Staphylococcus aureus agr-type vs genetic background: molecular signatures determining differential metabolism and virulence potential

Mariane Pivard; Julian Bär; Tomas Demeter; Srikanth Mairpady Shambat; Annelies S. Zinkernagel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350108

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 6, 2026
6 Mar 2026 Author Response Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350108.r001
6 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Herminia de Lencastre, Editor -->PONE-D-26-11159-->-->Staphylococcus aureus agr-type vs genetic background: molecular signatures determining differential metabolism and virulence potential-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Pivard, 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 read and answer carefully all the points raised by the two reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 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, Herminia de Lencastre, Ph.D. 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [A.S.Z. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; https://www.snf.ch/en) project grant 310030_204343 and M.P. by the Promedica Stiftung grant 84803.]. 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. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. Funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 5. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [A subset of the RNA-seq data presented in this manuscript—specifically, the 1h30 time point for agr types I, II, III, and IV (excluding the Δagr strain)—is also included in a separate manuscript that investigates agr-activation at the single‑cell level using microfluidic microscopy. In that other work, the RNA-seq dataset appears only in Supplementary Figure S5, where it is used to assess whether differences in AIP sensitivity among agr-types could be attributed to variation in agr-regulators or agr-regulated genes. The purpose, analyses, and conclusions drawn from these RNA-seq data in the other manuscript are entirely distinct from those reported here. The use of the dataset in the present study addresses different biological questions and does not overlap in scope or interpretation with the other publication.] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. 6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, we note that you have provided the source of datasets that is used for your study. However, the accession number that you provided shows “record not found”, which suggests that it is currently set on private, and will be possibly 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. 7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: The manuscript fills a significant gap in our understanding of S. aureus by isolating the effects of the agr system from its genetic background. Using congenic Newman strains, the authors demonstrate how different agr-types dictate the timing and intensity of transcriptional responses. The RNA-seq analysis across multiple growth stages offers valuable insights into the divergent regulation of virulence and metabolism. The manuscript is well written and presents a robust experimental design. I present below a few minor comments that might improve the manuscript: - In the 12h stationary phase, the authors note different enrichment in arginine biosynthesis. Given the importance of the arginine deiminase system (ADS) in pH homeostasis and survival, a more detailed analysis of the arc operon would strengthen the metabolism aspect of the title. - The discussion regarding the ecological success of specific lineages remains somewhat speculative. While the congenic approach is a strength for isolating agr function, the "success" of a lineage in a clinical or environmental niche typically results from the co-adaptation of the agr type with its specific genetic background. The authors should explicitly discuss the limitations of using a single background (Newman) to draw broad ecological conclusions. Reviewer #2: The present manuscript describes an impressive work on the role of the different agr-types over the expression of virulence factors and the overall modification of the transcriptome at three time points (1h30, 6h, and 12h). The earlier and stronger activation in agr-IV has been previously described, but the authors eliminate the genetic background of the clones presenting the different agr-types to better study the transcriptomic differences associated to the sole variation on the agr system. The text is clear, figures are easily understandable, and tables offer detailed information. This reviewer only has a few comments to complete the manuscript: 1. Robustness: The data presented shows differences between agr-IV, and the rest of agr-types, particularly opposite to agr-III. But all experiments have been performed in triple replicates and to better support the observations more biological replicates seem necessary, particularly for what is shown in Figure 2. While the differences between agr-types are clear in the relative activation in Figure 1, the described three clusters are not so obvious in Figure 2. Should the replicates not be feasible at this point, the authors should stress this weakness in the Discussion. 