Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2024
Decision Letter - Palash Mandal, Editor

PONE-D-24-11899Microvesicles from Quiescent and TGF-β1 Stimulated Hepatic Stellate Cells: Divergent Impact on Hepatic Vascular InjuryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miao,

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 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:

  • 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,

Palash Mandal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"National Natural Science Foundation of China general project (NO. 82070637)."

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. We note that Figure Graphical_Abstract.tif in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure Graphical_Abstract.tif to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

For your guidance, the reviewers' comments are included below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Specific concerns expressed during peer review were:

[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: Partly

**********

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: Specific comments are as follow:

1. Abstract

Background

- Microvesicles: Mention the abbreviation MVs beside it at its first mention.

- (HSC-MVs, TGF-β1HSC-MVs). Correct the font of TGF-β1 in the whole manuscript.

- H2O2-induced HUVECs injury. Mention the full term of HUVECs

Results

- In CCl4-injured rats. Correct it into CCl4- induced rat hepatic injury model

2. Introduction

- Hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) transform into fibroblasts generating excessive fibrosis. Correct fibrosis into extracellular matrix (ECM)

- Microvesicles (MVs). Mention the abbreviation only

- APAP/H2O2-injured liver cells. Mention the full term of APAP at its first mention

3. Material and method

- CCl4 (50%, 1 ml/kg). Add reference to this model

- Another portion was rapidly frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C. For measurement of…… ??. Complete this sentence

4. Results

- The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Mention the abbreviation only

- Mention the full term of α-SMA

5. Discussion

- The discussion is well designed and data is well presented

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After a careful review, we have decided that your manuscript can be considered for publication after you address the major concerns listed below. These revisions will help clarify your conclusions and ensure your findings are presented accurately.

Clarity and Structure:

Introduction (Lines 35-40): Expand on the mechanistic insights linking HSC-MVs to hepatic vascular injury repair. Your current explanation is somewhat superficial. A deeper dive into the existing literature will strengthen the rationale behind your study.

Methods (Lines 60-65): The description of HUVEC injury induction lacks detail. Please specify the rationale for choosing the concentration range of H2O2. Furthermore, clarify if any pre-tests were done to establish these specific concentrations.

Statistical Analysis (Lines 72-76):

It's unclear whether appropriate statistical tests were used throughout your analysis. For instance, mention of post-hoc tests following ANOVA is missing. Please revise to include this information, ensuring that your statistical approach aligns with the data distribution and experimental design.

Results Section:

Data Presentation (Lines 80-85): The manuscript would benefit from a more structured presentation of results. Consider using subheadings to distinguish between results from different experimental setups (e.g., in vitro and in vivo results).

Figures and Tables (Line 90): Ensure that all figures are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Some figures mentioned in the text are not properly cited or discussed, which can confuse readers.

Discussion (Lines 95-100):

You need to discuss the limitations of your study more thoroughly, including potential biases in your experimental design and the generalizability of your findings to human disease.

References (Lines 105-110):

Some references appear to be outdated or irrelevant to your study's assertions. Update your literature review to include more recent studies that support or contradict your findings.

Ethical Considerations (Lines 115-120):

Your ethical disclosure is insufficient, particularly concerning animal welfare. Please provide more details about the care and handling of animals during the experiments to comply with PLOS ONE's ethical standards.

By addressing these issues comprehensively, you will enhance the robustness and readability of your manuscript. We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

**********

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: Hany M Fayed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Prasad Andhare

**********

[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

Dear Dr editor and reviewer:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our paper, we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. MS title: “Microvesicles from Quiescent and TGF-β1 Stimulated Hepatic Stellate Cells: Divergent Impact on Hepatic Vascular Injury”. No: PONE-D-24-11899. We have studied the reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for their comments on our manuscript.

1. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section,

please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Response: Thank you very much for each of your constructive comments, and we have seriously revised the paper according to your very valuable comments. Please refer to lines 35-40 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

2. Please state what role the funders took in the study.

Response: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and

unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files.

Response: We have submitted the original images of the western blotted proteins as requested. These image data can be published in public data repositories. Please refer to the uploaded attachment for details.

4. We note that Figure Graphical_Abstract.tif in your submission contain copyrighted

images.

Response: We commissioned Editage to create the graphical abstract, which has now been revised and finalized based on your feedback. The final draft, compliant with the CC BY 4.0 license, is attached for your review. Please refer to the uploaded attachment for details.

Reviewer #1

1.Abstract

Background

- Microvesicles: Mention the abbreviation MVs beside it at its first mention.

- (HSC-MVs, TGF-β1HSC-MVs). Correct the font of TGF-β1 in the whole manuscript.

