https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2081-8892
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 17, 2020 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Somboonwiwat, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Cytotoxicity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus AHPND toxin on shrimp hemocytes, a newly identified target tissue, involves binding of toxin to aminopeptidase N1 receptor" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. In particular, additional experimental data have been requested, as well as revisions within the text of manuscript to improve interpretability and clarity. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. [2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file). Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts. Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Steven R. Blanke Associate Editor PLOS Pathogens Karla Satchell Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************** Reviewer's Responses to Questions Part I - Summary Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship. Reviewer #1: This manuscript provides compelling data that the aminopeptidase N1 (APN1) protein of shrimp hemocytes, stomach, and hepatopancreas serves as the receptor for the AHPND toxin from Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp). This was somewhat anticipated by prior work indicating the homology between the toxin and Cry toxin and the knowledge that APN1 serves as a receptor for Cry. This toxin is unique however in that it is a binary toxin and the data provided in this paper indicate that both components are part of the receptor binding interaction. This is also a significant interaction to have documented as the toxin is responsible for acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease, which has significantly impacted shrimp production. Reviewer #2: The title and abstract of the article are relevant and informative. The study method is valid and reliable with well-defined variables. The findings obtained were presented in an organized way and discussed from multiple angles and placed into the context without being over interpreted. ********** Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions. Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject". Reviewer #1: While most of my comments are minor, it is important that the authors include data on how many replicates for each experiment. This was not consistently described. While not essential for the conclusions of the paper, it would definitely have been nice to see a binding curve for truncated rLvAPN1 with the heterodimer. Reviewer #2: Authors have not done paper review properly 1. The B Subunit of PirABvp Toxin Secreted from Vibrio parahaemolyticus Causing AHPND Is an Amino Sugar Specific Lectin 2. PirABVP Toxin Binds to Epithelial Cells of the Digestive Tract and Produce Pathognomonic AHPND Lesions in Germ-Free Brine Shrimp Especially the later paper demonstrate that PirABVP toxin are not specific to hepatopancreas but it can target and binds to midgut and hindgut region of digestive tract. So I think these paper can be used for writing more interesting discussion. ********** Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. Reviewer #1: Minor Points 1. Figures 1 and 2 are mis-ordered. 2. Move Fig S4 to Fig S3 to stay consider with order of presentation in manuscript.. 3. Symbols in panel 3B almost completely illegible. Use color. 4. Fig. 3C. Use of two different types of arrow heads would be clearer than the # and * symbols in pointing the eye to the relevant features. 5. Lines 233-234: “Assuming a one-site binding model, the apparent dissociation constants (Kd) of truncated rLvAPN1 to rPirAvp and rPirBvp, as calculated from the saturation curves, were 3.157Å~10-6 M and 0. 499Å~10-6 M, respectively.” I think stating the apparent Kd as 3.2 uM and 0.5 uM would be more appropriate as ELISA’s are not high precision measurements. 6. The cartoon in Figure 7 might lead readers to think that only the first toxin requires a receptor. Once one is bound, the remain toxins bind by oligomerization. Assuming this is not the intended implication, I recommend removing the receptor for the toxin once the toxin is drawn in its oligomerized form. Authors can note that it is not clear if the receptor remains bound. 7. Western blots using anti-His and anti-GST antibodies were used to confirm the expression of the respective proteins. Authors should state the source of the antibodies. If commercial, include the company or catalog number. Fig 2c. How many replicates were performed? Fig. 1: How many replicates were performed? Fig. 5: How many replicates were performed? Reviewer #2: Line 78- they are homologous to Photorhabdus luminescens insect-related (Pir) toxins PirA/PirB not PirAvp/PirBvp. Superscript Vp comes from Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Line 354 Why for bacterial challenge and toxin challenge assay different AHPND and non-AHPND strains were used? Line 349 If the strain is non-AHPND then how it will be VPAHPND strain, (MC)? ********** PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Vikash kumar Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org. Data Requirements: Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Somboonwiwat, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Cytotoxicity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus AHPND toxin on shrimp hemocytes, a newly identified target tissue, involves binding of toxin to aminopeptidase N1 receptor' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Steven R. Blanke Associate Editor PLOS Pathogens Karla Satchell Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr. Somboonwiwat, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Cytotoxicity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus AHPND toxin on shrimp hemocytes, a newly identified target tissue, involves binding of toxin to aminopeptidase N1 receptor," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens |
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 .