Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 25, 2025
Decision Letter - Jung-Eun Kim, Editor

Dear Dr. Yu,

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 18 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 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,

Jung-Eun 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. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/documents/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

[This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82202389 to Dadong Liu) and Postdoctoral Research Fund of Jinling Hospital (97103). The sponsors did not play any roles in the research.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript:

[This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82202389 to Dadong Liu) and Postdoctoral Research Fund of Jinling Hospital (97103). The sponsors did not play any roles in the research.]

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

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

[This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82202389 to Dadong Liu) and Postdoctoral Research Fund of Jinling Hospital (97103). The sponsors did not play any roles in the research.]

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study addresses a topic of clear clinical and scientific significance, focusing on neutrophils—key cells in the post-AMI inflammatory response—and their metabolic regulator, PFKFB3. The research design is systematic, progressing from clinical samples to animal models and cell-based experiments, which stepwise verifies the mechanism by which PFKFB3 promotes the mobilization of CXCR4hi neutrophils through glycolytic metabolic reprogramming. The conclusions are innovative and hold potential therapeutic relevance. However, certain aspects of the experimental details, data interpretation, and language expression require further refinement:

1. Although NEU-PFKFB3 conditional knockout mice were utilized in this study, essential validation data—such as qPCR, Western blot, or immunofluorescence—are lacking and should be supplemented.

2. In addition to HK-2 mRNA levels and ECAR measurements, it is recommended to include assessments of lactate production, ATP levels, or the expression/activity of key glycolytic proteins (e.g., GLUT1, PFK1).

3. Please more explicitly highlight the translational value of PFKFB3 as a potential therapeutic target in the Discussion section.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1: This study addresses a topic of clear clinical and scientific significance, focusing on neutrophils—key cells in the post-AMI inflammatory response—and their metabolic regulator, PFKFB3. The research design is systematic, progressing from clinical samples to animal models and cell-based experiments, which stepwise verifies the mechanism by which PFKFB3 promotes the mobilization of CXCR4hi neutrophils through glycolytic metabolic reprogramming. The conclusions are innovative and hold potential therapeutic relevance. However, certain aspects of the experimental details, data interpretation, and language expression require further refinement:

Response: On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for your consideration of our manuscript entitled “PFKFB3 exacerbates myocardial injury by accelerating CXCR4hi neutrophil mobilization after acute myocardial infarction” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-50535). We greatly appreciate your comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, indicating the changes in the manuscript text file with blue. These changes have significantly strengthened and improved the manuscript.

1. Although NEU-PFKFB3 conditional knockout mice were utilized in this study, essential validation data—such as qPCR, Western blot, or immunofluorescence—are lacking and should be supplemented.

Response: Thanks for raising this important point.

In this study, neutrophils were isolated from homozygous Neu-PFKFB3-/- mice. Then, the knockout efficiency for PFKFB3 was detected by western blot analysis. Results indicated that PFKFB3 protein was not expressed in the neutrophils of the homozygous Neu-PFKFB3-/- mice (S1 Fig). We have updated “AMI model construction” in the “Materials and methods” section as below:

“The neutrophils were isolated from mice and detected by Western blot. We found that the neutrophils derived from Neu-PFKFB3-/- mice did not express the PFKFB3 protein (S1 Fig).”

S1 Fig. Western blot analysis of the levels of PFKFB3 protein in neutrophils isolated from WT and homozygous Neu-PFKFB3-/- mice.

2. In addition to HK-2 mRNA levels and ECAR measurements, it is recommended to include assessments of lactate production, ATP levels, or the expression/activity of key glycolytic proteins (e.g., GLUT1, PFK1).

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion.

This study is one of the serial studies that supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82202389) and Postdoctoral Research Fund of Jinling Hospital (97103). Our team has already measured the expression levels of the key glycolytic proteins and metabolites. We found that the gene expression of Slc2a1 (encoding glucose transporter 1, GLUT1) and the level of lactate (product of glycolysis) production were significantly increased in AMI patients compared with healthy volunteers (S2 and S3 Figs).

