Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 28, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-24-21535 L -Arginine and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) transport across the mouse blood-brain and blood-CSF barriers: evidence of saturable transport at both interfaces and CNS to blood efflux. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Thomas, 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 Sep 14 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:
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, Emre Avci 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 2. In order to comply with PLOS ONE's guidelines for non-human primate experiments (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-non-human-primates), please provide additional details regarding housing conditions, feeding regimens, environmental enrichment, and all relevant steps taken to alleviate suffering (anesthesia, analgesia, details about humane endpoints, euthanasia, etc.). Also indicate how often animal care staff monitored the health and well-being of the animals and the criteria used to make such assessments. Lastly, specify the disposition of animals at the end of the study (e.g. euthanasia, returned to home colony, etc.). If animals were euthanized following the study, please provide the method of sacrifice. 3. 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 (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The introduction is well-written, easy to understand, and effectively conveys the necessary information. However, here are a few minor suggestions to further enhance its quality: - L65-70: Please cite necessary studies about this crucial topic. The experimental design is well-planned and well-written. The control experiments and normalization of data is clearly explained. I recommend the authors to explain these points shortly to increase clarity: - L127-147: Please provide references to support the advantages mentioned in the “in situ brain/choroid plexus perfusion” technique. - L163: How the CSF sample was taken is not clearly explained. - Could the authors explain why they chose to perform one-tailed student-t tests instead of two-tailed and two-tailed test for one analysis (L490)? What are the significant differences based on two-tailed test, are they the same or different from current differences? Two-tailed test might be more reliable in terms of significance validity. In Discussion: - L648-..: The authors mention that there might be a concentration gradient favouring flux of [3H]-arginine from the brain back into the plasma, however, the plasma concentrations of L-arginine is different in humans and mice. The adaptation of the results to humans could be different, how do the authors explain that [3H]-arginine sequestration to brain would be similar in humans in that case? - The changes of arginine concentrations might result in changes in ADMA concentrations endogenously in brain, rather than transport mechanisms, as they regulate one another’s metabolism. The opposite is also possible. What would be the authors’ comments about this? (Please see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.04.017) Reviewer #2: The author has done tremendous research on the CNS delivery of L-arginine and ADMA. Overall, the manuscript sounds good. Please, see the mentioned below comments- 1. Mechanism of ADMA Transport: While the study provides valuable data on ADMA and L-arginine distribution, it would be strengthened by delving deeper into the specific mechanisms of ADMA transport across the blood-brain barrier. Are there specific transporters involved? Is there evidence of active transport or passive diffusion? 2. Specificity of Arginine Supplementation: The study suggests arginine supplementation as a potential therapeutic strategy. However, it would be beneficial to explore the specificity of this approach. Does arginine supplementation primarily increase L-arginine levels or also affect ADMA levels? Could this approach lead to unintended consequences? 3. Clinical Relevance: The study highlights the importance of ADMA and L-arginine in vascular health. It would be valuable to discuss the clinical implications of the findings. How could these findings be translated into potential diagnostic or therapeutic strategies for patients with vascular diseases? 4. Comparison to Other Studies: The authors could strengthen their discussion by comparing their findings to existing literature on ADMA and L-arginine transport in the brain. Are there any discrepancies or areas of agreement with previous studies? 5. Limitations of the Study: The authors should acknowledge the limitations of their study, such as the use of animal models and the potential for extrapolation to human physiology. This would enhance the transparency and credibility of their research. 6. Future Directions: The study concludes with a call for further research. The authors could expand on this by outlining specific future directions for their research, such as investigating the role of specific transporters, exploring the effects of different arginine supplementation strategies, or conducting clinical trials to assess the therapeutic potential of their findings. 7. Statistical Analysis: The authors should provide more details about the statistical analysis used in their study. This would enhance the rigor and reproducibility of their findings. 8. Data Availability: The authors should clearly state the availability of their data, including the raw data and any supporting information. This would promote transparency and allow other researchers to replicate and build upon their findings. 9. Ethical Considerations: The authors should address any ethical considerations related to their study, particularly if they involved animal models. This would demonstrate their commitment to responsible research practices. 10. Clarity and Conciseness: The authors could improve the clarity and conciseness of their writing. This would make their findings more accessible to a wider audience. 11. Please improve the picture images of all, as the image is not in the higher pixel, and the image is getting blurred. ********** 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. [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 |
|
L -Arginine and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) transport across the mouse blood-brain and blood-CSF barriers: evidence of saturable transport at both interfaces and CNS to blood efflux. PONE-D-24-21535R1 Dear Dr. Thomas, 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, Emre Avci Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-21535R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Thomas, 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. Emre Avci 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 .