Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0312162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312162

Exploring the interplay between Porphyromonas gingivalis KGP gingipain, herpes virus MicroRNA-6, and Icp4 transcript in periodontitis: Computational and clinical insights

Pradeep Kumar Yadalam 1, Anila Neelakandan 2, Rex Arunraj 3, Raghavendra Vamsi Anegundi 1, Carlos M Ardila 4,5,*
Editor: Maria Giulia Nosotti6
PMCID: PMC11527181  PMID: 39480863

Abstract

Background

Porphyromonas gingivalis, a major pathogen in periodontitis, produces KGP (Lys-gingipain), a cysteine protease that enhances bacterial virulence by promoting tissue invasion and immune evasion. Recent studies highlight microRNAs’ role in viral latency, potentially affecting lytic replication through host mechanisms. Herpes virus (HSV) establishes latency via interactions between microRNA-6 (miRH-6) and the ICP4 transcription factor in neural ganglia. This suggests a potential link between periodontitis and HSV-induced latency. This study aims to identify and validate the insilico inhibitory interaction of P. gingivalis KGP with ICP4 transcripts and correlate the presence of viral latency-associated transcript micro-RNA-6 with periodontitis.

Methods

Computational docking analysis was performed to investigate the potential interaction between ICP4 and KGP gingipain. The binding energy and RMSD ligand values were calculated to determine the interaction’s strength. Ten patients with recurrent clinical attachment loss despite conventional therapy were included in the clinical study. Subgingival tissue samples were collected post-phase I therapy, and HSV microRNA-6 presence was detected via polymerase chain reaction and confirmed through gel electrophoresis.

Results

Computational docking identified the ICP4-KGP gingipain complex with the lowest binding energy (-288.29 kJ mol^1) and an RMSD ligand of 1.5 Angstroms, indicating strong interaction potential. Gel electrophoresis confirmed miRH-6 presence in all samples.

Conclusion

The identification of miRNA-6 in periodontitis patients and the strong interaction potential between P. gingivalis KGP gingipain and ICP4 transcripts indicate a possible link between bacterial virulence factors and viral latency dynamics in periodontal tissues. These results highlight the complex interplay between oral pathogens, viral microRNAs, and host immune responses in periodontitis.

1. Introduction

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease with a complex etiology. It manifests clinically as the pathological destruction of the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone. Specific bacterial species, particularly Porphyromonas gingivalis and herpesviruses, are recognized as key periodontal pathogens. These pathogens can synergistically interact, potentially contributing to the development and progression of severe periodontitis [1]. Periodontitis development likely involves a synergistic interaction between periodontal herpesviruses and specific bacterial species. Herpesviruses may promote bacterial colonization and growth within the periodontium [2].

Conversely, bacterial factors might reactivate latent herpesviruses. This two-way communication could further impede the host’s immune response against bacteria. Elucidating these intricate interactions holds promise for novel therapeutic targets to prevent periodontitis and potentially associated systemic diseases [2]. Despite effective therapy and patient compliance, some individuals with periodontitis continue to experience attachment loss [3]. This suggests the presence of hidden reservoirs of microbial infection or the emergence of opportunistic pathogens following standard treatment.

Additionally, unknown host factors may hinder the effectiveness of traditional periodontal therapies. While past research primarily focused on identifying bacteria responsible for periodontitis, recent studies highlight the potential involvement of specific herpesviruses in disease initiation and progression [4, 5]. This shift in focus opens avenues for a more comprehensive understanding of periodontitis and developing improved treatment strategies.

Herpesviruses, such as Herpes Simplex Virus-1 (HSV-1), are known to establish long-term latent infections within their hosts [6]. During reactivation from latency in sensory ganglion neurons, HSV-1 can cause lesions on surrounding mucosal surfaces. Notably, both latent and lytic (actively replicating) herpesviruses express microRNAs (miRNAs) [1]. Several studies demonstrate that viral miRNAs regulate the host’s gene expression patterns (transcriptome) [1]. Elevated herpesvirus-derived miRNAs in the gingival tissues may contribute to a weakened cellular and immune response, potentially leading to periodontal disease.

