Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 30, 2024
Decision Letter - Sujeong Jang, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432

Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicity

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Nie,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

This manuscript focused the PTGDs in vestibulotoxicity-induced vestibular hair cell. 

We have deeply review your manuscript and decided to major revision.

Thank you.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 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,

Sujeong Jang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82000982, 82192865, 81970875). Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology (A2022078)."

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.

6. 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.

7. 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. 

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 authors of this article hope to study the mechanism of aminoglycoside ototoxicity, which has certain research value, but there are still the following questions:

1. There are many types of aminoglycosides. Why choose neomycin for research? Should more drugs be added for research?

2. There are many differentially expressed genes screened in the neomycin injury in vitro model. Why choose Ptgds as the research gene?

3. Ptgds is a downregulated gene screened in the neomycin injury in vitro model. Why do we need to knock out and silence it in subsequent experiments?

4. In addition to gene knockout, should we increase the study of overexpression?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Chen Chen and colleagues, entitled " Ptgds downregulation protect vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicity", is a study investigating the role of the Ptgds in the organ of vestibular hair cell protection.

This study demonstrated the significant upregulation of Ptgds in utricle explants and HEI-OC1 cells in response to neomycin-induced injury. And the knockdown of Ptgds by using siRNA effectively protected and attenuated neomycin-induced vestibular hair cells loss. In vitro experiment confirmed that Ptgds silencing was sufficient to mitigate neomycin-induced ROS production and apoptotic death in hair cells through the inhibition of inflammatory related genes, such as COX2, IL6 and iNOS. The logic of this article is clear, the evidence chain supporting the conclusion is sufficient, and it is innovative.

There are some issues and small comments as follows:

• In the paragraph 2 of Introduction section: “While prior work conducted by our team has revealed the overexpression of Ptgds in vestibular inner ear hair cells in response to neomycin injury…….”. Relevant references should be added here. Otherwise, this manner of expression would not be very appropriate. The same issue exists in the second paragraph of the discussion section.

• In the section of 2.5: What’s ECL stand for?

• In the section of 2.6: What does 1x103/well mean? And what is the siRNA sequence of sense strand?

• In the statistical analysis section, the description should include the analysis software used and the statistical methods employed, such as t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), etc.

• In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section 3.1, it is mentioned that the expression of Ptgds is significantly downregulated after neomycin injury. This is inconsistent with the results in other parts of the article. Please verify!

• In the first paragraph of section 3.2: “The viability of cells in the control, neomycin-treated, and Ptgds knockdown groups was then assessed, revealing a ~19% increase in the viability of neomycin-treated cells in which Ptgds had been knocked down as compared to those in which it had not (76.9% vs. 57.71%).” This sentence needs to incorporate corresponding figures to describe the results.

• In the second paragraph of section 3.2:

Reviewer #3: Chen and colleagues studied the expression and function of Ptgds in response to neomycin-induced injury. They showed that Ptgds is upregulated in neomycin-injured hair cells and suggested that such upregulation may contribute to the incidence of vertigo and other symptoms of vestibular dysfunction. The authors also found that knocking down Ptgds protects utricle explants and HEI-OC1 cells from neomycin-mediated injury by reducing the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), the suppression of inflammation, and the abrogation of hair cell apoptosis.

This manuscript tried to highlight the role of Ptgds in aminoglycoside-induced vestibular dysfunction. However, my enthusiasm for this manuscript was significantly diminished by the lack of evidence demonstrating the authors’ proposed mechanism. Please see the attached comment for details.

Reviewer #4: This study aims to investigate the expression and function of Ptgds in HEI-OC1 cells and utricular hair cells, as well as its mechanism of action in aminoglycoside-induced vestibular hair cell damage. The research suggests that Ptgds may be a new target for the prevention and treatment of vestibular dysfunction caused by aminoglycoside drugs. Inhibiting the expression of Ptgds can reduce neomycin-induced apoptosis of vestibular hair cells and enhance hair cell protection. Considering the innovation and clinical significance of the research, this manuscript needs a minor revision before publication.

Minor concerns are as follows:

1.Please ensure that the text format of all images remains consistent. Kindly go through the whole manuscript and make any necessary modification.

2. The damaging concentration of 30mM neomycin may be excessive. Why was 30mM chosen as the optimal damaging concentration in HEI-OC1 cells?

