Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 25, 2024
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yong Wang, Editor

PONE-D-24-03381GTExome: Modeling commonly expressed missense mutations in the human genomePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reed,

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 May 08 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,

Yong Wang

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"JH was supported by the MARC U-STAR program (NIGMS T34 T34 GM096958)

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R15GM151726 (SMR)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please expand the acronym “NIH” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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: In this paper, the authors have developed a web-tool that provides homology or alphafold models on which various features of human missense mutants are presented for analyses. The purpose of this tool sounds fine and the product would be useful for other researchers, if it is continuously maintained and updated. To this reviewer’s understanding, this manuscript has been revised already based on the comments from two reviewers, and the comments were proper and acceptable. Thus, this reviewer is basically positive for publishing this paper. Only a few minor comments, which should be considered in preparing a final version of the manuscript, would be raised.

1) P8: “feasible missense mutations are possible” This reviewer could not understand what “feasible” mean. It should be explained in the text.

2) P11: “the COSMIS p-value for the 8,780 mutations of this study set that were in the COSMIS database was -0.0156 for p-values derived from AlphaFold structures and 0.02 for PDB derived structures.” Why can a p-value be negative? This sentence is difficult to follow. COSMIS is first spell-out (Contact Set Missense Tolerance) in p15.

3) P12: “determined by x-ray crystallography“ and P15: “Figure 4. Comparison of experimental x-ray structures (blue)…” The PDB codes should be provided.

4) P13: “Figure 2. Number of missense SNVs of the 9,660 examined found by tissue type from GTEx for the 9,660 SNVs examined across the GTEx tissues with 10 or more SNVs above ratio threshold.” Which part of this is the figure title and which part is the legend?

5) P16: “using software such as Dynamut.” What is Dynamut? It should be briefly explained.

6) P8:” AlphaFold was used to model missense mutations in three proteins where a specific mutation was known to disrupt the main chain packing of the protein” and P17: “In contrast to the three protein missense mutations reported previously…“ This reviewer assumed these sentences are referring to same entities. If so, it is very confusing because the former is protein and latter is mutation, and also because these sentences are separated in the context. The genes(proteins) and mutations should be explicitly mentioned.

**********

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: Tsuyoshi Shirai

**********

[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

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments - Revised Submission of Manuscript PONE-D-24-03381

Dear Dr. Yong Wang,

We are grateful for the opportunity to resubmit our manuscript, "GTExome: Modeling Commonly Expressed Missense Mutations in the Human Genome," to PLOS ONE. We appreciate the thorough review and constructive comments provided by the academic editor and the reviewer. We have carefully addressed all the points raised and believe these changes have significantly improved our manuscript.

As requested, we have uploaded three separate files: a rebuttal letter (this document), a marked-up copy of our manuscript highlighting the changes made (Revised Manuscript with Track Changes), and an unmarked version of the revised paper (Manuscript).

Below, we summarize how we addressed the major points in your request and the reviewer's comments:

1. PLOS ONE's Style and File Naming Requirements: We have revised our manuscript to meet the style requirements as outlined and have ensured all files are correctly named according to the provided templates.

2. Code Sharing Guidelines Compliance: In line with PLOS ONE's code sharing policy, we have made all author-generated code available without restrictions.

3. Financial Disclosure and Funder's Role: We have amended our financial disclosure to fully spell out "National Institutes of Health".

4. Reference to Figure 3 and Supporting Information Captions: We have ensured that Figure 3 is referred to appropriately within the text and have ensured all figures have captions in the Supporting Information files as instructed.

5. Reference List Accuracy: The reference list has been thoroughly reviewed and updated to ensure completeness and correctness.

Addressing Reviewer's Comments:

1. The word "feasible" modifying missense mutations has been removed as unnecessary and confusing.

2. We have corrected our COSMIS analysis and changed the text to reflect our updated evaluation to say, “… median COSMIS value for the 3493 mutations of this study set that were in the COSMIS database was 0.3882 for values derived from AlphaFold structures and 0.4819 for PDB derived structures.” This revised statement clarifies we are reporting COSMIS values not COSMIS p-values and that we re reporting median values. The conclusion remains unchanged.

3. PDB codes for structures determined by x-ray crystallography have been provided as requested in table S3.

4. A correction has been made to the location of the citation of Figure 2 within the paragraph.

5. The sentence mentioning Dynamut software has been trimmed and the reference to this software removed as it did not add to the clarity of the manuscript.

6. The confusion between proteins and mutations discussed on pages 8 and 17 has been clarified, with specific proteins explicitly mentioned.

We trust that these revisions address the concerns raised during the review process. We thank you again for the opportunity to improve our manuscript and for considering it for publication in PLOS ONE.

Kind regards,

Prof. Scott Reed

Department of Chemistry

University of Colorado Denver

1151 Arapahoe St.

Science Building 4131

Denver, CO 80217-3364

scott.reed@ucdenver.edu

(303) 315-7634

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yong Wang, Editor

GTExome: Modeling commonly expressed missense mutations in the human genome

PONE-D-24-03381R1

Dear Dr. Reed,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Yong Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yong Wang, Editor

PONE-D-24-03381R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reed,

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. Yong Wang

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 .