RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway

Shaoqiang Xing; Zhaoliang Xu; Sheng Zeng; Minghao Yue; Wenzhou Xing; Qian Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341445

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 13, 2025
15 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Saki Raheem, Editor Dear Dr. Liu, 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 Nov 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. 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, Saki Raheem, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the Tianjin Key Medical Discipline(Specialty) Construction Project.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript investigates the role of RIPK2 in mediating docetaxel (DTX) resistance in prostate cancer, proposing a mechanism via NF-kB activation and upregulation of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). The study includes in vitro experiments, TCGA dataset analysis, and xenograft models. The topic is relevant to therapeutic resistance in prostate cancer and fits PLOS ONE's emphasis on scientific rigour. However, several clarifications and improvements are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. 1. TCGA/UALCAN analysis- clarification needed: The use of the UALCAN portal for TCGA analysis is appropriate, but a few reporting details would improve transparency and reproducibility. In particular, please indicate: How many tumour and normal samples were included? What statistical test did UALCAN apply, and how were the Gleason score groups defined? If default UALCAN settings were used, a brief statement to that effect would be sufficient. 2. Please indicate whether in vitro data (e.g., IC50) were based on biological triplicates, and how many replicates were performed. 3. The in vivo experiments are generally well described, but to meet PLOS ONE and ARRIVE reporting standards, a few brief clarifications would improve transparency and reproducibility. Please specify the number of animals per group in the Methods Indicate whether randomisation was used when assigning mice to treatment groups. State whether blinding was applied during tumour measurement or analysis (or clarify if not performed). Briefly note the monitoring frequency and any humane endpoint criteria used before the scheduled sacrifice. clarify the nature of the control treatment/vehicle given to the drug-control group. These additions would align the manuscript with ARRIVE expectations without requiring new experiments. 4. Writing and Style: Minor language edits would improve clarity and consistency. There are occasional tense shifts and missing articles. The introduction is also quite long and could be streamlined to avoid repetition. A light language edit would help polish the text. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 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: I am writing to provide feedback on the manuscript titled " RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway " (PONE-D-25-24339) which I understand is under consideration for publication. After a thorough review, I have identified several areas that could benefit from further attention to enhance the overall quality and impact of the paper. References and Citations: It is crucial to ensure uniformity in the formatting of all references and citations, adhering to the required style guide. Consistency in this aspect upholds the manuscript's professionalism. Clarity and Conciseness: The manuscript would benefit from a focus on clear and concise communication. Avoiding excessive jargon and simplifying complex ideas will make the paper more accessible to a broader audience. Data Presentation: I recommend a review of how figures and tables are integrated into the paper. They should be clearly labeled and directly referenced in the text, ensuring they effectively support the paper's conclusions. Logical Flow: Ensuring a coherent flow throughout the paper, with seamless transitions between sections, is key to keeping the reader engaged and ensuring the paper is easily understandable. Abstract and Conclusion: These sections should succinctly summarize the main findings and their significance. It is important to avoid overstating results or generalizations not supported by the data. Consistency in Terminology: Uniform use of technical terms throughout the manuscript is essential for clarity and to avoid potential confusion among readers. Objective Language: Maintaining an objective tone throughout the paper is crucial. Subjective or evaluative language should be reserved for discussing hypotheses or theoretical frameworks. Compliance with Journal Guidelines: Finally, ensuring that the manuscript aligns with the journal's specific guidelines in terms of formatting, submission, and ethics will facilitate a smoother review and publication process. I trust these suggestions will be valuable in enhancing the manuscript's effectiveness and suitability for publication. Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. Sincerely, ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS atfigures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r001
Revision 1