3. How long does neomycin damage the utricle implant? Please supplement it in the text.

4.Please verify if "Ptgds" is spelled correctly. Please go through the whole manuscript and make necessary corrections.

**********

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: Yes:  Yusu Ni

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: Chen_et_al_PLOS ONE_20240521_Shiyi.docx
Revision 1

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

Response: We have made corrections according to the template.

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Response: We have carefully examined and described it.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Response: Thanks for your nice advice.

4. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

Response: We have removed funding information from the manuscript.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82000982, 82192865, 81970875). Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology (A2022078)."

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.

Response: The funding providers played a guiding and supportive role in the research design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

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 authors of this article hope to study the mechanism of aminoglycoside ototoxicity, which has certain research value, but there are still the following questions:

1. There are many types of aminoglycosides. Why choose neomycin for research? Should more drugs be added for research?

Response: Thanks for your nice comment. Gentamicin, a commonly used antibiotic in clinical practice, is often employed for treating severe bacterial infections. Research on the ototoxic side effects of gentamicin therapy holds significant clinical importance. Furthermore, extensive literature exists documenting the ototoxicity of gentamicin, providing robust foundational data for studies. Finally, as one of the aminoglycoside antibiotics, gentamicin demonstrates stable and reproducible ototoxic effects in both in vitro and in vivo models, facilitating experimental design and result analysis.

While expanding the scope of drug research is generally reasonable, I argue against introducing additional drugs in this study. Focusing solely on gentamicin allows for a more concentrated investigation into its mechanisms of action and effects, thereby enhancing the clarity and reliability of scientific outcomes. In subsequent studies, it would indeed be appropriate to consider expanding the research to include other aminoglycoside antibiotics and platinum-based drugs, for example. These additions could provide comparative insights into ototoxicity profiles across different classes of drugs, enriching our understanding of their respective mechanisms and potential clinical implications. Such a diversified approach could contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of ototoxic risks associated with various therapeutic agents.

2. There are many differentially expressed genes screened in the neomycin injury in vitro model. Why choose Ptgds as the research gene?

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. Firstly, Ptgds is an important gene implicated in known cellular protection or damage mechanisms such as inflammatory responses and oxidative stress. Investigating its function can elucidate the specific molecular mechanisms underlying gentamicin ototoxicity. Secondly, Ptgds may exhibit significant differential expression in gentamicin injury models, indicating its pivotal role in drug-induced ototoxicity.

3. Ptgds is a downregulated gene screened in the neomycin injury in vitro model. Why do we need to knock out and silence it in subsequent experiments?

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We are sorry for our carelessness. Ptgds was identified as an upregulated gene in the in vitro model of gentamicin-induced injury. Knockout or silencing of Ptgds would enable direct observation of its function in cochlear cells or in vitro cultures, validating its specific role in gentamicin ototoxicity. Furthermore, disrupting Ptgds expression could help elucidate the specific molecular mechanisms involved in gentamicin-induced damage. Lastly, if cellular damage is reduced upon Ptgds knockout or silencing, it suggests that Ptgds may indeed be a key regulatory factor in gentamicin ototoxicity, potentially serving as a target for future therapeutic interventions. Based on your comments, We have made revisions.

4. In addition to gene knockout, should we increase the study of overexpression?

Certainly, here is the translation into academic English:

Response: The current study has focused on gene knockout, which facilitates a deeper understanding of the gene's function and importance within biological organisms. Overexpression may introduce additional complexity and variables, potentially complicating and rendering study outcomes more difficult to interpret. Therefore, concentrating on gene knockout research helps ensure the scientific coherence of study results and the accuracy of their interpretation, enabling a clearer understanding of the mechanistic role of the target gene in specific biological processes. We have made corrections in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Chen Chen and colleagues, entitled " Ptgds downregulation protect vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicity", is a study investigating the role of the Ptgds in the organ of vestibular hair cell protection.

This study demonstrated the significant upregulation of Ptgds in utricle explants and HEI-OC1 cells in response to neomycin-induced injury. And the knockdown of Ptgds by using siRNA effectively protected and attenuated neomycin-induced vestibular hair cells loss. In vitro experiment confirmed that Ptgds silencing was sufficient to mitigate neomycin-induced ROS production and apoptotic death in hair cells through the inhibition of inflammatory related genes, such as COX2, IL6 and iNOS. The logic of this article is clear, the evidence chain supporting the conclusion is sufficient, and it is innovative.