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have updated “Glycolytic metabolism is required for PFKFB3-supported neutrophil CXCR4 expression” in the “Results” section as below:

“Interesting, the gene expression of the facilitative glucose transporter member 1 (Slc2a1), which encodes the glucose transporter protein 1, also yielded similar results (S2 Fig).”

S2 Fig. Expression of Slc2a1 gene. (A) Expression of Slc2a1 mRNA in the neutrophils of AMI patients. (B) Correlation between Slc2a1 mRNA expression in neutrophils and the percentage of circulating CXCR4hi neutrophils in AMI patients.

S3 Fig. Lactate production in AMI-neutrophils was significantly higher than those from healthy volunteers.

3. Please more explicitly highlight the translational value of PFKFB3 as a potential therapeutic target in the Discussion section.

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have updated the discussion section in the revised version, thereby more clearly emphasizing the translational value of PFKFB3 as a potential therapeutic target. Details as follows:

PFKFB3, a famous glycolytic enzyme, is widely present in many immunocytes and plays a vital role in immunocyte inflammatory activation [20, 37-39]. Earlier investigations have shown that sepsis enhances glycolysis driven by PFKFB3 in macrophages, subsequently leading to proinflammatory polarization and inflammatory activation of these cells. Thus, specifically targeting the inhibition of PFKFB3-driven glycolysis in macrophages may serve as a promising therapeutic approach to prevent inflammatory damage in sepsis. Indeed, there are studies that corroborate this notion. In 2021, Xu and collaborators indicated that mice lacking myeloid Pfkfb3 are safeguarded from lung edema and cardiac dysfunction caused by LPS-induced endotoxemia [37]. Furthermore, in 2022, Yuan and his team demonstrated that apelin-13, an endogenous ligand for the angiotensin type 1 receptor-associated protein, mitigates LPS-induced inflammatory reactions and acute lung injury by suppressing PFKFB3-driven glycolysis in macrophages [40].

Consistent with macrophages, our previous studies revealed that PFKFB3 plays as an accelerator in the inflammatory activation of neutrophils during sepsis [18]

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Jung-Eun Kim, Editor

Dear Dr. Yu,

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 22 2026 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,

Jung-Eun Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The author appears to have responded to all my questions. However, I am unable to view the supplementary figures (Figure S1-S3) mentioned in the response through the review system. Could you please send these images to me for review?

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Revision 2

Response: On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for your consideration of our manuscript entitled “PFKFB3 exacerbates myocardial injury by accelerating CXCR4hi neutrophil mobilization after acute myocardial infarction” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-50535R1). We greatly appreciate your comments. The supplementary figures (Figure S1-S3) had been presented as following. Once again, we would like to thank you for your careful review which has helped us improve the scientific rigor and reliability of the manuscript.

Fig. S1 Western blot analysis of the levels of PFKFB3 protein in neutrophils isolated from WT and homozygous Neu-PFKFB3-/- mice.

S2 Fig. Expression of Slc2a1 gene. A. Expression of Slc2a1 mRNA in the neutrophils of AMI patients. B. Correlation between Slc2a1 mRNA expression in neutrophils and the percentage of circulating CXCR4hi neutrophils in AMI patients.

S3 Fig. Lactate production in AMI-neutrophils was significantly higher than those from healthy volunteers.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx
Decision Letter - Jung-Eun Kim, Editor

PFKFB3 exacerbates myocardial injury by accelerating CXCR4hi neutrophil mobilization after acute myocardial infarction

PONE-D-25-50535R2

Dear Dr. Yu,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Jung-Eun Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have answered the questions raised and rewritten the manuscript with the corrections suggested by the reviewer. From my point of view, the work can be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jung-Eun Kim, Editor

PONE-D-25-50535R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Yu,

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

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

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

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

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

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

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

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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 Jung-Eun Kim

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 .