Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 26, 2024
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

Decision Letter - Gerhard Wiche, Editor

PONE-D-24-37080Respiratory pathology in the mdx/utrn-/- mice: a murine model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ElMallah,

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. Your Manuscript has been evaluated by 2 experts in the field. One of them suggested a few minor revisions that I feel will improve the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 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,

Gerhard Wiche, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The project was supported by NIH NHLBI PROSPER 5T32HL160494-03 Grant (MHR), NIH NHLBI R01HL171282 (MKE), NIH R01AR069085 (CAG), USAMRMC MD140071 (CAG).”

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.

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

“The project was supported by NIH NHLBI PROSPER 5T32HL160494-03 Grant (MHR), NIH NHLBI R01HL171282 (MKE), NIH R01AR069085 (CAG), USAMRMC MD140071 (CAG).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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 project was supported by NIH NHLBI PROSPER 5T32HL160494-03 Grant (MHR), NIH NHLBI R01HL171282 (MKE), NIH R01AR069085 (CAG), USAMRMC MD140071 (CAG).”

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

4. 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.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: In their work, M. Hernandez-Rodriguez et al. performed a systematic analysis of the respiratory abilities of mdx/utrn-/- mice, an animal model closely recapitulating the pathology of human patients suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). Respiratory muscle weakness, ultimately leading to respiratory failure, is a serious and life-threatening aspect of this fatal X-linked neuromuscular disorder. Herein, the authors first evaluated life span and development of the pathology (weigth, kyphosis, grip strength), followed by measurements of respiratory function under normoxia (baseline) and after respiratory challenge with hypoxia and hypercapnia. Notably, respiratory muscle function and ventilation was significantly reduced in already in 6-weeks-old mdx/utrn-/- mice and was even more pronounced at end-stage. Finally, the work is complemented by ex vivo evaluation of the functional capacity of the diaphragm and histological analyses (H&E, Pico-Sirius red, immunostaining for dystrophin) of the major respiratory muscle, the diaphragm, as well as of tongue and tibialis anterior, and an evaluation of the neuromuscular junction. The experimental work is well-described and profoundly performed, the manuscript is well formulated. At some points, the authors should provide a more information on how and/or why they performed a certain experiment. Accordingly, there are several minor items that should be addressed:

1. Page 5, line 108: please define the exact age of mice at “end-stage” in the text.

2. Page 6, line 124: please provide a short explanation on why you choose these three muscles.

3. Page 6, lines 130-135: the numbering of Figures 6 and 7 is not correct; the Pico-Sirius red staining is discussed first (Figure 7 according to the figure legends), then the dystrophin immunostaining (Figure 6). Please re-arrange the figures according to the main text.

4. Page 6, lines 136-142: are the neuromuscular junctions in mdx/utrn-/- tongue and tibialis anterior fragmented as well? Why did the author just investigate the diaphragm here?

**********

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

**********

[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

We thank the reviewers for the positive comments and support of the manuscript. We also thank them for their suggestions and believe that these corrections have strengthened the quality of the manuscript. Please see the point-by-point responses to their comments below.

All page and line references are based on the “Revised manuscript with Track changes”.

Reviewer #1:

Minor:

1. Page 5, line 108: please define the exact age of mice at “end-stage” in the text.

We have added this to page 5, line 107, and have also defined this in the the methods section, page 12, line 269-270.

2. Page 6, line 124: please provide a short explanation on why you choose these three muscles.

We provided a short explanation about why we studied the three muscles, page 6 line 125-127.

3. Page 6, lines 130-135: the numbering of Figures 6 and 7 is not correct; the Pico-Sirius red staining is discussed first (Figure 7 according to the figure legends), then the dystrophin immunostaining (Figure 6). Please re-arrange the figures according to the main text.

We have rearranged the figures according to the main text.

4. Page 6, lines 136-142: are the neuromuscular junctions in mdx/utrn-/- tongue and tibialis anterior fragmented as well? Why did the author just investigate the diaphragm here?

For the purpose of this study, we wanted to focus on the respiratory pathology and since the diaphragm is the main inspiratory muscle, we performed ex vivo muscle contraction of the diaphragm and wanted to assess the neuromuscular junction of the diaphragm.

Decision Letter - Gerhard Wiche, Editor

Respiratory pathology in the mdx/utrn-/- mouse: a murine model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)

PONE-D-24-37080R1

Dear Dr. ElMallah,

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,

Gerhard Wiche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

In addressing point 4 of reviewer 1 the authors may want to change the chapter title to "Analysis of diaphragmatic neuromuscular junctions" and streamline the text by combining sentence 1 and 2 (lines141-143).

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Gerhard Wiche, Editor

PONE-D-24-37080R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ElMallah,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Gerhard Wiche

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 .