Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 25, 2026
Decision Letter - Zoran Culig, Editor

-->PONE-D-26-09739-->-->Identification of CAND1 as a DNA-dependent protein kinase-regulated coactivator of androgen receptor and the ARv7 splice variant -->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Foulds,

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 May 16 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zoran Culig

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. PLOS 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.

3. 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.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

S.L.G., K.R., and C.C. were partially supported by CPRIT grants RP200504 and RP210227, by NIH P30 shared resource grant CA125123, by NIEHS grants P30 ES030285 and P42 ES027725, and by NIH grants S10OD032185, U54CA274321, and R21DE032344.

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.

6. Please expand the acronym “NIH” and “CPRIT” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

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

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure section:

C.E.F and D.M.L disclose other support from CoRegen, Inc. unrelated to the current study.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: CoRegen, Inc.

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

9. 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.

10. 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 Editor Comments:

The authors have addressed important issue of coregulator action of full length and variant androgen receptor. There are some minor suggestions for revision.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->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 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->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: This is an elegant mechanistic study on novel co-factors of AR and ARv7 in prostate cancer. The experiments are well designed and conclusions are justified by the results.

Please see some minor points below:

Line 80, p4: please add more recent studies on AR interactome, using co-IP and MS. For example: PLoS One. 2024 Dec 13;19(12):e0309491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309491. eCollection 2024.PMID: 39671399

Line 102 p5: typo (coactivator)

Line 132 p6: typo, profiling twice

Line 154 p7: where are the modifications highlighted? This should be clearly indicated.

Figure 1 A, bottom panel: it is not clear what the labels DMSO/Vehicle and DMSO/100nM R1881 refer too. This is not described in the main text either.

Lines 391-393, p16: The authors explain why they use NE from Hela which is essentially to pick a cell line without AR/ARv7 and a good source of RNA pol II machinery and CoRs. However, would the CoRs be less specific to prostate cancer than using a prostate cancer cell line without AR/ARv7, such as PC3 or DU154? This point should be at least discussed.

Figure 4 A: the scale for the bottom graphs is different from the top, which is understandable considering the amount of change. However, in the bottom panel changes are a fraction of those at the top. Is there any repercussion on the biological significance and interpretation of these results?

Figure 5B: Are the labels at the top correct? Should second lane be + ATP?

Line 719 p29: typo ‘TATA binding interacting protein’.

**********

-->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

**********

[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

A. Response to Academic Editor’s Concerns:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

>After thorough review, our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. 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.

>We have added all raw, uncropped images of immunoblots as S6 Fig in the Supporting Information.

When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to guidelines.

> We used PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to prepare publication quality figures for our six Figures.

>Per PLOS, supporting figures and supporting tables do not follow the same requirements as tables and figures in the main body of your manuscript, because PLOS hosts them on servers that can handle a wider variety of file types than our published articles. Because of this, we did not use NAAS to check any supporting information files that are presented as .DOCX, .XLSX, or .PDF files.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information.

>This has been indicated in our cover letter.

3. 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.

>I have validated my ORCID iD as “0000-0003-4908-1473” in Editorial Manager.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

>We apologize for the error.

We have now revised the financial disclosure to read:

“The study was funded by National Institutes of Health grants R01HD007857 and R01HD008188 (DML); P42ES027725 SubProject 7644 and U54CA274321 SubProject 9353 (CC); and P30CA125123 SubProject 8884 (AM); Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP150648 Project 2 (NLW); Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program grants W81XWH-17-1-0236 (NLW) and W81XWH-21-1-0404 (PY). The above funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. CoRegen, Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for authors [AKP, PY, DML, and CEF], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

5. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

S.L.G., K.R., and C.C. were partially supported by CPRIT grants RP200504 and RP210227, by NIH P30 shared resource grant CA125123, by NIEHS grants P30 ES030285 and P42 ES027725, and by NIH grants S10OD032185, U54CA274321, and R21DE032344.

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.

> As noted above, we have now revised the financial disclosure to read:

“The study was funded by National Institutes of Health grants R01HD007857 and R01HD008188 (DML); P42ES027725 SubProject 7644 and U54CA274321 SubProject 9353 (CC); and P30CA125123 SubProject 8884 (AM); Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP150648 Project 2 (NLW); Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program grants W81XWH-17-1-0236 (NLW) and W81XWH-21-1-0404 (PY). The above funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. CoRegen, Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for authors [AKP, PY, DML, and CEF], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

>We have removed previous funding sources either provided by BCM PIs that are not on this manuscript or that simply supported cores (Daniel Kraushaar-CPRIT RP200504, Dean Edwards-CPRIT RP210227, Vlad Sandulache- NIH R21DE032344, Cheryl Walker- NIH P30ES030285, and Susan Hilsenbeck- NIH S10OD032185).

6. Please expand the acronym “NIH” and “CPRIT” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

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

> As noted above, we have now revised the financial disclosure to read:

“The study was funded by National Institutes of Health grants R01HD007857 and R01HD008188 (DML); P42ES027725 SubProject 7644 and U54CA274321 SubProject 9353 (CC); and P30CA125123 SubProject 8884 (AM); Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP150648 Project 2 (NLW); Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program grants W81XWH-17-1-0236 (NLW) and W81XWH-21-1-0404 (PY). The above funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. CoRegen, Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for authors [AKP, PY, DML, and CEF], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

>This information is listed in the cover letter.

