Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 22, 2024
Decision Letter - Naveed Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-24-30549Metformin Lotion Promotes Scarless Skin Tissue Formation through AMPK Activation, TGF-β1 Inhibition, and Reduced Myofibroblast NumbersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 Oct 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,

Naveed Ahmed, 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. 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Results are generally compelling and consistent. Specific comments are as follow:

1. Introduction

- Line 108. Mention the full term of TGF-β1 at its first mention

2. Material and method

- Line 140. Ten female Sprague Dawley (SD) rats, aged 3 months. Mention the average weight.

- Line 155. Mention the full term of IL-1β at its first mention

Reviewer #2: 19.08.2024

In this manuscript, the authors described "Metformin Lotion Promotes Scarless Skin Tissue Formation through AMPK Activation, TGF-β1 Inhibition, and Reduced Myofibroblast Numbers". The study will be beneficial for the literature. The report is an interesting study, but it needed some suggestions for publication.

Here are the concerns for the authors;

Generally;

1. The affiliations should be correctly written.

2. More information about metformin should be given in the introduction.

3. What is the purpose of choosing Metformin lotion? You should indicate in the article why you chose a lotion and not a cream, ointment or gel.

4. 6% ML was used according to what? Have any experiments been carried out to determine this concentration? If so, the results and explanations should be given.

5. It would be better if photographs could be added to be more descriptive about the wound study applied in rats.

6. “A 2 cm incised wound was carefully created on the skin over each Achilles tendon area using a scalpel, after which the wounds were sutured.”, no anesthesia was administered at this stage? It should be indicated how the anesthesia was administered and how much was given to rats.

7. G power analysis related to the animals used should be given.

8. Why was a healthy control group or a positive control group not included in the groups? Group 1 is a negative control in which a wound was created and given 0% ML. Therefore, would it not have been correct to compare it with a group without wound formation (healthy control) or with a lotion used routinely (positive control)?

9. “Achilles tendon area using a scalpel, after which the wounds were sutured.”, and what was done to prevent any contamination afterwards?

10. Fluorescent figures should be given sharper.

11. “Semi-quantification results indicate more than 46% of the cells around the wound area of the rat skin treated with 6% ML kept HMGB1 in the nuclei; however, less than 3.7% of the cells in the wound area of the rat skin treated with 0% ML showed HMGB1 in the nuclei”, figure legends contain bulleted sentences. These sentences should be included in the results section, not in the figure legends. Review the legends of each figure.

**********

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: 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: Reviewer comment PONE-D-24-30549.docx
Revision 1

Reviewer #1: Results are generally compelling and consistent. Specific comments are as follow:

1. Introduction

- Line 108. Mention the full term of TGF-β1 at its first mention

2. Material and method

- Line 140. Ten female Sprague Dawley (SD) rats, aged 3 months. Mention the average weight.

- Line 155. Mention the full term of IL-1β at its first mention

Response: Thank you. We have revised the relevant text in accordance to your suggestions.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors described "Metformin Lotion Promotes Scarless Skin Tissue Formation through AMPK Activation, TGF-β1 Inhibition, and Reduced Myofibroblast Numbers". The study will be beneficial for the literature. The report is an interesting study, but it needed some suggestions for publication. Here are the concerns for the authors.

1. The affiliations should be correctly written.

Response: We have done so.

2. More information about metformin should be given in the introduction.

Response: More information about metformin has been given now.

3. What is the purpose of choosing Metformin lotion? You should indicate in the article why you chose a lotion and not a cream, ointment or gel.

Response: Met lotion is a water-based product with a higher concentration of metformin, lower viscosity, and better skin penetration compared to creams, ointments, and gels, as metformin is a water-soluble compound.

4. 6% ML was used according to what? Have any experiments been carried out to determine this concentration? If so, the results and explanations should be given.

Response: To determine the appropriate dose of metformin lotion, we conducted a skin permeation test using the Franz Cell system. We found that the 6% Met-lotion effectively permeated both pig and human skin. Additionally, a pharmacokinetic study in mice demonstrated that the 6% Met-lotion resulted in more than threefold higher concentrations of metformin in serum and the Achilles tendon compared to oral administration of the same dose. Based on these findings, we selected the 6% Met-lotion for use in the rat skin wound healing study.

5. It would be better if photographs could be added to be more descriptive about the wound study applied in rats.

Response: The pictures have been added to describe the skin wound healing model (please see Fig. 1).

6. “A 2 cm incised wound was carefully created on the skin over each Achilles tendon area using a scalpel, after which the wounds were sutured”, no anesthesia was administered at this stage? It should be indicated how the anesthesia was administered and how much was given to rats.

Response: Thank you. This is an important question. We did perform anesthesia during our surgical procedures. See tracked changes in the revision.

7. G-power analysis related to the animals used should be given.

Response: Our study consists of two groups: the vehicle control group and the 6% ML group. We estimated the effect size of the Met treatment to be a minimum of 1.8 (Zhang et al., Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 1739).

The following parameters were used to calculate the required sample size using G-Power Software.

• Effect size = 1.8

• α = 0.05

• Power (1 - β) = 0.8

• Allocation ratio (N2/N1) = 1

The resulting sample size is 10, with 5 mice in each of the two groups.

8. Why was a healthy control group or a positive control group not included in the groups? Group 1 is a negative control in which a wound was created and given 0% ML. Therefore, would it not have been correct to compare it with a group without wound formation (healthy control) or with a lotion used routinely (positive control)?

Response: We used the intact skin adjacent to the wound area on the same rat as a healthy control. Additionally, we compared the healing results with the intact skin from healthy, untreated rats.

9. “Achilles tendon area using a scalpel, after which the wounds were sutured,” and what was done to prevent any contamination afterwards?

Response: The surgery was performed under sterile conditions. The surgical area was sprayed with 70% ethanol and swabbed with iodine prior to the procedure. The animals received carprofen at a dose of 5 mg/kg during surgery and twice daily for 4 days post-surgery. These procedures were implemented to prevent contamination.

10. Fluorescent figures should be given sharper.

Response: The original figures are of high quality, but the problem arises when the file is converted to PDF format, which reduces the image quality of all figures. You may download the original figure images we submitted and review them instead.

11. “Semi-quantification results indicate more than 46% of the cells around the wound area of the rat skin treated with 6% ML kept HMGB1 in the nuclei; however, less than 3.7% of the cells in the wound area of the rat skin treated with 0% ML showed HMGB1 in the nuclei”, figure legends contain bulleted sentences. These sentences should be included in the results section, not in the figure legends. Review the legends of each figure.

Response: We have revised all the legends accordingly. Thank you.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PLOsOne 9_03_24.docx
Decision Letter - Naveed Ahmed, Editor

Metformin Lotion Promotes Scarless Skin Tissue Formation through AMPK Activation, TGF-β1 Inhibition, and Reduced Myofibroblast Numbers

PONE-D-24-30549R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Naveed Ahmed, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Naveed Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-24-30549R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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. Naveed Ahmed

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 .