Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 24, 2024
Decision Letter - Mohamed Abdelkarim, Editor

PONE-D-24-58885The antiangiogenic peptide VIAN-c4551 inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeabilityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Clapp,

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 Mar 17 2025 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,

Mohamed Abdelkarim

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:

“This work was supported by the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) (Grant IN202424) to CC. Alma Lorena Perez is a doctoral student from the ‘Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)’ and has received fellowship 788879 from Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencia y Tecnología (CONAHCYT). MZ, EA-C and JPR are postdoctoral fellows from CONAHCYT.”

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. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

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

4. 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.

5. 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: I Don't Know

**********

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: In this manuscript by Perez et al, the authors investigated the function of VIAN-c4551, a peptide analogue of vasoinhibin, in extravasation and lung metastasis of melanoma cells. They discovered that VIAN-c4551 inhibits B16-F10 cell-induced increase in vascular permeability and metastasis in vivo, as well as endothelial monolayer permeability in vitro. This is a well-designed study. However, there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed before this manuscript is in a publishable fashion. Specific comments are as follows:

1) In the Evans blue assay, the quantified data were shown as the dye concentration in the extracts (as described in the Methods). The unit is ul/ g lung x h. What the "ul" represents needs to be defined.

2) Is there a particular reason that female animals were used in this study?

3) Although TEER and transendothelial migration assays are established methods. It is advised to put in more details on for example, how to define BUVEC-E6E7 monolayers.

4) Do non-metastatic cancer cells (and their conditioned medium) affect TEER as there is no control for this part?

5) In the discussion, in Line 336, the authors stated that VIAN-c4551 inhibits the increase in vascular permeability induced by VEGF by blocking production of NO by eNOS. Is it shown in ref. 19? Please rephrase if it is not a published result.

6) The results show that VIAN-c4551 blocks metastatic cell-induced increase in vascular permeability, presumably through suppressing VEGF action without affecting VEGF expression. So how does this work? As this manuscript does not have data for mechanistic investigation, the authors should at least discuss potential molecular mechanisms such as putative receptors, signaling pathways, distinct features from vasoinhibin etc.

7) Minor: a number of typos: line 90 - SFB; line 158 - lung paraffin sections from lungs

Reviewer #2: The study titled “The antiangiogenic peptide VIAN-c4551 inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeability” demonstrates that VIAN-c4551 effectively inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeability and preventing melanoma cell extravasation. The findings are well-supported by both in vivo and in vitro experiments, and the study opens new avenues for the development of anti-metastatic therapies. However, further research is needed to validate these findings in human clinical trials and to explore the full range of mechanisms by which VIAN-c4551 exerts its anti-metastatic effects.

To further evaluate the study’s findings and address potential limitations, the following questions could be posed to the authors:

Dose Selection and Optimization:

- Why was a single dose of VIAN-c4551 (1 mg/kg) chosen for the experiments? Have you conducted dose-response studies to determine the optimal therapeutic dose?

- Have you explored the pharmacokinetics of VIAN-c4551, such as its half-life, bioavailability, or potential accumulation in tissues, which could influence its efficacy and safety?

Toxicity and Safety:

- Did you evaluate the potential toxicity of VIAN-c4551 in mice, particularly with long-term administration? Were there any signs of systemic toxicity, such as organ damage or immune suppression?

- Why did you not assess other serum markers (e.g., liver enzymes, kidney function) to evaluate the systemic impact of VIAN-c4551 treatment?

In Vitro Model Selection:

- Why did you choose bovine umbilical vein endothelial cells (BUVEC-E6E7) for the in vitro experiments? Did you consider using human endothelial cell lines to better reflect human physiology?

- Why did you focus on venous endothelial cells rather than arterial endothelial cells, which might be more relevant to the pulmonary vasculature and metastatic seeding?