2. In-depth comparison: The authors describe well all the factors that are dramatically highly transcribed in agr-IV isolates when compared to the other agr-types. But further discussion, if any, is missing for the opposite behaviour regarding important S. aureus infection virulence factors such as protein A (spa -surprisingly lower in agr-IV than in any other agr-type), fibronectin-adhering protein (fnbA), chemotaxis-inhibiting protein (chp), which, like the cited superantigens (ssl group) are less expressed in agr-IV than in agr-II or agr-III. A comment on the putative virulence role of these differences is missing. 3. Clinical significance: It could be interesting to address the probable role of the different transcriptome for the different agr-types in the pathogenesis in humans, for which the following citation is recommended, where early activation of agr-IV pathways is already described, and the importance of agr-III in menstrual toxic shock syndrome is highlighted. Jarraud S, Lyon GJ, Figueiredo AM, Lina G, Vandenesch F, Etienne J, Muir TW, Novick RP. Exfoliatin-producing strains define a fourth agr specificity group in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol. 2000 Nov;182(22):6517-22. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.22.6517-6522.2000. Erratum in: J Bacteriol. 2011 Dec;193(24):7027. Gérard, L [corrected to Lina, G]. PMID: 11053400; PMCID: PMC94802. ****** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: 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. --> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350108.r002
Revision 1
24 Apr 2026 Author Response We thank the Editor de Lencastre and the Reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for their insightful comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the work. Below, we provide a detailed, point‑by‑point response to each comment. All changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red in the marked manuscript. Then, we mention additional modifications made in the manuscript to follow PLOS One authors guidelines. Reviewer #1: The manuscript fills a significant gap in our understanding of S. aureus by isolating the effects of the agr system from its genetic background. Using congenic Newman strains, the authors demonstrate how different agr-types dictate the timing and intensity of transcriptional responses. The RNA-seq analysis across multiple growth stages offers valuable insights into the divergent regulation of virulence and metabolism. The manuscript is well written and presents a robust experimental design. I present below a few minor comments that might improve the manuscript: - In the 12h stationary phase, the authors note different enrichment in arginine biosynthesis. Given the importance of the arginine deiminase system (ADS) in pH homeostasis and survival, a more detailed analysis of the arc operon would strengthen the metabolism aspect of the title. We thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting the importance of the ADS, and suggesting to include deeper discussion of its implication in our study. We now discuss a possible acidification of the medium and a switch in the carbon source used by the bacteria (line 211 to 215). In addition to the arc operon, the kdp and ure operons were also upregulated in agr-IV at 12h, although with reduced strength. - The discussion regarding the ecological success of specific lineages remains somewhat speculative. While the congenic approach is a strength for isolating agr function, the "success" of a lineage in a clinical or environmental niche typically results from the co-adaptation of the agr type with its specific genetic background. The authors should explicitly discuss the limitations of using a single background (Newman) to draw broad ecological conclusions. We thank Reviewer 1 of highlighting the co-adaptation of the agr-type with genetic background as a missing part in our discussion. We agree with Reviewer 1 and we attenuated the hypothesis of ecological success of given agr-lineages (line 216 to 219) and we explicitly mention the limitation of this study utilizing only one genetic background. Reviewer #2: The present manuscript describes an impressive work on the role of the different agr-types over the expression of virulence factors and the overall modification of the transcriptome at three time points (1h30, 6h, and 12h). The earlier and stronger activation in agr-IV has been previously described, but the authors eliminate the genetic background of the clones presenting the different agr-types to better study the transcriptomic differences associated to the sole variation on the agr system. The text is clear, figures are easily understandable, and tables offer detailed information. This reviewer only has a few comments to complete the manuscript: 1. Robustness: The data presented shows differences between agr-IV, and the rest of agr-types, particularly opposite to agr-III. But all experiments have been performed in triple replicates and to better support the observations more biological replicates seem necessary, particularly for what is shown in Figure 2. While the differences between agr-types are clear in the relative activation in Figure 1, the described three clusters are not so obvious in Figure 2. Should the replicates not be feasible at this point, the authors