Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 16, 2024
Decision Letter - Ruo Wang, Editor

PONE-D-24-19761Metastatic melanoma: An integrated analysis to identify critical regulators associated with prognosis, pathogenesis and targeted therapies

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alizadeh,

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.

1. The manuscript does not seem to have conducted any non-computational experiments (or computational experiments to analyze the cohort from the author's institution). At the same time, GSE15605 is a relatively small data sample (12+16), which makes the generalizability of the results may not be proven. The author should consider explaining this part or adding necessary data/experiments to provide necessary evidence for generalizability.

2. Regarding the statement "The items recognized in the current study can be used as potential biomarkers for diagnostic, predictive, and might helpful to develop targeted combined therapies" mentioned in the manuscript. The experimental results do not seem to properly support the evidence mentioned in the manuscript. From my professional perspective, the manuscript seems to use virtual docking + molecular dynamics methods for analysis. As for molecular dynamics data, the relevant data of RMSF and SASA seem to be missing. As for the MMPBSA method, Figure 9 is very confusing, because such data may be more convincing in the form of a table. In addition, molecular dynamics does not seem to give a "conclusion". In addition, for example, Dabrafenib and MITF. In 2014, the FDA has approved Dabrafenib for use in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutations. To a certain extent, this coincides with the manuscript. In this context, is the addition of MITF a poly pharmacological effect? ​​Or is it just a "computational coincidence"? More importantly, will it provide a proven potential predictor for more precise targeted therapy? Compared with a mechanical view of the compound, these issues should be discussed or anticipated by the author.

3. I personally suggest that the manuscript should add a graphic Abstract to attract readers. And many of the manuscript's expression systems face major revisions (for example, some pictures are marked as Fig, and some are Figure).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 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,

Marianne Clemence, Staff Editor, on behalf of,

Ruo Wang

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-021-00612-8

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.

4. Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections do not match:

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 in your Competing Interests section:  

[None]. 

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755].].  

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.

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755]]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

  [The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755].]. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All data will be presented upon request.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

9. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

10. We note that Figure(s) 3a  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:

. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 3a 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.

11. Please include a copy of Table 1, 2 and 3 which you refer to in your text on page 11 and 13.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript was highly praised by the peer reviewers. Congratulations : )

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 manuscript entitled "

Metastatic melanoma: An integrated analysis to identify critical regulators associated

with prognosis, pathogenesis and targeted therapies" is interesting ,althought the manuscript lacks experimental data , but bioinformatic and statistical analysis are robust.

Reviewer #2: This is nice piece of research work. They have done a great job to identify genes or factors responsible for metastatic melanoma cancer. This is a dangerous disease for the human being. So, this research has a great impact on human health concerning skin disease.

Comment 1: Its ok. It will be great to confirm the function of the identified genes on metastatic melanoma cancer in biological manner as it is so important for disease treatment.

Reviewer #3: Paper titled Metastatic melanoma: An integrated analysis to identify critical regulators associated with prognosis, pathogenesis and targeted therapies are well documented and can beAccept in the present form

**********

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: Shahram Teimourian

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Md Sohel Hasan, Professor, Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rajshahi University, Bangladesh

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Saumya Patel Gujarat University

**********

[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

Date: 09/29/2024

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-19761

Submission of revise

Dear Professor Editor/s,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript entitled “Metastatic melanoma: An integrated analysis to identify critical regulators associated with prognosis, pathogenesis and targeted therapies” for publication in the esteemed Journal Plos One. We appreciate the time and efforts that you and the reviewers dedicated to provide feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers and editors. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. Also, we uploaded a track change version including comments within the revised manuscript as well as a clean revised manuscript. Thank you in advance. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Effat Alizadeh

Associate Professor, Department of Medical Biotechnology,

Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Phone: +984133341933

Mobile: +989144059856

Alizadehe@tbzmed.ac.ir or e.alizadeh.2010@gmail.com

Response to respected reviewers/respected editors:

1. The manuscript does not seem to have conducted any non-computational experiments (or computational experiments to analyze the cohort from the author's institution). At the same time, GSE15605 is a relatively small data sample (12+16), which makes the generalizability of the results may not be proven. The author should consider explaining this part or adding necessary data/experiments to provide necessary evidence for generalizability.

Answer: We greatly appreciate the reviewer‘s comment, a data which can be matched with our aims was very limited and considering the impact of this work and similar studies in the metastatic melanoma, we performed this study with that available size of data. Through a comprehensive analysis of the HPA database, we identified a set of hub genes that are overexpressed in metastatic melanoma. By leveraging the GEPIA database, we further validated these findings across multiple datasets, providing robust evidence for their association with this cancer type. GEPIA is a newly developed interactive web server for analyzing the RNA sequencing expression data of 9,736 tumors and 8,587 normal samples from the TCGA and the GTEx projects, using a standard processing pipeline. GEPIA provides customizable functions such as tumor/normal differential expression analysis, profiling according to cancer types or pathological stages, patient survival analysis, similar gene detection, correlation analysis and dimensionality reduction analysis.(Tang, Z. et al. (2017). Also, we included several references (25-28) to support the work.