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Plos one report.docx
Revision 1

Reviewer 1:

In this manuscript by Perez et al, the authors investigated the function of VIAN-c4551, a peptide analogue of vasoinhibin, in extravasation and lung metastasis of melanoma cells. They discovered that VIAN-c4551 inhibits B16-F10 cell-induced increase in vascular permeability and metastasis in vivo, as well as endothelial monolayer permeability in vitro. This is a well-designed study.

However, there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed before this manuscript is in a publishable fashion.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the kind comments and careful evaluation of our work.

Specific comments are as follows:

1) In the Evans blue assay, the quantified data were shown as the dye concentration in the extracts (as described in the Methods). The unit is ul/ g lung x h. What the "ul" represents needs to be defined.

Reply: µl indicates the volume of extravasated plasma in lungs. We have clarified this information by modifying the legend of the Y axis in Figures 1c and 2c to “µl plasma /g lung dry weight x h”.

2) Is there a particular reason that female animals were used in this study?

Reply: The preceding work showing the inhibition of melanoma tumor growth and neovascularization by vasoinhibin (Nguyen et al., 2007) and VIAN-c4551 (Robles et al., 2022) was performed in female adult C57/BL6 mice. Because the purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the anti-tumor action of VIAN-c4551 extended to the inhibition of melanoma cell extravasation, we continued using the female as working model. However, there are sex differences in melanoma tumor progression that may relate to a more robust immune system in females (Dakup et al., 2020). Addressing the anti-tumor action of VIAN-c4551 on both sexes warrants further research. The use of females has been explained in the revised text (lines 134-136).

3) Although TEER and transendothelial migration assays are established methods. It is advised to put in more details on for example, how to define BUVEC-E6E7 monolayers.

Reply: Descriptions were extended in the revised manuscript as follows:

Vascular permeability in vitro (lines 94-98):

BUVEC-E6E7 were seeded on 6.5 mm transwell clear polyester membrane inserts (Corning) with pore sizes of 0.4 μm at an initial density of 7.2 x 103 cells per well (30% confluency). After approximately 96 hours, transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) measured by the EVOM2 Epithelial Voltohmmeter (World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL) stabilized around 55 Ω.cm2 (reflecting a confluent monolayer) and treatments started.

Transendothelial migration assay (lines 124-128):

BUVEC-E6E7 (7.2 x 103) were seeded on 6.5 mm transwell membrane inserts with 8 μm pores coated with 0.38 mg/ml matrigel (354234, Corning). Upon confluency (55 Ω.cm2, revealed by the EVOM2 resistance tester) monolayers were treated for 1 hour with 100 nM VIAN-c4551 into the upper (luminal) chamber followed by the addition of fluorescent B16-F10-GFP cells (3.5 x 104 cells per well).

4) Do non-metastatic cancer cells (and their conditioned medium) affect TEER as there is no control for this part?

Reply: Attending the reviewer’s concern, we now show that the NIH/3T3 mouse cell line derived from embryonic fibroblasts devoid of metastatic activity (Bradley et al., 1986) does not affect TEER. Their conditioned media (3T3-CM) did not modify the TEER of bovine umbilical vein endothelial cell (BUVEC-E6E7) monolayers throughout a 6-hour incubation period (new Figure 4e). We have also addressed this issue by showing that conditioned media (CM) from the highly metastatic human breast cancer cell line (MDA-MB-231) (Phannasil et al., 2023) decreased the TEER of primary human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC) monolayers to a similar level than the CM from B16F10 melanoma cells, whereas the CM from low metastatic human breast cancer cells (MCF7) (Comşa et al., 2015; Phannasil et al., 2023) had no effect (new Figure 4f). Notably, VIAN-c4551 prevented the reduction of the TEER induced by metastatic melanoma and breast cancer cells in HUVEC. These findings support the functional link between increased vasopermeability (TEER values) and metastatic activity, validate the experimental use of BUVEC-E6E7, and extend the potential anti-metastatic influence of VIAN-c4551 to other cancer cell types. The new figures and information have been included in the revised manuscript (new Figures 4e and 4f; lines 83-85; 102, 104-109, 306-320; 332-338; 340; 439-444).

