https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5901-3856
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 16, 2022 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Rameix-Welti, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Respiratory syncytial virus ribonucleoproteins hijack microtubule Rab11 dependent transport for intracellular trafficking" 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. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. However, both of them identified a number of points which will need to be addressed. In light of the reviews, we would like to invite the resubmission of a revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all 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. Thank you again for your submission to our journal. 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, Jianrong Li Guest Editor PLOS Pathogens Guangxiang Luo 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): 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: The authors have generated a recombinant RSV with a second copy of the N (nucleocapsid) protein with GFP fused to its N-terminus, inserted further down the genome so that it would be produced in lower amounts than the unmodified N. This modified RSV replicates as well as its parent and can be visualized in infected cells in culture. They have found that Rab11b co-localizes with the nucleocapsid and is co-transported along microtubules within live cells. Nocodazole, a disruptor of microtubules, inhibits, but does not completely halt this transport. The results illustrate rapid transport of RSV nucleocapsids through cells using the recycling endosome mechanism. Reviewer #2: Cosentino et al present a well-written and well-executed paper that demonstrates that RSV utilizes microtubules and Rab-11 for transport of vRNPs within the cytoplasm. A method was developed to track vRNPs in live cells. Measurements to track speed and distance are necessarily somewhat arbitrary but are sufficient to support the main findings. The movies are both supportive of their claims and beautiful to watch. Previous papers have demonstrated the importance of microtubules for RSV replication and the effects of nocodazole, but the present work makes a first step to begin to understand the mechanism. Some of the bigger questions also posed by the authors, how and whether vRNPs move from factory sites to the membrane, and the role of inclusion bodies therein, remains unexplored and undiscussed. This somewhat lessens the impact of the paper, as it not surprising that RSV, like many other negative-strand RNA viruses, uses microtubules and rab11. ********** 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: The experiments are very thorough, with multiple approaches and assays to demonstrate this interaction, transport and quantify its speed in several ways. The results are clear and convincing. Reviewer #2: Whereas the demonstration of vRNP movement within the cytoplasm and involvement of Rab11 is a step forward in understanding, the role of inclusion bodies therein (which are by many believed to replication factories) and where vRNPs are formed and migrate to, in preparation for assembly, is the more exciting and relevant question. Do fast-moving vRNPs represent a major mechanism underlying assembly or artefacts? Experimentally, this may be the next dimension of study, however any discussion on how the data fits within the current understanding of assembly steps, and involvement of inclusion bodies, is lacking. Several older papers, such as Kallewaard listed by the authors but also several other papers, have found that in addition to microtubules, cortical F-actin also plays a role in the late stages of assembly. These findings should be discussed in the paper. Although GFP-N is incorporated into vRNPs, we cannot know whether GFP affects N-coating of vRNPs or vRNP movement. For example, it cannot be excluded that GFP slows down vRNP movement, and that faster motion is under-represented. This does not diminish the findings but should be acknowledged. Fig 7. In this paragraph, please indicate more clearly in the text which part of the figure is referred to. Fig. 7b. There seems to be only a very small amount of P, especially given the high amounts of HA-Rab11a and N on the same blot. This finding does not support that P is co-precipitated, contrary to the statement in line 307. ********** 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: A few grammatical changes are suggested on the attached manuscript copy. Reviewer #2: - line 67: add reference - lines 275 and 276: define ER. Do the authors mean RE? - Fig 6: define the difference between * and **. - line 337-338. Recent work by Piedra et al suggests the transcription gradient (and protein levels) may be more complex than anticipated. Hence, it cannot be predicted whether N-GFP levels would be lower than N levels. - line 381: first use of ERC should be defined. ********** 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 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: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols References: 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Rameix-Welti, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Respiratory syncytial virus ribonucleoproteins hijack microtubule Rab11 dependent transport for intracellular trafficking' 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, Jianrong Li Guest Editor PLOS Pathogens Guangxiang Luo Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************************************************** The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments. Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Pr Rameix-Welti, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Respiratory syncytial virus ribonucleoproteins hijack microtubule Rab11 dependent transport for intracellular trafficking," 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 .