2. Regarding the statement "The items recognized in the current study can be used as potential biomarkers for diagnostic, predictive, and might helpful to develop targeted combined therapies" mentioned in the manuscript. The experimental results do not seem to properly support the evidence mentioned in the manuscript. From my professional perspective, the manuscript seems to use virtual docking + molecular dynamics methods for analysis. As for molecular dynamics data, the relevant data of RMSF and SASA seem to be missing. As for the MMPBSA method, Figure 9 is very confusing, because such data may be more convincing in the form of a table. In addition, molecular dynamics does not seem to give a "conclusion". In addition, for example, Dabrafenib and MITF. In 2014, the FDA has approved Dabrafenib for use in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutations. To a certain extent, this coincides with the manuscript. In this context, is the addition of MITF a poly pharmacological effect? Or is it just a "computational coincidence"? More importantly, will it provide a proven potential predictor for more precise targeted therapy? Compared with a mechanical view of the compound, these issues should be discussed or anticipated by the author.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer comment, the RMSF and SASA was performed and inserted in Methods, results (Figures: 9-12 and table 4) and in discussion (pages 9, 18, 19, and23).

Method

Alterations in the structures of the yielded complexes were monitored through the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), root mean square fluctuation (RMSF), and The Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA).

Result

The RMSF is primarily used to characterize and analyze local conformational changes within a protein structure. The Figure 9, the RMSF graphs of the STAT1-Guttiferone k, MITF-Dabrafenib, and ICAM1-Lifitegrast complexes are depicted in green, blue, and orange, respectively. Furthermore, the Fig.10 illustrates the SASA plot of all three complex structures within the simulation. The result shows that the MITF-Dabrafenib complex has higher sasa alteration than other two. The protein complexed with the selected ligands and their intermolecular interactions were analyzed using the Simulation Interactions Diagram (SID) during the 100 ns simulation run. These interactions (or "contacts") for the compounds with STAT1-Guttiferone k, MITF-Dabrafenib, and ICAM1-Lifitegrast complexes have been described based on hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, ionic interactions, and water bridges, as shown in Figure 11.

However, for the MMPBSA method, replace Figure 9 with Table 4 for improved clarity.

In addition, molecular dynamics does not seem to give a "conclusion"

We added the Md simulation finalize to conclusion part.

The MD simulation outcomes indicated that all 3 complexes maintain stable in their interactions to the drug candidates, as illustrated in Figure. 8. Also, the RMSD graph shows that the MITF-Dabrafenib complex has lower value than others that indicates its more stability during simulation. The RMSF is primarily used to characterize and analyze local conformational changes within a protein structure. The Figure 9, the RMSF graphs of the STAT1-Guttiferone k, MITF-Dabrafenib, and ICAM1-Lifitegrast complexes are depicted in green, blue, and orange, respectively. Furthermore, the Fig.10 illustrates the SASA plot of all three complex structures within the simulation. The result shows that the MITF-Dabrafenib complex has higher SASA alteration than other two. The protein-ligand complexes were further examined for their MM/PBSA binding energy, as depicted in Table 4. Notably, the energy profiles of all complexes consistently displayed low values. Moreover, MITF-Dabrafenib complex shows lower energy than two other complexes. In next step, the protein complexed with the selected ligands and their intermolecular interactions were analyzed using the Simulation Interactions Diagram (SID) during the 100 ns simulation run. These interactions (or "contacts") for the compounds with STAT1-Guttiferone k, MITF-Dabrafenib, and ICAM1-Lifitegrast complexes have been described based on hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, ionic interactions, and water bridges, as shown in Figure 11. The summary of MD simulation results show that all three drug protein complexes are stable during simulation and can be suggest for future work, however, among them MITF-Dabrafenib complex is more stable.

3. I personally suggest that the manuscript should add a graphic Abstract to attract readers. And many of the manuscript's expression systems face major revisions (for example, some pictures are marked as Fig, and some are Figure).

Answer: Thanks to respected reviewer, graphical abstract was added to revised version because the journal has no graphical abstract in its format/ style we put it as figure 1 (page 5) and following figures were renumbered. The word Fig was replaced with Figure in all manuscript of revised version.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-021-00612-8

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the reference was inserted in revised version page 11.line 10 Ref no. 25. Also, the whole manuscript double checked by ithenticate plagiarism checker and the probable overlapping were rewritten.

4. Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections do not match: 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.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the funding information was corrected in revised version (page 27).

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

[None].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, there is no conflict of interest and the statement recommended inserted in revised version (page 27).

6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755].].

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.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the recommended text was included in funding section (page 27).

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755]],We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for all support provided [69755].]. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the requested explanations were included in M&M section page 5 in revised version (page 6).

8. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All data will be presented upon request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the Data availability was changed to “ all data are available within the manuscript itself (page 27).

9. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, the ethics statement was inserted in M&M and removed from Acknowledgment section, (page 5 in revised version).

10. We note that Figure(s) 3a 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:

. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 3a 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.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment,

The dataset analyzed in the current study is available in the [GSE datasets and Human Protein Atlas] repository, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE15605] and [https://www.proteinatlas.org/ accession numbers, ENSG00000169248, ENSG00000090339, ENSG00000138795, ENSG00000187098 and ENSG00000115415].

All data generated during this study are included in this published article, please check Data availability. Because we used the images from Human protein atlas figure in figure3a in revised version figure 4a, the figures are freely available as stated in this link: https://www.proteinatlas.org/about/licence and https://v18.proteinatlas.org/about/licence. Therefore, we just cited the Human protein atlas in figure 4a legend (page 35).

11. Please include a copy of Table 1, 2 and 3 which you refer to in your text on page 11 and 13.

Answer: Thanks a lot for comment, all tables were included in revised version

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ruo Wang, Editor

Metastatic melanoma: An integrated analysis to identify critical regulators associated with prognosis, pathogenesis and targeted therapies

PONE-D-24-19761R1

Dear Dr. Alizadeh,

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,

Ruo Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ruo Wang, Editor

PONE-D-24-19761R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alizadeh,

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. Ruo Wang

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 .