The protective effect of carbamazepine on acute lung injury induced by hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation in rats

Yaqiang Li; Hiroko Shimizu; Ryu Nakamura; Yifu Lu; Risa Sakamoto; Emiko Omori; Toru Takahashi; Hiroshi Morimatsu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309622

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 20, 2024
26 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Eric A. Shelden, Editor PONE-D-24-06929The protective effect of carbamazepine on acute lung injury induced by hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation in ratsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. Both reviewers note that additional information is needed regarding drug dose and administration conditions. Additionally, Reviewer 1 raises concerns about the applicability of the present study. As an academic editor of PLoS One, I am aware that this is not a requirement for publication in this journal, and I think the discussion of limitations of your study in the Discussion section is adequate, but could be enhanced. You may also wish to consider the feasibility of conducting additional studies to enhance the study's impact and value. Reviewer 2 also provides suggestions for improving the overall readability of the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 10 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, Eric A. Shelden, Ph.D. 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31483-1 In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) [grant numbers: JP16K10972(to TT), JP19K09381(to TT) and JP23K08360(to HS)]." 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. 6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 7. 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. 8. 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. [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: No 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: [1] The manuscript by Li et al., describes the protective effect of CBZ on ALI induced by HSR in rats. While the data show protective effect in all the parameters used in this study, the question remains whether CBZ can be protective if given after the initiation of HSR and at the time of resuscitation. the manuscript will be significantly strengthened by examining the effect of CBZ at the time of resuscitation. [2] In addition, details of the formulation of CBZ, concentration of DMSO used for the reconstitution etc are needed in the methods. It should also be clear in the methods that the drug was given prior to HS and resuscitation. Lung MPO measurement is a good indicator for neutrophil infiltration in the lungs. I recommend the authors use either MPO in the lung tissues or Gr-1 histologically to assess neutrophil infiltration. Reviewer #2: This seems like a well conducted and well written study. I have only minor comments: Line 60: most studies referenced in 12-17 are mouse studies, so it’s not clear that the word “patients” is appropriate here. Line 62: The paper cited used both zebrafish and mice. Zebrafish don’t have lungs, so I think this sentence needs to be revised. Line 63: replace “another research” with “another study”? Lines 88,89 – please provide the dosage of chloroquine used. Line 353: “level of P62 protein expression”? ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r001
Revision 1
13 Jul 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: [1] The manuscript by Li et al., describes the protective effect of CBZ on ALI induced by HSR in rats. While the data show protective effect in all the parameters used in this study, the question remains whether CBZ can be protective if given after the initiation of HSR and at the time of resuscitation. the manuscript will be significantly strengthened by examining the effect of CBZ at the time of resuscitation. Thank you for the insightful comments and the constructive critique of our manuscript detailing the effects of carbamazepine (CBZ) on acute lung injury (ALI) induced by hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation (HSR) in rats. Your suggestion to investigate whether CBZ could be protective if administered during the resuscitation phase raises an important consideration for our study. We acknowledge the potential significance of this timing on the therapeutic efficacy of CBZ and appreciate the depth it could add to our findings. In response to your comments, we have conducted additional experiments. We administered CBZ at the beginning of resuscitation and compared the pathological changes. We found that CBZ treatment at the time of resuscitation could also improve lung injury, although pretreatment with CBZ showed a better therapeutic effect. We hope this amendment strengthens the manuscript and paves the way for future research in this direction. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has undeniably enriched our study. [2] In addition, details of the formulation of CBZ, concentration of DMSO used for the reconstitution etc are needed in the methods. It should also be clear in the methods that the drug was given prior to HS and resuscitation. Thank you for the detailed review and insightful feedback on the methodology section of our manuscript. We acknowledge the need for clarity and detail regarding the formulation of carbamazepine (CBZ) and the concentration of DMSO used for reconstitution. In response to your comments, we have revised the methods section to include detailed information about the preparation of CBZ, specifying the concentration of DMSO used and the steps taken to ensure proper dissolution and stability of the solution. Additionally, we have made it explicitly clear in the methods section that CBZ was administered to the experimental subjects prior to the initiation of hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation (HS). This clarification ensures that the timing of drug administration is transparent and accurately reflects the experimental design intended to evaluate the protective effects of CBZ. We appreciate your guidance in enhancing the precision and reproducibility of our experimental procedures. We hope these modifications address your concerns and improve the methodological rigor of our study. Thank you once again for your valuable contributions to the refinement of our work. [3] Lung MPO measurement is a good indicator for neutrophil infiltration in the lungs. I recommend the authors use either MPO in the lung tissues or Gr-1 histologically to assess neutrophil infiltration. Thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Regarding your recommendation to employ MPO or Gr-1 histological assessments for evaluating neutrophil infiltration in lung tissues, we recognize the value these additional experiments would add to our findings. We checked MPO activity and compared it across different groups. Consistent with the neutrophil results, the CBZ treatment group showed a significant decrease in MPO activity compared to the HSR group. Reviewer #2: This seems like a well conducted and well written study. I have only minor comments: [1] Line 60: most studies referenced in 12-17 are mouse studies, so it’s not clear that the word “patients” is appropriate here. Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments regarding our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable to refining our study and strengthening the presentation of our findings. Regarding your comment on Line 60, you rightly pointed out that the term "patients" may not be appropriate since the referenced studies primarily involve mouse models. After careful consideration, we have deleted this term to avoid confusion and more accurately reflect the nature of the studies involved. [2] Line 62: The paper cited used both zebrafish and mice. Zebrafish don’t have lungs, so I think this sentence needs to be revised. Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your guidance and the opportunity to improve our paper. In response to your observation on Line 62, we have re-evaluated the section discussing the findings from the paper that utilized both zebrafish and mice. You correctly noted that zebrafish do not possess lungs, which is a critical anatomical distinction that impacts the interpretation of the results. We have revised this sentence to ensure its accuracy. [3] Line 63: replace “another research” with “another study”? Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments on our manuscript. Regarding your suggestion on Line 63, we have replaced "another research" with "another study" to ensure the terminology is consistent and precise within the academic context. We agree that this change improves the formal tone and readability of our manuscript. We appreciate your guidance on these terminological adjustments and have carefully implemented them. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and improve the overall quality of our paper. [4] Lines 88,89 – please provide the dosage of chloroquine used. Thank you for your meticulous review and attention to detail regarding our manuscript. In response to your comments on Lines 88 and 89, we have included the specific dosage of chloroquine used in our experiments. We have specified that the dosage administered was [10 mg/kg], which is consistent with the dosages commonly used in similar studies. This addition has been added to ensure the reproducibility of our results and to ensure full transparency regarding our experimental methods. We value your assistance in enhancing the accuracy and thoroughness of our study, and we hope that this addition meets the standards of the journal. [5] Line 353: “level of P62 protein expression”? Thank you for your careful attention to the details in our manuscript. In response to your comment on Line 353 concerning the "level of P62 protein expression," we have carefully reviewed our manuscript to ensure that the language accurately reflects the scientific measurements conducted. We appreciate your guidance in enhancing the scientific rigor of our paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r002
29 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Eric A. Shelden, Editor PONE-D-24-06929R1The protective effect of carbamazepine on acute lung injury induced by hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation in ratsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. Specifically, please ensure that your manuscript, and especially the text added during the most recent revision, has been carefully edited, and please address the concerns of reviewer one in your discussion section. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 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, Eric A. Shelden, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: (No Response) ******** 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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: It is important to indicate in the discussion that the post treatment did not improve the outcome as similar to pre-treatment and consider this finding as a limitation of the study. Reviewer #2: Overall, I think the manuscript has been improved, so I recommend accepting with minor revision. However, the text added to address the lack of experimental detail appears to have been copied from a protocol, and needs grammatical revision. Additionally, there are a number of other places where I think the manuscript would benefit from edits in order to improve clarity. Some examples are below. I note that there are numerous online editing services that might be employed to improve the readability of the manuscript. 57: no previous study has assessed 60: “and stimulate”? 61: and control of asthma 65: anti-inflammatory effects 86: until homogeneous 87: used within one month – otherwise, how was stability assessed? 89: the stock solution was diluted 89: The final solution was warmed 90: and used within one day to avoid degradation. 126: or at 24 h ****** 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r003
Revision 2
10 Aug 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the quality of our paper. Below, we have addressed each point raised by you. Reviewer #1: Comment: It is important to indicate in the discussion that the post treatment did not improve the outcome as similar to pre-treatment and consider this finding as a limitation of the study. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have revised the discussion section to clearly indicate that the post-treatment did not yield an improved outcome compared to the pre-treatment. We have also acknowledged this as a limitation of our study. The relevant changes can be found in lines 429–431. Reviewer #2: Comment: Overall, I think the manuscript has been improved, so I recommend accepting with minor revision. However, the text added to address the lack of experimental detail appears to have been copied from a protocol and needs grammatical revision. Additionally, there are a number of other places where I think the manuscript would benefit from edits in order to improve clarity. Some examples are below. I note that there are numerous online editing services that might be employed to improve the readability of the manuscript. Response: We appreciate your positive feedback and constructive suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the grammatical issues and improve clarity. Specifically, we have sought the assistance of an online editing service to further improve the readability and overall quality of the manuscript. Once again, we are grateful for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and that our manuscript is now suitable for publication. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards. Hiroko Shimizu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 20240807 .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r004
15 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Eric A. Shelden, Editor The protective effect of carbamazepine on acute lung injury induced by hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation in rats PONE-D-24-06929R2 Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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, Eric A. Shelden, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All concerns have been adequately addressed to my satisfaction. I have no further concerns at this time. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Eric A. Shelden, Editor PONE-D-24-06929R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. Eric A. Shelden Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309622.r006

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 .