- H2O2-induced HUVECs injury. Mention the full term of HUVECs

Results

- In CCl4-injured rats. Correct it into CCl4- induced rat hepatic injury model

Response: Thank you so much for such a careful review, and we have revised this question according to your constructive comments. Please refer to lines 21-46 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

2. Introduction

- Hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) transform into fibroblasts generating excessive fibrosis. Correct fibrosis into extracellular matrix (ECM)

- Microvesicles (MVs). Mention the abbreviation only

- APAP/H2O2-injured liver cells. Mention the full term of APAP at its first mention

Response: Thank you very much for each of your constructive comments, and we have seriously revised the paper according to your very valuable comments. Please refer to lines 57-89 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

3. Material and method

- CCl4 (50%, 1 ml/kg). Add reference to this model

- Another portion was rapidly frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C. For measurement of…… ??. Complete this sentence

Response:

① “CCl4 (50%, 1 ml/kg)” this model refer to reference” Khalil MR, El-

Demerdash RS, Elminshawy HH, Mehanna ET, Mesbah NM, Abo-Elmatty DM:

Therapeutic effect of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in a rat model of carbon

tetrachloride induced liver fibrosis. Biomed J 2021, 44(5):598-610.” Please refer to

lines 769-773, regerence 17 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for

details.

② Another portion was rapidly frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at

-80 °C for measurement of Western blot. Please refer to lines 235 in the file

“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

4. Results

- The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Mention the abbreviation only

- Mention the full term of α-SMA

Response:

① The full name of LDH is lactate dehydrogenase. Please refer to lines 334 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

② α-smooth muscle action(α-SMA),and we have seriously revised the paper according to your very valuable comments. Please refer to lines 513-514 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

Reviewer #2:

1.Introduction (Lines 35-40): Expand on the mechanistic insights linking HSC-MVs

to hepatic vascular injury repair. Your current explanation is somewhat superficial. A deeper dive into the existing literature will strengthen the rationale behind your study.

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments, and we have added the corresponding explanation according to your constructive comments. Please refer to lines 97-114 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

2. Methods (Lines 60-65): The description of HUVEC injury induction lacks detail. Please specify the rationale for choosing the concentration range of H2O2. Furthermore, clarify if any pre-tests were done to establish these specific concentrations.

Response: Many thanks for your constructive comments, and we have added the necessary instructions according to your suggestions. Prior to the formal experiment, we conducted a preliminary study. HUVECs (5×103 cells/100 µL) were seeded in a 96-well culture plate and incubated until they reached 80% confluence. Subsequently, the cells were treated with H2O2 at concentrations ranging from 0 to 100μM for 20 hours. The results showed that cell viability was inhibited as the H2O2 concentration increased, with the most significant inhibition observed at concentrations of 300 to 700μM. Additionally, we referenced the study by Liu S et al nice paper (reference 16), whose results were similar to ours, leading us to finalize this experimental protocol.

3. Statistical Analysis (Lines 72-76):

It's unclear whether appropriate statistical tests were used throughout your analysis. For instance, mention of post-hoc tests following ANOVA is missing. Please revise to include this information, ensuring that your statistical approach aligns with the data distribution and experimental design.

Response: Thank you so much for such a careful review, and we have revised this question according to your constructive comments. Please refer to lines 280-285 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

4. Results Section:

Data Presentation (Lines 80-85): The manuscript would benefit from a more structured presentation of results. Consider using subheadings to distinguish between results from different experimental setups (e.g., in vitro and in vivo results).

Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. However, after reviewing sample papers from PLOS ONE, we noticed that the results section does not use subheadings to distinguish between different experimental results. Therefore, we have chosen not to use subheadings to differentiate the experimental results

5.Figures and Tables (Line 90): Ensure that all figures are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Some figures mentioned in the text are not properly cited or discussed, which can confuse readers.

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions. We have made the revisions in the manuscript according to your feedback and marked the changes in red font.

6.Discussion (Lines 95-100):

You need to discuss the limitations of your study more thoroughly, including potential biases in your experimental design and the generalizability of your findings to human disease.

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have carefully revised the paper based on your very valuable comments. Please refer to lines 638-646 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

7.References (Lines 105-110):

Some references appear to be outdated or irrelevant to your study's assertions. Update your literature review to include more recent studies that support or contradict your findings.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your feedback and updated the references. Please refer to lines 684-815(references) in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

8.Ethical Considerations (Lines 115-120):

Your ethical disclosure is insufficient, particularly concerning animal welfare. Please provide more details about the care and handling of animals during the experiments to comply with PLOS ONE's ethical standards.

Response: Thank you very much for your meaningful suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your feedback, improving the details of animal care and handling during the experiment to comply with PLOS ONE's ethical standards. Please refer to lines 204-235 in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for details.

Finally, thanks again to the editors and reviewers for their excellent suggestions. We have revised these questions according to your suggestions, the paper has been greatly improved, and we have also revised other places and the paper has been marked red.

Decision Letter - Palash Mandal, Editor

Microvesicles from Quiescent and TGF-β1 Stimulated Hepatic Stellate Cells: Divergent Impact on Hepatic Vascular Injury

PONE-D-24-11899R1

Dear Dr. Huilai Miao,

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,

Palash Mandal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Palash Mandal, Editor

PONE-D-24-11899R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miao,

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

Prof. Palash Mandal

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 .