We revised our manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2: We state what role the funders took in the study, “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”. 3: We provide the correct grant numbers for the awards we received for our study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Reviewer 1 Comments 1. Title I suggest removing the word “and” before cataract so as to be ‘Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study’ Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive suggestion regarding the title. We appreciate your attention to detail. Following your guidance, we have revised the title as recommended, and it now reads: “Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study” 2. Introduction Page 4 line 47,48: “Currently, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, 48 with a prevalence rate of 1%”. The reference used is 2016 which is not recent at all. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. I appreciate your attention to detail and the opportunity to clarify this aspect of our presentation. We have made a correction in the revised manuscript. Location: Introduction section, Line 53-54: “As of 2016, the global annual incidence rate of RA is 0.03%, with a prevalence rate of 1% [12].” Reference: 12. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, McInnes IB. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2016;388(10055):2023-38. 3. Materials and Methods The number of cases and controls in the east Asian population is significantly lower than European ancestry. Also, the years of selection are in 2 different decades Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We appreciate your insightful observation regarding the limitations in the number of cases and controls within the East Asian population, as well as the variations in the years of selection spanning two different decades. The scarcity of open databases for East Asian populations presented a challenge, leading us to utilize the GWAS summary data available in the IEU OPEN GWAS project. It is essential to acknowledge the constraints inherent in the East Asian databases, characterized by older data, limited sample size, and non-synchronicity in data collection across the decades. Moving forward, we aspire to conduct further analyses with newer and more extensive databases to strengthen the robustness of our study. 4. Results The results of sensitivity tests written in text are different from table 2. Examples: Page 11 line 201-205: “Notably, Cochran's Q test revealed the presence of heterogeneity in all associations 202 (all P<0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test suggested the existence of horizontal pleiotropy in all associations (all P values of MR-PRESSO global test<0.05)”. While in table 2, results of p-values are different. Page 13 line 230-234: “Notably, heterogeneity was not observed in these associations according to Cochran's 230 Q test (all P>0.05), except for the association of RA on glaucoma (P=0.021). The Egger 231 intercept also provided no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in all analysis results (all 232 P>0.05). The MR-PRESSO global test found no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy in 233 most associations, except the connection of RA on glaucoma (P of MR-PRESSO global 234 test=0.030)” Where are these p-values in table 2? If results in table 2 are the finalized results and different from that of text plz clarify this Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and careful review of our manuscript. I sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by the discrepancy between the results presented in the manuscript and Table 2 regarding the sensitivity tests. To address this concern, we have made the necessary clarification in the revised manuscript. The results presented in Table 2 now include both the results after removing outliers and before such removal, providing a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis. Location: Results section, Line 228-232: “ Table 2: The sensitivity analysis results in European and East Asian ancestry. Population Exposure Outcome Cochran's Q test Egger Intercept test MR-PRESSO Q-IVW P value Egger-intercept P value P value of global test P value of distortion test European ancestry RA Cataract# 67.961 0.068 -0.003 0.208 0.059 NA RA Cataract* 121.891 5.6510-07 -0.004 0.102 <0.001 0.533 RA Glaucoma# 57.251 0.254 -0.005 0.068 0.204 NA RA Glaucoma 91.247 0.002 -0.007 0.029 0.001 NA Cataract RA# 26.261 0.662 0.001 0.943 0.665 NA Cataract RA* 167.709 5.8810-20 0.011 0.591 <0.001 0.075 Glaucoma RA# 40.370 0.177 -0.001 0.964 0.209 NA Glaucoma RA 1429.142 1.7510-275 0.024 0.711 <0.001 <0.001 East Asian ancestry RA Cataract 34.647 0.216 0.003 0.462 0.175 NA RA Glaucoma# 34.708 0.179 -0.009 0.322 0.235 NA RA Glaucoma* 46.543 0.021 -0.009 0.346 0.030 0.593 Cataract RA* 9.614 0.211 -0.077 0.297 0.362 NA Glaucoma RA* 17.308 0.240 -0.017 0.712 0.266 NA RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IVW: inverse variance weighted; MR-PRESSO: mendelian randomization pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier. #: The sensitivity analysis after removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test. : The sensitivity analysis before removing the outliers identified by the MR-PRESSO test.” 5. Discussion I would like to thank the authors for these detailed and well-explained discussion. However, there are many confounding factors that could contribute to development of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients e.g., steroid intake in these patients which is known cause of cataract and glaucoma and daily doses can differ between patients. So, absence of assessment of drug history in these patients could have biased the results. Response: Thank you for raising a crucial concern regarding potential