Inverse association of dietary consumption of n3 and n6 fatty acids with hyperuricemia among adults

Huakai Wang; Chao Zhang; Yuxin Sun; Sirui Sun; Zhe Wang; Honggang Xiang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317490

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 13, 2024
13 Aug 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r001
13 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Taeyun Kim, Editor Dear Dr. Xiang, 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 Dec 28 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. 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 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, Taeyun Kim 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.-->--> -->-->3. 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.-->--> -->-->4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. -->?> 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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well prepared and the topic fall into the scope of the Journal. The concern is as follows: How did the authors to calculate the dietary consumption of n3 and n6 fatty acid? Please provide the relevant information in detail. Reviewer #2: In this interesting study the authors showed that higher intake of n-3/n-6 fatty acids reduces hyperuricemia. In this study, it would have been more appropriate a=had the authors measured the activity of xanthine oxidase enzyme before and after n-3/n-6 fatty acids in a small number of healthy or hyperuricemia subjects to know thebe potential mechanisms of action. Is it possible that n-3/n-6 fatty acids inhibit xanthine oxidase enzyme? ****** 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: Yes: U N Das ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r002
Revision 1
30 Nov 2024 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review my manuscript. I am more than happy to address your questions and provide any additional information you may need. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well prepared and the topic fall into the scope of the Journal. The concern is as follows: How did the authors to calculate the dietary consumption of n3 and n6 fatty acid? Please provide the relevant information in detail. Response: In the NHANES database, the dietary intake of n3 and n6 fatty acids is typically assessed using two 24-hour dietary recalls. Here are the detailed steps: Data Collection: Participants are asked to recall all the foods and beverages they consumed in the past 24 hours. These recall data are collected on two different days to ensure representativeness and accuracy. Data Processing: The collected dietary data are entered into a standardized database. The nutrient content of each food and beverage, including n3 and n6 fatty acids, is calculated based on the USDA’s food composition database. Nutrient Calculation: Using standardized food codes and nutrient composition tables, the total intake of n3 and n6 fatty acids for each participant is calculated. These calculations take into account the type, quantity, and frequency of the foods consumed. Data Analysis: Through statistical analysis, researchers can evaluate the association between the intake of n3 and n6 fatty acids and health outcomes. For example, logistic regression models might be used to assess the relationship between these fatty acids’ intake and specific health events, such as strokes Reviewer #2: In this interesting study the authors showed that higher intake of n-3/n-6 fatty acids reduces hyperuricemia. In this study, it would have been more appropriate a=had the authors measured the activity of xanthine oxidase enzyme before and after n-3/n-6 fatty acids in a small number of healthy or hyperuricemia subjects to know thebe potential mechanisms of action. Is it possible that n-3/n-6 fatty acids inhibit xanthine oxidase enzyme? Response:Thank you for your suggestions! Our manuscript is based on the general information and clinical test data (such as complete blood count) available in the NHANES database. The measurement of xanthine oxidase activity in blood is not included in the NHANES database, making it difficult to implement your suggestion in our manuscript. Additionally, current research does not provide clear evidence that n-3 and n-6 fatty acids directly inhibit xanthine oxidase activity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r003
13 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Taeyun Kim, Editor Dear Dr. Xiang, 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 Jan 27 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. 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 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, Taeyun Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: THe authors claim that ther eis no data in the literature that they used about the action of PUFAs on xanthine oxidase activity. I am aware of this fact. This is the reason why I asked the authors to present preliminary evidence that PUFAs may have an action on xanthine oxidase enzyme activity. I request the authors once again to provide some evidence on this account. ****** 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: Yes: Undurti N Das ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r004
Revision 2
29 Dec 2024 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review my manuscript. I am more than happy to address your questions and provide any additional information you may need. Reviewer #2: THe authors claim that ther eis no data in the literature that they used about the action of PUFAs on xanthine oxidase activity. I am aware of this fact. This is the reason why I asked the authors to present preliminary evidence that PUFAs may have an action on xanthine oxidase enzyme activity. I request the authors once again to provide some evidence on this account. Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Your idea of providing evidence on how n-3 and n-6 diets might affect xanthine oxidase activity is excellent. However, your suggestion to collect data on changes in xanthine oxidase activity levels in patients following an n-3/n-6 diet is currently challenging for us. This is because our experimental data comes from the U.S. NHANES database, which lacks data on xanthine oxidase activity. Therefore, we cannot directly verify this based on the NHANES database. As a substitute, we conducted a literature search to see if there is any relevant evidence available. After reviewing relevant English-language scientific literature, including articles indexed in PubMed and Web of Science, there appears to be no well-established, peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that n-3 (omega-3) or n-6 (omega-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids directly inhibit xanthine oxidase activity in a manner comparable to known inhibitors such as allopurinol or febuxostat. Most research on n-3 and n-6 fatty acids focuses on their roles in inflammation, cardiovascular health, oxidative stress modulation, and metabolic pathways rather than direct enzymatic inhibition of xanthine oxidase. Although some studies have explored the broader antioxidant properties and the indirect effects of these fatty acids on cellular redox states, they do not provide clear evidence of a direct inhibitory interaction with xanthine oxidase. For instance, reviews and primary research articles discussing dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids often highlight their impact on signaling pathways, membrane fluidity, and the modulation of inflammatory mediators (e.g., eicosanoids) rather than direct enzyme inhibition. A keyword-based search (e.g., "omega-3 fatty acids xanthine oxidase inhibition," "omega-6 fatty acids xanthine oxidase") yields no significant, widely cited studies conclusively showing direct inhibition. Publications primarily focus on the known inhibitors of xanthine oxidase or on the physiological and biochemical implications of altered purine metabolism, rather than attributing a direct inhibitory role to n-3 or n-6 fatty acids. In summary, based on the current available English-language academic literature, there is no strong or direct experimental evidence supporting the notion that n-3 or n-6 fatty acids function as significant inhibitors of xanthine oxidase. We believe your suggestion is excellent. Although it is somewhat challenging for us to implement at the moment, we are enthusiastic about incorporating the investigation of the effects of n-3 and n-6 diets on xanthine oxidase activity into our future research plans as a prospective clinical trial. Thank you again for your response and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r005
30 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Taeyun Kim, Editor Inverse Association of Dietary Consumption of n3 and n6 Fatty Acids with Hyperuricemia among Adults PONE-D-24-32860R2 Dear Dr. Xiang, 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, Taeyun Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Taeyun Kim, Editor PONE-D-24-32860R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xiang, 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. Taeyun Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317490.r007

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 .