There are some issues and small comments as follows:

• In the paragraph 2 of Introduction section: “While prior work conducted by our team has revealed the overexpression of Ptgds in vestibular inner ear hair cells in response to neomycin injury…….”. Relevant references should be added here. Otherwise, this manner of expression would not be very appropriate. The same issue exists in the second paragraph of the discussion section.

Response: Thanks for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have reuploaded the correct images.

• In the section of 2.5: What’s ECL stand for?

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We are sorry for our carelessness. ECL, short for Enhanced Chemiluminescence, is a widely utilized detection method in Western blot experiments for detecting target proteins through chemiluminescent signals. However, this information is incorrect and has been revised to Fluoromount-G, a water-soluble, non-fluorescent compound used to mount slide samples in aqueous solutions for fluorescence microscopy analysis, preventing fluorescence quenching in the final staining step. We have modified "ECL" to " Fluoromount-G” in the section of 2.5.

• In the section of 2.6: What does 1x103/well mean? And what is the siRNA sequence of sense strand?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have modified "1x103/well " to " 1x103/well ". we have added siRNA sequence of sense strand" sense:5′-CAGUGUGAGACCAAGAUCAUG-3′ ".

• In the statistical analysis section, the description should include the analysis software used and the statistical methods employed, such as t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), etc.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments.We have added the following sentences to the statistical analysis section. “Data were quantified as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and GraphPad Prism 7 software, with ImageJ utilized for cell counting within the immunofluorescence spectrum. Comparisons between two groups were performed using a two-tailed unpaired Student's t-test, whereas one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison test was employed for comparisons among two or more groups.”

• In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section 3.1, it is mentioned that the expression of Ptgds is significantly downregulated after neomycin injury. This is inconsistent with the results in other parts of the article. Please verify!

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. We are sorry for our carelessness. We have made corrections in the manuscript.

• In the first paragraph of section 3.2: “The viability of cells in the control, neomycin-treated, and Ptgds knockdown groups was then assessed, revealing a ~19% increase in the viability of neomycin-treated cells in which Ptgds had been knocked down as compared to those in which it had not (76.9% vs. 57.71%).” This sentence needs to incorporate corresponding figures to describe the results. • In the second paragraph of section 3.2:

Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness.Based on your comments, we have incorporate " (Fig. 2D)" to describe the results.

Reviewer #3: Chen and colleagues studied the expression and function of Ptgds in response to neomycin-induced injury. They showed that Ptgds is upregulated in neomycin-injured hair cells and suggested that such upregulation may contribute to the incidence of vertigo and other symptoms of vestibular dysfunction. The authors also found that knocking down Ptgds protects utricle explants and HEI-OC1 cells from neomycin-mediated injury by reducing the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), the suppression of inflammation, and the abrogation of hair cell apoptosis.

This manuscript tried to highlight the role of Ptgds in aminoglycoside-induced vestibular dysfunction. However, my enthusiasm for this manuscript was significantly diminished by the lack of evidence demonstrating the authors’ proposed mechanism. Please see the attached comment for details.

Response: Thanks for your your guidance and invaluable insights.While this manuscript raises questions about the role of Ptgds in aminoglycoside-induced vestibular dysfunction, it is important to acknowledge that the study presents multi-faceted experimental data supporting its conclusions. Firstly, the research demonstrated the upregulation of Ptgds following neomycin-induced injury, which was validated through precise molecular biology techniques. Secondly, Ptgds knockdown exhibited significant protective effects across multiple model systems, notably in reducing ROS production, suppressing inflammation, and preventing hair cell apoptosis, all of which are widely recognized indicators of cellular damage. Although the proposed mechanism in this manuscript may require further validation, the existing data already provide significant insights into the potential role of Ptgds in vestibular dysfunction. Therefore, the contribution of this manuscript to the field should not be underestimated. We will also conduct further experiments to explore the mechanisms in greater depth and validate them through in vivo animal studies.

Furthermore, a substantial body of literature underscores the crucial role of Ptgds in cellular protection.