5) In the discussion, in Line 336, the authors stated that VIAN-c4551 inhibits the increase in vascular permeability induced by VEGF by blocking production of NO by eNOS. Is it shown in ref. 19? Please rephrase if it is not a published result.

Reply: The information has been rephrased to clearly indicate corresponding published data. The corrected paragraph (Lines 406-413) is as follows: “Vasoinhibin inhibits the increase in vascular permeability induced by VEGF by promoting the dephosphorylation/inactivation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) leading to the inhibition of the production of nitric oxide (García et al., 2008), an important signal that destabilizes the endothelial cell barrier through posttranslational modifications of adherent junction proteins (Thibeault et al., 2010). VIAN-c4551 also inhibits the VEGF-induced permeability of endothelial cell monolayers (Adán-Castro et al., 2024) and both VIAN-c4551 (Adán-Castro et al., 2024) and vasoinhibin (Arredondo Zamarripa et al., 2014; García et al., 2008) protect against disruption of the blood retinal barrier in experimental models of diabetic retinopathy. However, beneficial effects against the extravasation of premetastatic tumors remain to be determined.”

6) The results show that VIAN-c4551 blocks metastatic cell-induced increase in vascular permeability, presumably through suppressing VEGF action without affecting VEGF expression. So how does this work? As this manuscript does not have data for mechanistic investigation, the authors should at least discuss potential molecular mechanisms such as putative receptors, signaling pathways, distinct features from vasoinhibin etc.

Reply: In attention to the reviewer’s request, we have described potential molecular mechanisms mediating the actions of VIAN-c4551 vs. those of vasoinhibin (Lines 453-461). Description is as follows: “Vasoinhibin binds to a multi-protein complex that includes plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), urokinase, and the urokinase receptor (Bajou et al., 2014) in endothelial cell membranes which can contribute to the inhibition of multiple signaling pathways (Ras-Raf-MAPK, Ras-Tiam1-Rac1-Pak1, PI3K-Akt-eNOS, and PLCγ-eNOS) activated by several proangiogenic and vasopermeability factors (VEGF, basic fibroblast growth factor, bradykinin, and interleukin-1β) (Clapp et al., 2015). It is unclear how binding to the multi-protein complex inhibits endothelial cells angiogenic processes (Bajou et al., 2014) and the contribution of other vasoinhibin-binding proteins (Clapp & Weiner, 1992) and/or interacting molecules (Morohoshi et al., 2018) likely participate. Along this line, VIAN-c4551 does not bind to PAI-1 (Robles et al., 2023), yet it inhibits VEGF-induced vasopermeability (Adán-Castro et al., 2024; present results) and blood vessel growth (Robles et al., 2022).” The binding molecule/receptor transducing VIAN-c4551’s anti-vasopermeability and antiangiogenic properties are matter of ongoing investigation.

Minor: a number of typos: line 90 - SFB; line 158 - lung paraffin sections from lungs.

Reply: Corrected, thank you (lines 99 and 176-177).

Reviewer 2:

The study titled “The antiangiogenic peptide VIAN-c4551 inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeability” demonstrates that VIAN-c4551 effectively inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeability and preventing melanoma cell extravasation. The findings are well-supported by both in vivo and in vitro experiments, and the study opens new avenues for the development of anti-metastatic therapies. However, further research is needed to validate these findings in human clinical trials and to explore the full range of mechanisms by which VIAN-c4551 exerts its anti-metastatic effects.

To further evaluate the study’s findings and address potential limitations, the following questions could be posed to the authors:

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the kind comments and careful evaluation of our work.

Dose Selection and Optimization:

- Why was a single dose of VIAN-c4551 (1 mg/kg) chosen for the experiments? Have you conducted dose-response studies to determine the optimal therapeutic dose?