6 Nov 2025 Author Response 2025/11/05 Dear Editor and Reviewers: Thank you very much for your time and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway". We greatly appreciate the valuable suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of this work. According to the reviewers' comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed all the concerns raised. The main revisions are summarized as follows, and detailed responses to each comment are provided below. We hope the revised version meets the publication standards of PLOS ONE. Sincerely, Qian Liu Department of Urology, First Central Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University, No. 24, Fukang Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, 300190, China. +86 18963106651 simonlq1971@126.com Journal 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 Reply: We have reviewed the manuscript according to the formatting requirements and file naming conventions specified by PLOS ONE. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the Tianjin Key Medical Discipline(Specialty) Construction Project.” 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. Reply: We have incorporated the revised statement of the funding agency's role into the cover letter. 3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions. Reply: The blot/gel image data are included in the Supplementary Materials. We have supplemented the relevant information in the cover letter. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript investigates the role of RIPK2 in mediating docetaxel (DTX) resistance in prostate cancer, proposing a mechanism via NF-kB activation and upregulation of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). The study includes in vitro experiments, TCGA dataset analysis, and xenograft models. The topic is relevant to therapeutic resistance in prostate cancer and fits PLOS ONE's emphasis on scientific rigour. However, several clarifications and improvements are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. 1. TCGA/UALCAN analysis- clarification needed: The use of the UALCAN portal for TCGA analysis is appropriate, but a few reporting details would improve transparency and reproducibility. In particular, please indicate: How many tumour and normal samples were included? What statistical test did UALCAN apply, and how were the Gleason score groups defined? If default UALCAN settings were used, a brief statement to that effect would be sufficient. Reply: We have incorporated the number of cases used in the TCGA/UALCAN analysis into the ‘Materials and Methods’ section. Additionally, we performed Gleason score grouping and statistical analysis using default settings, with supplementary descriptions provided in the manuscript. 2. Please indicate whether in vitro data (e.g., IC50) were based on biological triplicates, and how many replicates were performed. Reply: In vitro data (e.g., IC50 values) were based on biological triplicate experiments, with each biological replicate performed in at least three technical repeats to ensure reproducibility. We have supplemented the relevant descriptions in the manuscript. 3. The in vivo experiments are generally well described, but to meet PLOS ONE and ARRIVE reporting standards, a few brief clarifications would improve transparency and reproducibility. Please specify the number of animals per group in the Methods Indicate whether randomisation was used when assigning mice to treatment groups. State whether blinding was applied during tumour measurement or analysis (or clarify if not performed). Briefly note the monitoring frequency and any humane endpoint criteria used before the scheduled sacrifice. clarify the nature of the control treatment/vehicle given to the drug-control group. These additions would align the manuscript with ARRIVE expectations without requiring new experiments. Reply: We have supplemented the relevant descriptions in the manuscript. 4. Writing and Style: Minor language edits would improve clarity and consistency. There are occasional tense shifts and missing articles. The introduction is also quite long and could be streamlined to avoid repetition. A light language edit would help polish the text. Reply: We have invited native English speakers with academic writing experience to polish the manuscript, focusing on optimizing language fluency, correcting grammatical errors, and refining academic expression to meet the journal’s standards. Reviewers' comments: 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: I am writing to provide feedback on the manuscript titled " RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway " (PONE-D-25-24339) which I understand is under consideration for publication. After a thorough review, I have identified several areas that could benefit from further attention to enhance the overall quality and impact of the paper. References and Citations: It is crucial to ensure uniformity in the formatting of all references and citations, adhering to the required style guide. Consistency in this aspect upholds the manuscript's professionalism. Reply: We have verified the references and citations. Clarity and Conciseness: The manuscript would benefit from a focus on clear and concise communication. Avoiding excessive jargon and simplifying complex ideas will make the paper more accessible to a broader audience. Reply: We have invited native English speakers with academic writing experience to polish the manuscript, focusing on optimizing language fluency, correcting grammatical errors, and refining academic expression to meet the journal’s standards. Data Presentation: I recommend a review of how figures and tables are integrated into the paper. They should be clearly labeled and directly referenced in the text, ensuring they effectively support the paper's conclusions. Reply: We have systematically reviewed the manuscript data to identify and eliminate potential errors, including data entry inconsistencies, statistical calculation discrepancies, and figure caption mismatches. Logical Flow: Ensuring a coherent flow throughout the paper, with seamless transitions between sections, is key to keeping the reader engaged and ensuring the paper is easily understandable. Reply: We have reviewed and checked the entire text. Abstract