Reviewer #4: This study aims to investigate the expression and function of Ptgds in HEI-OC1 cells and utricular hair cells, as well as its mechanism of action in aminoglycoside-induced vestibular hair cell damage. The research suggests that Ptgds may be a new target for the prevention and treatment of vestibular dysfunction caused by aminoglycoside drugs. Inhibiti

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sujeong Jang, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432R1Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nie,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Following a reviewer, the manuscript still need to clarify the author's hypothesis.

The reviewer could not accept your revision until you make it clear. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 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,

Sujeong Jang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. 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: I don't agree with your response for comment 1. Since ototoxic antibiotics could be replaced by many other antibiotics without ototoxic, is this research meaningful? The author should clarify this.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed all comments raised, and the manuscript technically sound, and the data support the conclusions, so, I think this manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

7. 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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Byung Chul Kang

**********

[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 2

Reviewer #1: I don't agree with your response for comment 1. Since ototoxic antibiotics could be replaced by many other antibiotics without ototoxic, is this research meaningful? The author should clarify this.

Response: Thanks for your nice comment.

Ototoxic antibiotics, primarily referring to aminoglycosides, are irreplaceable in certain clinical scenarios where their therapeutic efficacy cannot be matched by other antibiotics without incurring ototoxic side effects. In specific circumstances, such as:

1) Treatment of resistant bacterial infections: Neomycin exhibits particular efficacy against resistant strains, such as multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Neomycin may be the only viable therapeutic option when common antibiotics fail due to resistance.

2) Specific clinical conditions: In cases where antibiotic options are constrained, such as in patients with drug allergies or contraindications to other medications, neomycin may be considered as an alternative treatment. Furthermore, advancing our understanding of the mechanisms underlying ototoxicity in these antibiotics can facilitate the development of strategies to mitigate adverse effects, such as dosage adjustments or combination therapies that reduce toxicity. This research also supports the design and development of new antibiotics that minimize ototoxicity while preserving or enhancing therapeutic efficacy. Notably, the ototoxicity of drugs is not limited to aminoglycosides; chemotherapeutic agents like cisplatin also exhibit ototoxicity. An in-depth investigation of these ototoxic drugs holds significant clinical importance for optimizing their use, reducing adverse effects, and driving the development and refinement of safer therapeutic options.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer#1.docx
Decision Letter - Sujeong Jang, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432R2Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nie,

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.

==============================

Dear, NieWe have still need to revise the manuscript.As you can see the below, one of our reviewer deeply considered that your manuscript did not complete.Please ensure to revise a reviewer's comment.Thanks.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript Dec 20 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,

Sujeong Jang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2:  The authors have adequately addressed all comments raised in a previous round of review and I feel that this manuscript should be acceptable for publication

Reviewer #6:  Overall, this is an interesting review of an important area. However, several areas need attention and I do have a few issues to be addressed by the authors.

1. The meaning of the group was not indicated in figure legend of figure 1C.

2. The conclusion that the expression of Ptgds is upregulated in neomycin-associated injury seems not rigorous bescuse the authors did not verify the result of RNA.

3. The quality of the picture is not high. For example, in figure 3A, the merge of tunel and dapi should be overlapped.

4. Carefully check and improve the English writing in the manuscript.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #6: 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 3

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of our study. Below, we provide detailed responses and revisions to address the issues you raised:

Regarding the Legend of Figure 1C

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in the figure legend regarding the experimental group descriptions. We have revised the legend for Figure 1C and included detailed explanations of each experimental group in the revised manuscript to ensure clarity and comprehensibility. We hope this modification makes this section more intuitive and accurate.

Regarding the Rigor of the Conclusion on Ptgds Upregulation

We completely agree We fully agree with your suggestion that further validation of RNA experimental results is critical for enhancing the rigor of our conclusions. In fact, we have already conducted qRT-PCR experiments to validate these results, and the corresponding data have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (Supplementary Figure 1). The data clearly demonstrate the significant upregulation of Ptgds expression in the utricle following neomycin-induced damage. Based on these findings, we have also revised the discussion section to ensure a more scientifically robust conclusion.