Reply: A previous study (Robles et al., 2022) showed that VIAN-c4551 (initially named CRIVi45-51) reduced the volume of subcutaneous melanoma tumors in a dose-related manner with 1 mg/kg being the more effective dose. This information has been added to the revised manuscript (Line 142-143).

- Have you explored the pharmacokinetics of VIAN-c4551, such as its half-life, bioavailability, or potential accumulation in tissues, which could influence its efficacy and safety?

- Did you evaluate the potential toxicity of VIAN-c4551 in mice, particularly with long-term administration? Were there any signs of systemic toxicity, such as organ damage or immune suppression?

- Why did you not assess other serum markers (e.g., liver enzymes, kidney function) to evaluate the systemic impact of VIAN-c4551 treatment

Reply: The purpose of our study was to investigate whether, by virtue of its anti-vasopermeability properties, VIAN-c4551 interfered with the extravasation of melanoma cells thereby blocking metastasis generation in mice. Exploring the pharmacokinetics and safety of VIAN-c4551 was beyond the scope of our work. However, in attention to the reviewer’s concern and considering that the findings of our work support the therapeutic potential of VIAN-c4551, we have performed an initial toxicity analysis in six female mice daily injected (i.v.) with vehicle (saline) or with a single dose of VIAN-c4551 (1 or 10 mg/kg) for 14 days. Changes in body weight, blood hematological parameters, serum biochemical parameters, and histopathology were analyzed at the end of the experiment. The two doses of VIAN-c4551 appeared safe as no detrimental effects were observed. These findings are included in the revised manuscript (Tables 1 and 2, Lines 37-39; 42; 199-208; 367-373; 482-484).

In Vitro Model Selection:

- Why did you choose bovine umbilical vein endothelial cells (BUVEC-E6E7) for the in vitro experiments? Did you consider using human endothelial cell lines to better reflect human physiology?

Reply: BUVEC-E6E7 is a well-characterized cell line that maintains the endothelial cell phenotype, including the response to specific regulators (such as VEGF), throughout extended replication times without signs of senescence and genetic instability (Cajero-Juárez et al., 2002). These advantages make BUVEC-E6E7 a good model with repeatable and comparable results. However, in attention to the reviewer’s consideration, we now provide data showing similar findings in primary cultures of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). Like in BUVEC-E6E7, the conditioned media from B16-F10 melanoma cells (B16-F10-CM) decreased the TEER of HUVEC monolayers, VIAN-c4551 prevented such reduction, and VIAN-c4551 alone had no effect (new Figure 4f). Furthermore, VIAN-c4551 prevented the decrease of TEER in HUVEC induced by the CM from a highly metastatic human breast cancer cell line (MDA-MB-231) (Phannasil et al., 2023). These results extend the findings in BUVEC-E6E7 to primary cultures of human endothelial cells (HUVEC) and the potential anti-metastatic influence of VIAN-c4551 to other cancer cell types. (new Figure 4f; lines 89-92; 104-109; 312-320; 334-338).

- Why did you focus on venous endothelial cells rather than arterial endothelial cells, which might be more relevant to the pulmonary vasculature and metastatic seeding?

Reply: Umbilical vein endothelial cells of human origin have been the most frequently used in vitro model in oncology or cardiovascular endothelial cell research (Majewska et al., 2021). Because donor heterogeneity and short-term cultures limit their use, we turned to the immortalized endothelial cell line BUVEC-E6E7. However, we agree with the reviewer that the heterogeneity of endothelial cells in different tissues plays a role in pathophysiology, although the preservation of such differences is challenged in vitro (Majewska et al., 2021). The current study attempted to circumvent in vitro limitations by the in vivo analysis. Nonetheless, the use of lung capillary endothelial cells warrants further research. Part of this information has been added to the revised manuscript (lines 310-315)