and Conclusion: These sections should succinctly summarize the main findings and their significance. It is important to avoid overstating results or generalizations not supported by the data. Reply: We have reviewed and confirmed the abstract and conclusions. Consistency in Terminology: Uniform use of technical terms throughout the manuscript is essential for clarity and to avoid potential confusion among readers. Reply: We have reviewed and checked the entire text. Objective Language: Maintaining an objective tone throughout the paper is crucial. Subjective or evaluative language should be reserved for discussing hypotheses or theoretical frameworks. Reply: We have reviewed and checked the entire text. Compliance with Journal Guidelines: Finally, ensuring that the manuscript aligns with the journal's specific guidelines in terms of formatting, submission, and ethics will facilitate a smoother review and publication process. Reply: We have checked the manuscript against the journal guidelines. I trust these suggestions will be valuable in enhancing the manuscript's effectiveness and suitability for publication. Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r002
9 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Saki Raheem, Editor Dear Dr. Liu, Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 23 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS One Saki Raheem, PhD 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 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: I am writing to provide feedback on the manuscript titled "RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway" which I understand is under consideration for publication. The comments raised have been corrected and are acceptable. ****** 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: Yes: Mohsen Rashidi ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r003
Revision 2
18 Dec 2025 Author Response 2025/12/11 Dear Editor: We thank the editors and reviewers for all their efforts in reviewing the manuscript. In response to the comments raised in the second round of review, we hereby provide detailed data regarding the maximum tumor size in our xenograft experiments. None of the xenograft tumors exceeded 10% of the host mice’s body weight, which is in strict compliance with the ethical guidelines for animal experiments. The largest tumor, with a volume of 1991.23 mm³ and a weight of 1.321 g, accounted for only 4.98% of the corresponding mouse’s body weight (26.5 g). It should be noted that tumor volume measurements might be slightly overestimated due to the irregular morphology of xenograft tumors; however, the overall results are consistent with our experimental expectations. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Qian Liu Department of Urology, First Central Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University, No. 24, Fukang Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, 300190, China. +86 18963106651 simonlq1971@126.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r004
22 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Saki Raheem, Editor Dear Dr. Liu, 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 Feb 05 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 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, Miquel Vall-llosera Camps Senior Staff Editor PLOS One Saki Raheem, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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. Additional Comments from the Editorial Staff: Thank you for your response to our previous requests. At this time, please provide the complete data points underlying Figure 6C, to confirm that 1991.23 being the largest tumour size is correct, given that the error bars appear to indicate otherwise. [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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r005
Revision 3
23 Dec 2025 Author Response 2025/12/23 Dear Editor: We thank the editors and reviewers for all their efforts in reviewing the manuscript. In response to the comments raised in the second round of review, we hereby provide detailed data regarding the maximum tumor size in our xenograft experiments. None of the xenograft tumors exceeded 10% of the host mice’s body weight, which is in strict compliance with the ethical guidelines for animal experiments. The largest tumor, with a volume of 1991.23 mm³ and a weight of 1.321 g, accounted for only 4.98% of the corresponding mouse’s body weight (26.5 g). It should be noted that tumor volume measurements might be slightly overestimated due to the irregular morphology of xenograft tumors; however, the overall results are consistent with our experimental expectations. We have uploaded the detailed data on tumor volumes in each group (Day 28) under the “Other” section. Please refer to this dataset. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Qian Liu Department of Urology, First Central Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University, No. 24, Fukang Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, 300190, China. +86 18963106651 simonlq1971@126.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r006
7 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Saki Raheem, Editor RIPK2 induces docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through the NF-κB/P-gp signaling pathway PONE-D-25-24339R3 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Saki Raheem, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Saki Raheem, Editor PONE-D-25-24339R3 PLOS One Dear Dr. Liu, 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. Saki Raheem Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341445.r008

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 .