Association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection: NHANES 2005–2016

Shuo Jin; Fangxuan Lin; Liuqing Yang; Qin Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306636

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 9, 2024
9 May 2024 Decision Letter - Kehinde S. Okunade, Editor PONE-D-24-04647Negative association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection: NHANES 2005–2016PLOS 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 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, Kehinde S. Okunade Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 in your Funding Statement: This research was financially supported by the Construction Program for National Famous Traditional Chinese Medicine Experts Inheritance Studio in 2022 (No.75 [2022] of Chinese Medicine People's Education Letter) and Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No.LQ23H270017). Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: No ****** 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: 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 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 topic of the study needs to be rephrased to show the work that has been done. The current topic is a rather the outcome of the research. The study is a good one with some incorrect information and grammatical mistakes that has been highlighted in the review attached. The author needs to recheck some information in the study to align with current evidence on HPV and cervical cancer. The objectives of this study were also not clearly stated. Reviewer #2: Title and Abstract: The title is concise and informative. The abstract adequately summarizes the study's background, methods, results, and conclusions. However, it lacks specific numerical results, which could be included to provide a clearer picture of the findings. Introduction: The introduction provides a good overview of HPV, its association with cervical cancer, and the importance of dietary factors, especially folate, in preventing HPV infection. However, it could benefit from more recent citations to strengthen the relevance of the study. The introduction lacks a clear statement of the study's objectives, which would help readers understand the research focus better. This section instead concludes by telling us the study finding instead of the study focus and aim. Methods: The methods section is detailed and well-organized, providing clear explanations of data sources, study population, variables, and statistical analyses. However, there are minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in the writing that could be addressed for clarity. Results: The results are presented clearly, with appropriate tables summarizing participant characteristics and statistical analyses. However, some tables lack descriptive terms or are formatted inconsistently, which could make them challenging to interpret. (e.g. it is not clear if the Age in most tables are mean or median, the statistical tests applied are not stated especially in table 2 ) In some table, units of variables were omitted. Discussion: The discussion provides a thorough analysis of the study's results in the context of existing literature. However, it could be strengthened by discussing potential limitations of the study, such as selection bias, measurement error, or confounding factors. Additionally, suggestions for future research directions could be included to guide further investigation in this area. Overall: The manuscript presents valuable research on the association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection, with clear methodology and results. However, there are areas for improvement in terms of clarity, organization, and interpretation of results, as well as addressing minor grammatical errors throughout the text. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reviewed manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306636.r001
Revision 1
10 Jun 2024 Author Response Point-to-point responses to the comments: Suggestions from editor: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 in your Funding Statement: This research was financially supported by the Construction Program for National Famous Traditional Chinese Medicine Experts Inheritance Studio in 2022 (No.75 [2022] of Chinese Medicine People's Education Letter) and Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No.LQ23H270017). Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response： Thank you for your suggestions. We have carefully checked the format of the manuscript. Besides, We have revised the Funding Statement. (Line 392-394, Page 19). Suggestions from reviewers: Reviewer #1: The topic of the study needs to be rephrased to show the work that has been done. The current topic is a rather the outcome of the research. The study is a good one with some incorrect information and grammatical mistakes that has been highlighted in the review attached. The author needs to recheck some information in the study to align with current evidence on HPV and cervical cancer. The objectives of this study were also not clearly stated. Response： We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Regarding our misleading title, we revised it as ’Association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection: NHANES 2005–2016’, hoping this correction avoids any misleading. (Line 1, Page 1). We research the background of the research and revise the HPV vaccination rate based on recent statistics.(Line 53-55, Page 3). In addition, we have revised the racial categorization into white, black and other races(Line 117, Page 6) and re-analyze the relevant data in Table 1-4. We modified the categorization of BMI as underweight, normal, and overweight(Line 122, Page 6) to correspond to the later phase. The expression “Condomless sex” is unclear, and we modify it to “Unprotected sex” according to the reviewers' comments in Table 1 and Table 2. We've revised the incorrect expression “categorization” as “categorical variable”. (Line 140, Page 7) We also described the current status of HPV prevention and supplemented it with the ‘90,70,90’ strategy of WHO. (Line 219-222, Page 14) Thanks again for your constructive feedback. Reviewer #2: Title and Abstract: The title is concise and informative. The abstract adequately summarizes the study's background, methods, results, and conclusions. However, it lacks specific numerical results, which could be included to provide a clearer picture of the findings. Introduction: The introduction provides a good overview of HPV, its association with cervical cancer, and the importance of dietary factors, especially folate, in preventing HPV infection. However, it could benefit from more recent citations to strengthen the relevance of the study. The introduction lacks a clear statement of the study's objectives, which would help readers understand the research focus better. This section instead concludes by telling us the study finding instead of the study focus and aim. Methods: The methods section is detailed and well-organized, providing clear explanations of data sources, study population, variables, and statistical analyses. However, there are minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in the writing that could be addressed for clarity. Results: The results are presented clearly, with appropriate tables summarizing participant characteristics and statistical analyses. However, some tables lack descriptive terms or are formatted inconsistently, which could make them challenging to interpret. (e.g. it is not clear if the Age in most tables are mean or median, the statistical tests applied are not stated especially in table 2 ) In some table, units of variables were omitted. Discussion: The discussion provides a thorough analysis of the study's results in the context of existing literature. However, it could be strengthened by discussing potential limitations of the study, such as selection bias, measurement error, or confounding factors. Additionally, suggestions for future research directions could be included to guide further investigation in this area. Overall: The manuscript presents valuable research on the association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection, with clear methodology and results. However, there are areas for improvement in terms of clarity, organization, and interpretation of results, as well as addressing minor grammatical errors throughout the text. Response： 1.For “Title and Abstract”, we examined the relationship between each mcg folate intake and the risk of HPV infection, such as for every one mcg increase in folate intake, the incidence of HPV infection is reduced by 1% (Line 32-33, Page 2). We hope that this part of the data will make our study more convincing. 2.For “Introduction”, we cited the more recent studies to describe the current global situation in the prevention and treatment of HPV (Line 54-55, Page 3). In addition, we have added the findings of our study in this section to help readers understand the focus and aim of this study. (Line 67-70, Page 4) 3.For “Methods”, we have tried our best to improve the language and grammar in the revised manuscript. (Line 113, Page 6; Line 137, Page 7) 4.For “Results”, thank you for your kind suggestions and we have modified the presentation of the data in Table1 and Table2. Besides, variables are presented as mean (SD) for continuous or n (%) for categorical in our research. In addition, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine continuous variables in Table 1, while the t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine the differences in Table 2. Besides, the chi-square test was applied for categorical variables. (Line 139-140, Page 7) 5.For “Discussion”, we added future research directions in this part. To further investigate the relationship between folate intake and HPV infection, cohort studies or randomized controlled trials are desperately needed. (Line 289-291, Page 17) Thanks again for your insightful comments and kind suggestions. ------------------------------------ We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306636.r002
21 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Kehinde S. Okunade, Editor Association between dietary folate intake and HPV infection: NHANES 2005–2016 PONE-D-24-04647R1 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 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, Kehinde S. Okunade Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept manuscript Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306636.r003

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 .