Within the context of HSV latency, miR-H6 is a specific viral miRNA associated with maintaining latency and activating productive viral replication [7, 8]. This differs from LAT, another viral transcript found in higher numbers within nerve ganglia in conditions like trigeminal neuralgia and infections of the eye and oral tissues. Viral miRNAs function as regulators of gene expression, manipulating both viral and host genes to benefit the virus. Consequently, miRNAs play a critical role in the pathogenesis of viral diseases and the complex interactions between viruses and their hosts [1].

Immediate Early Protein 4 (ICP4), expressed by Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) during the early stages of infection, plays a vital role in regulating viral gene expression and DNA replication [9]. This protein interacts with various cellular proteins, manipulating cellular processes to facilitate viral replication and evade the host’s immune system [9].

In minimal amounts, keystone pathogens like P. gingivalis lead to dysbiotic bacteria colonization [10]. Thus, treated periodontitis, especially in some susceptible individuals, can activate the HSV latent virus residing in the sensory nerves of the periodontium. KGP is a protein produced by these bacteria that interacts with the latent associated herpes virus (LAHV) and microRNA (MIRH-6) to increase the replication and expression of the ICP4 transcript. ICP4 is a viral protein essential for the replication of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). Therefore, the interaction between KGP, LAHV, and MIRH-6 can increase the proliferation of HSV-1 in the mouth, leading to oral inflammation and disease [11].

The presence of latent HSV, which P. gingivalis can reactivate, can lead to changes in the microbial profile in recurrent cases. The established latency of HSV is due to interactions between the miRH-6 transcription factor and ICP4 in neural ganglia [12]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a connection between periodontitis and HSV latency. We hypothesize that the interaction between the MIRH-6-ICP4 transcription factor and P. gingivalis gingipain KGP leads to the deactivation of HSV micro-RNA six and the development of viral-induced periodontitis.

This study aims to identify and validate the insilico inhibitory interaction of P. gingivalis KGP with ICP4 transcripts and to correlate the presence of viral latency-associated micro-RNA 6 with periodontitis. We will focus on a proof-of-concept insilico and clinical study to support our hypothesis.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Insilico validation of P. gingivalis -ICP4 interaction

The interactions between the MIRH-6-ICP4 transcription factors are essential for maintaining latency in the nerve ganglia of the periodontium. To confirm the interaction of P. gingivalis gingipain KGP and its inhibition of ICP4, protein-protein docking of MIRH-6-induced latency is required [13].

2.2. Protein-protein docking

Lysine gingipains (KGP) from P. gingivalis facilitate epithelial cell invasion. Molecular docking of the KGP lysine gingipain with ICP4 (protein-peptide complex) was conducted using the Hdock server [13].

2.3. Molecular dynamics simulation

The DESMOND (version 14) molecular dynamics package assessed the stability of protein-protein interactions. Molecular dynamics simulations were conducted for 100 nanoseconds using Schrödinger LLC’s Desmond software, which employs Newton’s classical equations of motion to simulate atomic movements over time [14].

The Maestro Protein Preparation Wizard was utilized to optimize the receptor-ligand complex, and the System Builder tool was employed to construct all systems. The solvent model employed was TIP3P in an orthorhombic box configuration. The OPLS 2005 force field was applied, along with counter ions, to neutralize the models. The NPT ensemble was used with 0.15 M sodium chloride (NaCl) at 300 K and 1 atm pressure.

The stability of the simulations was evaluated by comparing the root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the protein and ligand every 100 ps.