should stress this weakness in the Discussion. We thank the Reviewer 2 for raising this concern. Although more replicates would significantly increase the robustness of our results, we believe that the conclusions observed would remain unchanged, considering how biological replicates cluster together on the PC1 axis (Fig 2) and as observed in the new Supplementary Figure S2. S2 Figure: Cluster identification from PCA analysis Dot-plots of the principal component analysis (PCA), using PC1 axis, depending on the agr-type, using the entire transcriptome beside the agr-locus, with all time points in A, at time point 1h30 in B, 6h in C and 12h in D. Standard error of the mean (SEM) for each time point in A, and per strain in B, C and D, are represented in black. Additionally, we have now emphasized how most clusters are observed focusing at the PC1 axis (Fig 2 and S2 Fig), which explains 56 and 51% of the variance at time points 6h and 12h, respectively, compared to only 18 and 10% for the PC2 axis (lines 110 to 112 in the Result section). In addition, we highlight now the variability observed within the clusters, line 115. We also discuss now in the Discussion section the limitation of performing only 3 replicates in this study, lines 216 to 219. 2. In-depth comparison: The authors describe well all the factors that are dramatically highly transcribed in agr-IV isolates when compared to the other agr-types. But further discussion, if any, is missing for the opposite behaviour regarding important S. aureus infection virulence factors such as protein A (spa -surprisingly lower in agr-IV than in any other agr-type), fibronectin-adhering protein (fnbA), chemotaxis-inhibiting protein (chp), which, like the cited superantigens (ssl group) are less expressed in agr-IV than in agr-II or agr-III. A comment on the putative virulence role of these differences is missing. We appreciate the comment raised by Reviewer 2 regarding specific virulence factors. We added more detailed interpretation of our results in the Discussion section. Notably, we suggest that the downregulation of spa and fnbA in agr-IV is due to a faster activation of the agr-system, which negatively regulates these adhesion factors, and how it can contribute to agr-III virulence, lines 196 to 198. We also note the unexpected observation regarding clfA, lines 201 to 203. Finally, we discussed in more details the observation regarding chp in agr-IV at 6h, line 203 to 206. 3. Clinical significance: It could be interesting to address the probable role of the different transcriptome for the different agr-types in the pathogenesis in humans, for which the following citation is recommended, where early activation of agr-IV pathways is already described, and the importance of agr-III in menstrual toxic shock syndrome is highlighted. Jarraud S, Lyon GJ, Figueiredo AM, Lina G, Vandenesch F, Etienne J, Muir TW, Novick RP. Exfoliatin-producing strains define a fourth agr specificity group in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol. 2000 Nov;182(22):6517-22. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.22.6517-6522.2000. Erratum in: J Bacteriol. 2011 Dec;193(24):7027. Gérard, L [corrected to Lina, G]. PMID: 11053400; PMCID: PMC94802. We thank Reviewer 2 for the suggestion and the reference. We added in the Discussion section that the early activation of agr-IV was previously observed, lines 207 to 208. Regarding the link between agr-types and S. aureus pathogenesis, we mention it in the Introduction, line 57: “Previous studies reported associations between agr-type and infection severity [7–9].”. We now discussed it further in the Discussion section, line 221 to 225. We would like to bring to the Reviewers and Editor’s attentions that we have added 11 references to support newly discussed points in the Discussion section. We also added in the Materials and Methods a new subsection: “Artificial Intelligence Tools and Technologies”, detailing the use of AI for this manuscript. We also updated the R script used for the statistical analysis, which includes the part added to generate graphs for the S2 Figure, and now mentions it in the subsection “RNAseq and Statistical Analysis” of the Materials and Methods section, instead of the Data Availability Statement section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Final.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350108.r003
10 May 2026 Decision Letter - Herminia de Lencastre, Editor Staphylococcus aureus agr-type vs genetic background: molecular signatures determining differential metabolism and virulence potential PONE-D-26-11159R1 Dear Dr. Mariane Pivard, PhD, 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, Herminia de Lencastre, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed all previously raised concerns, and the manuscript has improved accordingly. It is now suitable for publication. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350108.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Herminia de Lencastre, Editor PONE-D-26-11159R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Pivard, 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. Herminia de Lencastre Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350108.r005

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 .