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure section:

C.E.F and D.M.L disclose other support from CoRegen, Inc. unrelated to the current study.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: CoRegen, Inc.

> We apologize for this oversight.

We have revised the Competing Interest Statement as:

“AKP, PY, DML, and CEF disclose salary support from CoRegen, Inc. unrelated to the current study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors have nothing to disclose.”

>This information is listed in the cover letter.

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

> As noted above, we have now revised the financial disclosure to read:

“The study was funded by National Institutes of Health grants R01HD007857 and R01HD008188 (DML); P42ES027725 SubProject 7644 and U54CA274321 SubProject 9353 (CC); and P30CA125123 SubProject 8884 (AM); Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP150648 Project 2 (NLW); Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program grants W81XWH-17-1-0236 (NLW) and W81XWH-21-1-0404 (PY). The above funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. CoRegen, Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for authors [AKP, PY, DML, and CEF], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

>As Funding Statement has been revised, we updated the Author Contributions section of the online submission form including “funding acquisition” by NLW, CC, and AM.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

> We have revised the Competing Interest Statement as:

“AKP, PY, DML, and CEF disclose salary support from CoRegen, Inc. unrelated to the current study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors have nothing to disclose.”

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

>Cover letter for the revision now includes both statements.

8. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication.

> The raw MS proteomics data for the the (-/+) ARv7 ARE pulldowns deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD021462 is now public. We have cited this on lines 327-329 of the revised manuscript and with Reference #52.

>This is listed in the cover letter.

9. 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.

>We reviewed the one citation that Reviewer #1 requested. It is relevant and is now cited as Reference #33.

10. 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.

>We reviewed the reference list. No retracted papers were cited.

>We only have two changes:

• As noted above, we reviewed the one citation that Reviewer #1 requested. It is relevant and is now cited as Reference #33.

• We have cited as Reference #52 the following database as it has now been made public: “Bhatt B, Hamilton RA. Project Name: Proteomic analyses identify ANP32A and CAND1 as androgen receptor and splice variant coactivators, whose interactions are regulated by DNA-dependent protein kinase. ProteomeXchange Consortium via PRIDE. Accession: PXD021462 (Publication Date: April 6, 2026): http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride.”

11. The authors have addressed important issue of coregulator action of full length and variant androgen receptor. There are some minor suggestions for revision.

>We have fully addressed each concern of the Academic Editor (above) and Reviewer #1 (below).

B. Response to Reviewer #1’s Concerns:

This is an elegant mechanistic study on novel co-factors of AR and ARv7 in prostate cancer. The experiments are well designed and conclusions are justified by the results.

>Thank you for your evaluation of our study. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments that have improved the manuscript.

Please see some minor points below:

1. Line 80, p4: please add more recent studies on AR interactome, using co-IP and MS. For example: PLoS One. 2024 Dec 13;19(12):e0309491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309491. eCollection 2024.PMID: 39671399

>Thank you for this suggestion. As this PLoS One paper did AR IP-MS and found Ku70/Ku80 and PELP1 as known coregulators, we now cite it as new Reference #33.

2. Line 102 p5: typo (coactivator)

>This has been corrected.

3. Line 132 p6: typo, profiling twice

>This has been corrected.

4. Line 154 p7: where are the modifications highlighted? This should be clearly indicated.

>We apologize this was not clear. We have revised this section of the Methods to make clear what the modifications were.

5. Figure 1 A, bottom panel: it is not clear what the labels DMSO/Vehicle and DMSO/100nM R1881 refer too. This is not described in the main text either.

>We apologize this was not clear. We have made a revised Fig 1A in the revised submission and described the legends in the main text now.

6. Lines 391-393, p16: The authors explain why they use NE from Hela which is essentially to pick a cell line without AR/ARv7 and a good source of RNA pol II machinery and CoRs. However, would the CoRs be less specific to prostate cancer than using a prostate cancer cell line without AR/ARv7, such as PC3 or DU154? This point should be at least discussed.

>To address the reviewer’s concern, we state in the revised manuscript: “As HeLa cells are derived from a cervical carcinoma, some coregulators recruited to AR or ARv7 could be specific to this line and not a prostate cancer cell.” For some experimental support, however, we performed an ARE DNA pulldown with endogenous AR coming from LNCaP prostate cancer cell nuclear extract (-/+) two different R1881 agonist concentrations and observed similar coregulator recruitments as with HeLa cell nuclear extract programmed with recombinant AR and R1881 (presented as a new S1C Fig). We also have included the raw immunoblot data in a revised S6 Fig for new S1C Fig. These additions are presented in lines 402-407.

>We have not done any ARE DNA pulldowns from PC3 or DU-145 cells. HeLa cells were used only to identify potential coregulator candidates with subsequent functional validation in LNCaP prostate cells using siRNA knockdown of candidates testing for an effect on known AR/ARv7 target genes. We also performed bioinformatic analyses of patient prostate cancer samples for the validated new candidates.

7. Figure 4 A: the scale for the bottom graphs is different from the top, which is understandable considering the amount of change. However, in the bottom panel changes are a fraction of those at the top. Is there any repercussion on the biological significance

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Zoran Culig, Editor

Identification of CAND1 as a DNA-dependent protein kinase-regulated coactivator of androgen receptor and the ARv7 splice variant

PONE-D-26-09739R1

Dear Dr. Foulds,

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,

Zoran Culig

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

No further comments necessary.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zoran Culig, Editor

PONE-D-26-09739R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Foulds,

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. Zoran Culig

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 .