2.4 Clinical validation study

A sample of ten patients was selected from a pool of individuals who had undergone treatment for periodontitis but continued to exhibit clinical attachment loss despite receiving standard periodontal therapy (non-surgical therapy followed by surgical therapy). These patients were chosen based on the prevalence of the condition. It was determined that each of these ten patients had one subgingival tissue sample obtained from them.

Inclusion criteria

  • Periodontal disease with a history of periodontitis and treatment for periodontitis but continued to exhibit clinical attachment loss [15].

  • Adherence to maintenance and hygiene recommendations [15].

  • Presence of at least two active sites (bleeding on probing or probing pocket depth ≥ 5 mm) in recurrent sites

Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnancy

  • Diabetes

  • Blood disorders

  • Inadequate conventional care

Given the exploratory nature of this study to identify the existence of HSV microRNA, a statistical power analysis was not conducted. The participants were fully informed about the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study, and their rights as participants. They signed a written informed consent form, which was obtained separately from each participant. Moreover, ethical approval was granted by Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals on 01-28-2022 (Ref No. 22-perio-317).

Following periodontal therapy, these ten patients were monitored for two years (01-30-2022, to 01-30-2024). During this period, each patient reported at least one instance of reactivation, evidenced by the presence of sites with probing depths and clinical attachment loss exceeding 6 mm. Patient recruitment took place at Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals, India.

Tissue samples were collected from the deepest pocket using a curette (Pocket Lining) and immediately frozen at -80°C for subsequent PCR analysis. Primers specific for miR-H6 were designed as follows:

  • Forward Primer: CCGGAGGGTGGAAGGCAG

  • Reverse Primer: GATGGAAGGACGGGAAGTGnon s

The tissue samples were subsequently used for RNA isolation. After isolation, RNA was reverse-transcribed to generate complementary DNA (cDNA). The cDNA was then subjected to reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), which included an initial denaturation step at 95°C followed by multiple amplification cycles and concluded with a final extension step at 72°C.

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals (28/1/2022; Ref No. 22/perio/317). The participants were fully informed about the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study, and their rights as participants. They signed a written informed consent form, which was obtained separately from each participant.

3. Results

The ICP4-KGP gingipain complex, which exhibited the lowest binding energy score of -288.29 kJ mol^-1, was identified as the most effective interaction, according to Hdock. Visualization of these interactions was performed using Pymol (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Ligand ’KGP’ interacts with receptor ’icp4’ protein to form a binding relationship.

Fig 1

Ligands are shown in red, and receptor proteins are shown in cyan.

Fig 2 shows how the RMSD values of a protein-protein complex have changed over time. The complex reaches stability at 20,000 ps, as shown in the graph. Following that, the target’s RMSD value fluctuations are under 1.5 Angstrom for the length of the simulation, which is entirely acceptable. After equilibration, the RMSD values of the ligand-protein fit to the receptor protein fluctuate within 1.0 Angstrom.

Fig 2. The RMSD of receptor and ligand proteins varies over time, as indicated by the left Y-axis.

Fig 2

The RMSD of the receptor protein is blue, while the RMSD of the ligand protein is red.

Peaks on the RMSF picture (Fig 3) indicate protein regions that fluctuated the most during the simulation. MD trajectories show higher-peaking residues in loop regions or N and C-terminal zones (Fig 4). Low RMSF values on binding site residues suggest stable protein-ligand binding.

Fig 3. A) Receptor protein, B) Ligand protein Residue-wise Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF).

Fig 3

Fig 4. Protein structure secondary structure elements spread by residue index.

Fig 4

Beta strands are denoted by blue, while alpha helices are denoted by red. A) The SSE of the receptor protein B) The SSE of the ligand-protein. The graph above shows the distribution of SSE across protein architectures by residue index.

Fig 4 shows the secondary protein structure elements spread by residue index. Beta strands are denoted by blue, while alpha helices are denoted by red.

Throughout the simulation, protein interactions with the ligand can be observed.