Regarding the Quality of Figure 3A

Thank you for highlighting the quality issues with Figure 3A. Upon careful reevaluation, we found that due to technical limitations, there are spatial discrepancies between the TUNEL and DAPI signals, which prevent complete overlap. Specifically, DAPI, as a nuclear marker, exhibits uniform distribution, whereas Myosin7a selectively marks the stereocilia and cytoplasmic regions of cochlear and vestibular hair cells, reflecting its high spatial specificity. Following neomycin-induced damage, partial injury or death of vestibular hair cells resulted in Myosin7a signals covering only a subset of the DAPI regions. These findings are technically reasonable and align with the functional and biological differences between these two markers.

Regarding the Improvement of English Writing

Thank you for pointing out areas in need of improvement in the English writing. We conducted a comprehensive review of the manuscript and engaged professional editing services to optimize the language. These efforts were aimed at ensuring clarity and professionalism in presenting our findings. We believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the overall quality of the manuscript.

We sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to refining our work. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns. Should you have any further questions or recommendations, we are happy to make additional adjustments.

Once again, thank you for your support and constructive feedback.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx
Decision Letter - Miriam Ann Hickey, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432R3Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nie,

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 by the Academic Editor, prior to final decision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 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.

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,

Miriam A. Hickey, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editor Comments:

Prior to final decision, please now address these comments from the Academic Editor.

Table 1

Monitor spelling

Please have all genes formatted similarly - the convention being italics for non-human genes.

Please consult here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines

Use correct and established nomenclature wherever possible.

For all imaging, please provide resolution i.e., actual size of each pixel, with size of z-step, and objective (cellular imaging, immunofluorescence sections).

Immunofluorescence section, please provide RRID number for antibody, if possible.

Please provide numerator, denominator and F values for all ANOVAs (Figure 1B, C, Figure 2 B, C D, Figure 3B, Figure 4 B, C, D and E).

Figure 1C: Please clarify whether cells with Ptgds knockdown were also treated with neo - this is not apparent in figure legend, but text suggests this is the case.

Please provide materials and methods for CCK8 method quoted in figure legends.

What are HEI-Oc1 cells (no information is apparent in materials and methods).

Please clarify/explain the reason for the much lower concentration of neo used for TUNEL experiments (3mM appears to have been used: "samples were treated for 12 h with neomycin (3 mM).").

Figure 3C: This must be analysed with at least 2-way ANOVA as there are two factors (treatments and gene). Please provide numerator, denominator and F value.

Discussion: Please discuss the relevance of the concentrations of neomycin used relative to concentrations observed in clinical samples.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: The authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review. We feel that this manuscript should been now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. 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 #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.

Revision 4

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of our study. Below, we provide detailed responses and revisions to address the issues you raised:

1. All typographical errors in Table 1 have been corrected. In accordance with the nomenclature conventions outlined in the PLOS ONE submission guidelines, non-human gene names have been italicized, while human gene names are presented in uppercase.

2. The Materials and Methods section has been expanded to include the following details: “After immunofluorescence staining, images were captured using a Zeiss LSM 800 confocal scanning microscope. Excitation light at two different wavelengths, 488 nm and 750 nm, was employed. The image resolution was set to 1024×1024 pixels, utilizing 20× and 63× magnifications, and the scanning speed was adjusted to 8 (with modifications made as needed based on image quality). The utricle was divided into the striolar region and the extrastriolar region. In each utricle, random 100 μm × 100 μm areas were selected from both the striolar and extrastriolar regions for imaging. The number of myosin7a-positive cells was manually counted using ImageJ software (NIH, USA). CellROX-stained images were acquired at a resolution of 1024×1024 pixels under 20× magnification using a REVOLVE FL microscope (Discover Echo, USA).”

3. The data related to the numerator, denominator, and F-values for all ANOVA analyses (Figure 1B, C; Figure 2B, C, D; Figure 3B; Figure 4B, C, D, and E) have been transferred to the supplementary data section.

4. We are grateful for your insightful comments. The corresponding clarifications have been integrated into the manuscript:“Compared to the negative control group, the expression of Ptgds in HEI-OC1 cells was significantly suppressed by approximately 70% after 48 hours of siRNA transfection.”

