https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7069-6678
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2024 |
|---|
|
PPATHOGENS-D-24-02313Extended receptor repertoire of an adenovirus associated with human obesityPLOS Pathogens Dear Dr. Arnberg, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens'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 within 30 days Jan 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ekaterina E. HeldweinAcademic EditorPLOS Pathogens Robert KalejtaSection EditorPLOS Pathogens Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064 Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Both reviewers were enthusiastic about the reported work and suggested some modifications to the text and figures. Therefore, I am inviting you to revise your manuscript accordingly. While you may wish to consider the experiments suggested by Reviewer 1, these are not required for the current manuscript. However, Reviewer 1 also requested that you thoroughly review the manuscript and figures to address their concerns. Reviewer 2 also had a couple of comments. Please, address all reviewers criticisms to the best of your ability. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' Comments: 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: See attached pdf. Reviewer #2: Manuscript entitled “Extended receptor repertoire of an adenovirus associated with human obesity” by Liaci et al describes the receptor usage of HAdV-D36, which is implicated in the obesity in animals and humans. The manuscript comes from the highly reputed research laboratories in virology and structural biology and reports the results on an important topic of adenoviral entry mechanisms and is well written. Therefore, it is well suited for publication in PLOS Pathogens. I have a few comments on the scope of the findings and minor suggestions. 1) Authors say in the abstract that the elongated DG loop of the Ad36 fiber knob (FK) alters the known CAR binding interfaces and “heavily clashes” with CAR when superimposed onto a known FK-CAR complex structure (Fig. S4). These statements imply that Ad36-FK is unlikely to bind to CAR. But authors show using cell-based assays that the presence of CAR increases the binding of Ad36 in some of the cell lines tested (Fig. 1C). Is it possible that Ad36 actually binds to sugar moieties (e.g., sialic acids) on glycosylated CAR? Is there a way to prove or disprove such a possibility (e.g., deglycosylation of CAR expressed on CHO cells)? 2) Is there a requirement that Neu5Ac moieties to be the terminal sugars as part of the complex carbohydrates to bind to Ad-FKs. Authors may be able to answer this question from the known organization of sugars from the glycan array they used in the study. Along those lines, can more than two consecutive sugars (as part of the complex carbohydrates) bind to the 2-3 binding sites on a FK? 3) Figure 3. Since the authors are comparing the relative electrostatic potentials of Ad36 and Ad37 FKs to make a point, it would be useful to include a panel showing the electrostatic potential of Ad37-FK in addition to that of Ad36-FK. Moreover, in the reviewer’s opinion, the superposition of FKs (Panel B) may be visualized better as a ribbon representation than as a surface representation. Minor comment. Line 33 (Page 2). In the abstract…HAdV-D36 has been causally linked… consider replacing “causally” with “putatively” ********** 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: See attached pdf. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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: See attached pdf. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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: Vijay S. Reddy [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.] Figure resubmission: While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies 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. 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
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Professor Arnberg, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Extended receptor repertoire of an adenovirus associated with human obesity' 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, Ekaterina E. Heldwein Academic Editor PLOS Pathogens Robert Kalejta Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens 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 revised the manuscript and supporting materials, including all figures, as requested. In my opinion, the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS Pathogens. Reviewer #2: Authors have adequately answered all my queries. I don't have further comments or concerns. Accept as is. ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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: Vijay S. Reddy |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Professor Arnberg, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Extended receptor repertoire of an adenovirus associated with human obesity," 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, Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens 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 .