References

Adán-Castro, E., Zamora, M., Granados-Carrasco, D., Siqueiros-Márquez, L., García-Rodrigo, J. F., Bertsch, T., Triebel, J., Escalera, G. M. de la, Robles, J. P., & Clapp, C. (2024). Topical Ophthalmic Administration of VIAN-c4551 Antiangiogenic Peptide for Diabetic Macular Edema: Preclinical Efficacy and Ocular Pharmacokinetics (p. 2024.09.11.612517). bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.11.612517

Arredondo Zamarripa, D., Díaz-Lezama, N., Meléndez García, R., Chávez Balderas, J., Adán, N., Ledesma-Colunga, M. G., Arnold, E., Clapp, C., & Thebault, S. (2014). Vasoinhibins regulate the inner and outer blood-retinal barrier and limit retinal oxidative stress. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 8, 333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2014.00333

Bajou, K., Herkenne, S., Thijssen, V. L., D’Amico, S., Nguyen, N.-Q.-N., Bouché, A., Tabruyn, S., Srahna, M., Carabin, J.-Y., Nivelles, O., Paques, C., Cornelissen, I., Lion, M., Noel, A., Gils, A., Vinckier, S., Declerck, P. J., Griffioen, A. W., Dewerchin, M., … Struman, I. (2014). PAI-1 mediates the antiangiogenic and profibrinolytic effects of 16K prolactin. Nature Medicine, 20(7), 741–747. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3552

Bradley, M. O., Kraynak, A. R., Storer, R. D., & Gibbs, J. B. (1986). Experimental metastasis in nude mice of NIH 3T3 cells containing various ras genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 83(14), 5277–5281. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.14.5277

Cajero-Juárez, M., Avila, B., Ochoa, A., Garrido-Guerrero, E., Varela-Echavarría, A., Martínez de la Escalera, G., & Clapp, C. (2002). Immortalization of bovine umbilical vein endothelial cells: A model for the study of vascular endothelium. European Journal of Cell Biology, 81(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1078/0171-9335-00213

Clapp, C., Thebault, S., Macotela, Y., Moreno-Carranza, B., Triebel, J., & Martínez de la Escalera, G. (2015). Regulation of blood vessels by prolactin and vasoinhibins. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 846, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12114-7_4

Clapp, C., & Weiner, R. I. (1992). A specific, high affinity, saturable binding site for the 16-kilodalton fragment of prolactin on capillary endothelial cells. Endocrinology, 130(3), 1380–1386. https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.130.3.1311239

Comşa, Ş., Cîmpean, A. M., & Raica, M. (2015). The Story of MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: 40 years of Experience in Research. Anticancer Research, 35(6), 3147–3154.

Dakup, P. P., Porter, K. I., Little, A. A., Zhang, H., & Gaddameedhi, S. (2020). Sex differences in the association between tumor growth and T cell response in a melanoma mouse model. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII, 69(10), 2157–2162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-020-02643-3

García, C., Aranda, J., Arnold, E., Thébault, S., Macotela, Y., López-Casillas, F., Mendoza, V., Quiroz-Mercado, H., Hernández-Montiel, H. L., Lin, S.-H., Escalera, G. M. de la, & Clapp, C. (2008). Vasoinhibins prevent retinal vasopermeability associated with diabetic retinopathy in rats via protein phosphatase 2A–dependent eNOS inactivation. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118(6), 2291–2300. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI34508

Majewska, A., Wilkus, K., Brodaczewska, K., & Kieda, C. (2021). Endothelial Cells as Tools to Model Tissue Microenvironment in Hypoxia-Dependent Pathologies. International Journal of Molecular Scienc

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mohamed Abdelkarim, Editor

The antiangiogenic peptide VIAN-c4551 inhibits lung melanoma metastasis in mice by reducing pulmonary vascular permeability

PONE-D-24-58885R1

Dear Dr. Clapp,

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,

Mohamed Abdelkarim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohamed Abdelkarim, Editor

PONE-D-24-58885R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Clapp,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Mohamed Abdelkarim

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 .