5. A comprehensive description of the CCK-8 assay methodology has been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section: “The CCK-8 (Cell Counting Kit-8) assay is utilized to evaluate cell viability or apoptosis. Initially, 1.2 × 10⁴ cells per well were seeded into a 96-well plate and allowed to adhere for 12 hours. Experimental groups were then established, encompassing a neomycin concentration gradient (0–50 mM, with a minimum of three replicates per group), a control group, a neomycin-treated group, and a neomycin-treated + siRNA group. Following 48 hours of transfection, neomycin was administered. After 24 hours of neomycin exposure, a 10:1 mixture of DMEM and CCK-8 solution was prepared, with 100 μL added to each well, followed by incubation at 37°C in the dark for 2 hours. Finally, absorbance at 450 nm was measured using a microplate reader, and cell viability (%) was calculated as (ODexperimental well – ODblank well) / (ODcontrol well – ODblank well) × 100%.”

6. A description of the HEI-OC1 cell line has been added to the Materials and Methods section: "HEI-OC1 cells are an immortalized mouse cochlear cell line widely utilized in research on ototoxicity and auditory-related mechanisms."

7. Due to the significantly lower number of hair cells in the utricle compared to HEI-OC1 cells cultured in 96-well plates, it was necessary to proportionally reduce the neomycin concentration and exposure time for neonatal mouse utricle damage. Based on a review of the relevant literature and experimental findings from our team, 3 mM neomycin exposure for 12 hours was determined to be the optimal concentration and duration for inducing approximately 50% utricle damage. The reduced neomycin concentration (3 mM) employed in the TUNEL assay was specifically chosen to induce apoptosis without causing excessive cell death, thereby facilitating clearer detection of apoptotic cells.

8. We appreciate your comment regarding the statistical analysis. We would like to clarify that only one independent variable (treatment) was involved in this analysis. Although the data from the three genes were presented together in a single graph for visualization purposes, each gene was analyzed separately using one-way ANOVA. Therefore, a two-way ANOVA is not applicable in this context. The detailed statistical results have been provided in the supplementary data file.

9. The Discussion section has been expanded to elucidate the correlation between the neomycin concentrations used in this study and those encountered in clinical practice: “Aminoglycosides (AGs) are a class of antibiotics widely used in clinical practice, known not only for their ototoxicity but also for their vestibulotoxicity. During clinical administration, AGs frequently cause damage to vestibular hair cells, which can lead to vestibular dysfunction. This dysfunction manifests as clinical symptoms such as ataxia, postural instability, dizziness, and vomiting. Neomycin, one of the commonly used aminoglycosides, is typically administered topically or orally in clinical settings. These routes of administration result in relatively low plasma concentrations of neomycin, thereby minimizing systemic exposure. However, despite the lower systemic absorption, neomycin is still associated with significant nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Due to these adverse effects, intravenous administration of neomycin is rarely employed in clinical practice [2].

While neomycin demonstrates favorable therapeutic efficacy, its clinical application is severely limited by its unavoidable side effects, particularly its toxicity to the auditory and vestibular systems. In this study, the concentration of neomycin used exceeds the typical plasma concentrations observed during clinical use. However, it aligns with concentrations commonly employed in in vitro studies designed to model ototoxicity. This approach enables a more accurate investigation of the mechanisms underlying aminoglycoside-induced vestibular damage, offering valuable insights that may contribute to the development of strategies aimed at mitigating these adverse effects in clinical practice.”

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_4.docx
Decision Letter - Miriam Ann Hickey, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432R4Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nie,

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.

Unfortunately, the statistics (F values, numerator, denominator) are not apparent within the submitted supplementary file, which appears to contain Table S1 and Supplementary Figure 1, only.

Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses this point.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 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 the points above, from the academic editor. You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Editor'.
  • 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,

Miriam Ann Hickey, PhD

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.]

[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 5

The statistics (F values, numerator, denominator) are not apparent within the submitted supplementary file, which appears to contain Table S1 and Supplementary Figure 1, only.

Response: We have modified the Table S1 and Supplementary Figure S1 as suggested, as shown in the revised Supporting Information.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_5.docx
Decision Letter - Miriam Ann Hickey, Editor

Ptgds downregulation protect Vestibular hair cells from aminoglycoside-induced vestibulotoxicity

PONE-D-24-17432R5

Dear Dr. Nie,

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,

Miriam Ann Hickey, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All comments are now addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Miriam Ann Hickey, Editor

PONE-D-24-17432R5

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nie,

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. Miriam Ann Hickey

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 .