confounding factors, particularly steroid intake in RA patients and their impact on the development of cataract and glaucoma. We genuinely appreciate your insightful observation. Unfortunately, due to the limitations of available GWAS data, detailed clinical information, including medication history, was not accessible. Consequently, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses to specifically address the influence of steroid medication on the occurrence of cataract and glaucoma in RA patients. In our IVs selection process, we diligently excluded known confounding factors such as aging, smoking, and steroid use to the best extent possible. However, we acknowledge the limitation imposed by the lack of detailed medication history. Location: Discussion section, Line 326-331: “In addition, due to the inherent characteristics of the GWAS data, detailed clinical information on participants, including specifics on steroid use in RA patients, was not available. Consequently, we were unable to conduct further subgroup analyses to evaluate the potential impact of associated drug use on the occurrence of glaucoma and cataract.” Page 15 line 282: “However, it is essential to underscore that further validation of this result is imperative”. This sentence needs re-phrasing for more clarification. Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I appreciate your observation regarding the clarity of the sentence in question. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the sentence in the discussion section for improved clarity. Location: Discussion section, Line 297-298: “Therefore, it is essential to further validate this result in the future.” Page 16 line 289, 290: “Inflammatory factors such as TNF, IL and MMP can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [40, 41]” Which ILs are involved in development of glaucoma? In comparison to those responsible for RA. The full name of RGCS should be mentioned. Response: Thank you for providing valuable feedback. I sincerely appreciate your insightful comments regarding our manuscript. I apologize for the oversight in not explicitly mentioning which interleukins involved in the development of glaucoma. In line with your suggestion, we have made the necessary additions to the revised manuscript to address this omission. Location: Results section, Line 305-306: “Inflammatory factors, such as TNF, IL-1β, IL-18 and MMP, can promote the death of RGCs, which is a hallmark of glaucoma development [48, 49].” Reference: 48. Vohra R, Tsai JC, Kolko M. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(4):311-20. 49. Fontaine V, Mohand-Said S, Hanoteau N, Fuchs C, Pfizenmaier K, Eisel U. Neurodegenerative and neuroprotective effects of tumor Necrosis factor (TNF) in retinal ischemia: opposite roles of TNF receptor 1 and TNF receptor 2. J Neurosci. 2002;22(7):Rc216. Moreover, I would like to assure you that the full name of RGCs, namely retinal ganglion cells, has already been provided in the manuscript, specifically in the Introduction section, Line 41. Reviewer 2 Comments 1. Abstract: It is recommended to show the data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes in this section. In addition, the authors are also suggested to add the number of SNPs in this part. Response: Thank you sincerely for your invaluable comments. I greatly appreciate your guidance. In response to your suggestions, we have incorporated information on data sources and sample sizes of exposures and outcomes, along with the number of SNPs, into the Abstract section of the revised manuscript. Location: Abstract section, Line 9-15: “In the European population, genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics for cataract (372,386 individuals) and glaucoma (377,277 individuals) were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (R9), while RA summary data were derived from a meta-analysis of GWAS encompassing 97173 samples. In the East Asian population, summary data for cataract (212453 individuals), glaucoma (212453 individuals), and RA (22515 individuals) were sourced from the IEU Open GWAS project.” Line 22-23: “Following stringent screening, the number of selected instrumental variables ranged from 8 to 56.” 2. Introduction, lines 60-63: Need references for the content. Response: Thank you for the helpful comments. As your guidance, we add the references in this part. After being revised, the manuscript has become rigorous. Location: Introduction section, Line 66-69: “In MR analysis, exposure is regarded as an intermediate phenotype, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are selected as instrumental variables (IVs) to examine the causal associations between the exposure phenotype and disease outcome [17].” Reference: 17. Bowden J, Holmes MV. Meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization: A review. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):486-96. 3. Introduction: In this part, the authors are recommended to show some previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies related to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, PMID: 37039764, 34015765, 35303571, and 36514134. Response: Thank you sincerely for your invaluable comments. I truly appreciate your guidance. In accordance with your suggestion, we have incorporated relevant MR studies related to rheumatoid arthritis into the Introduction section. Please see the revised manuscript. Location: Introduction section, Line 73-76: “Widely adopted, MR has been instrumental in exploring causal associations between RA and diverse diseases, spanning cancer [21], inflammatory bowel disease [22], and osteoporosis [23, 24].” Reference: 21. Yuan S, Chen J, Ruan X, Vithayathil M, Kar S, Li X, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis and risk of site-specific cancers: Mendelian randomization study in European and East Asian populations. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):270. 22. Meisinger C, Freuer D. Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;55:151992. 23. Deng Y, Wong MCS. Association Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis in Japanese Populations: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75(8):1334-43. 24. Liu YQ, Liu Y, Chen ZY, Li H, Xiao T. Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis: a bi-directional Mendelian randomization study. Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13(10):14109-30. 4. Materials and methods: A STROBE-MR checklist (PMID: 34702754) will be useful for readers to know the components of the current MR study. Response: Thank you for providing constructive suggestions. I appreciate your guidance, and in response to your recommendation, we have included the STROBE-MR checklist in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. This addition aims to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the components of the current MR study. Location: Materials and methods section, Line 90-91: “This MR analysis meticulously adhered to the recommendations by the STROBE-MR [25].” Reference: 25. Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Davies NM, Swanson SA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2021;375:n2233. 5. IV selection: To ensure the SNPs were not related to potential covariates, sometimes we can select SNPs that were exclusively associated with the exposures. Such a method can be added a sensitivity analysis for the present study. Response: Thank you for bringing up this important consideration. We appreciate your attention to the IVs selection process in MR analysis. To ensure the robustness of our approach, we employed a meticulous method. Initially, we selected SNPs that demonstrated significance (P<5×10-8 or P<5×10-6) and independence (r2<0.001, with a window size of 10000 kb) in relation to the exposure. Subsequently, we systematically excluded weak IVs with F-statistics exceeding 10. To further enhance the reliability of our IVs, we utilized the PhenoScanner V2 website (www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk) to meticulously exclude SNPs associated with outcome and potential confounders. As a result, all the final SNPs included in our analysis are robustly associated with the exposure, while demonstrating no significant associations with outcome variables and confounding factors. 6. Statistical analysis: The authors should clearly state what types of IVW they used (fixed-effects or random-effects). Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. I appreciate your observation, and I apologize for the oversight in not explicitly specifying the type of IVW method utilized in our analysis. In this MR study, we employed the IVW (random-effects) method as the primary analysis. Additionally, to ensure a comprehensive assessment of causal associations between RA, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations, we complemented the primary analysis with MR‒Egger regression, weighted median, weighted mode, and simple mode methods. Location: Abstract section, Line 15-17: “Inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects) method served as the primary analysis, complemented by MR‒Egger regression, weighted median, weighted mode and simple mode methods.” Materials and methods section, Line 144-147: “There were five complementary methods employed in this study to estimate the causal associations between RA and cataract and glaucoma, including inverse-variance weighted (IVW, random-effects), weighted median, MR‒Egger regression, simple mode and weighted mode methods.” 7. Discussion, lines 257-259: Need references for the content. Response: Thank you for the helpful comments. As your guidance, we add the references in this section. Please see the revised manuscript. Location: Discussion section, Line 273-275: “RA is a significant contributor to joint pain and dysfunction, particularly among the elderly, with its incidence on the rise each year [35]. It is characterized by inflammatory changes in the synovial membrane of joints and erosive arthritis [36].” Reference: 35. Finckh A, Gilbert B, Hodkinson B, Bae SC, Thomas R, Deane KD, et al. Global epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(10):591-602. 36. Zhou S, Lu H, Xiong M. Identifying Immune Cell Infiltration and Effective Diagnostic Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis by Bioinformatics Analysis. Front Immunol. 2021;12:726747. Best wishes! Yingang Zhang Ph.D., M.D. Department of Orthopedics The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University E-Mail: zyingang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299192.r002
8 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, Editor Causal associations between rheumatoid arthritis, cataract and glaucoma in European and East Asian populations: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study PONE-D-23-32641R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, 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, Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing all reviewers' comments and concerns. 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 would like to thank the authors for their vigorous efforts and addressing all comments and presenting such comprehensive work Reviewer #2: The authors’ responses have answered all earlier comments. I don't have any further comments on the current version. ****** 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: Sally S Mohamed Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299192.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, Editor PONE-D-23-32641R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Professor Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299192.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 .