As shown in Figs 5 and 6, hydrogen bonds make up most of the crucial ligand-protein interactions that MD discovers. The exchanges and contacts depicted in Fig 5 are depicted as a timeline.

Fig 5. Interactions and contacts are depicted as timelines (H-bonds).

Fig 5

Fig 6. Radius of gyration, A) Receptor Protein, B) Ligand Protein.

Fig 6

The radius of gyration refers to how many atoms are distributed around a protein’s axis (Rg). Rg and distance calculations are the two most essential indicators for predicting a macromolecule’s structural activity. Protein-ligand interactions with the radius of gyration changes show a conformational shift throughout time. A powerful computer could calculate the gyration radius to determine a protein’s compactness, which can be used to determine how quickly it folds.

PCR results and agar gel electrophoresis

Fig 7 shows clinical validation of the presence of HSV micro-RNA 6 in periodontal tissue samples from periodontitis subjects using PCR. Thicker bands indicate higher hsv micro-RNA 6 in clinical samples.

Fig 7. Clinical validation of the presence of HSV micro-RNA 6 in periodontal tissue samples from periodontitis subjects using PCR.

Fig 7

Thicker bands indicate higher HSV micro-RNA 6 in clinical samples.

Discussion

Periodontitis is an inflammatory condition resulting from an imbalance in oral bacteria, triggering an exaggerated immune response and tissue damage supporting the teeth [12, 16]. The primary treatment involves cleaning the biofilm beneath the gum line and maintaining effective plaque control. Research indicates that regular periodontal maintenance therapy is crucial for sustaining post-initial progress [17, 18]. However, without consistent clinical monitoring and reinforcement of oral hygiene practices, these benefits may diminish, heightening the risk of recurrent periodontitis and tooth loss.

Good oral hygiene practices have been associated with a reduced prevalence of periodontitis. The principal cause of recurrent periodontitis is the buildup of dental plaque, a bacterial biofilm that forms on teeth. Recurrent periodontitis is characterized by an unknown etiology disorder marked by recurring severe inflammation of the periodontium, chronic and exacerbated immune responses, and resorption of tooth-supporting structures, including the alveolar bone, even after successful treatment [19].

Bacteria and viruses engage in interactions such as mutualism, parasitism, and predation, which play crucial roles in microbial populations, environmental dynamics, and human health. These interactions can significantly influence bacterial ecosystems, with bacteriophages regulating bacterial populations through infection and destruction of microorganisms. Altering the relative abundance of bacterial species can impact the composition and function of microbial communities.

Despite diligent efforts by dental professionals to treat periodontal disease, some individuals do not respond adequately [20]. These patients suffer from recurrent periodontitis due to resistance to treatment, likely influenced by microbial resistance and host immunological factors. HSV viral DNA infects tissues affected by periodontal disease, including gingival tissue, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and subgingival plaque. The latency property of HSV is particularly important, as it can be reactivated from neural ganglia in immunocompromised individuals, and its role in periodontitis remains unclear. This study represents the first to establish a connection between periodontitis and HSV latency [2022].

The double-stranded DNA virus HSV-1 [23] can persist in periodontal epithelium and brain cells. HSV-1’s replication cycle is driven by the regulatory gene ICP4, which transcribes both early and late viral genes. ICP4 interacts with micro-RNA to initiate HSV-1 reactivation from latency. A complex association exists between severe periodontal disease and herpesviruses such as EBV and HCMV. EBV, HCMV, and co-infections are commonly found in various periodontal disorders. Periodontitis patients often exhibit higher EBV DNA levels in saliva than healthy individuals. The prevalence of EBV in individuals with periodontitis correlates with pocket depth [23, 24], suggesting a connection between periodontitis, EBV, and periodontopathic bacteria.

Herpesviruses, particularly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) [2], are implicated in serious gum disorders. While bacteria play a significant role in these conditions, antiviral medications may improve gum health by reducing EBV levels. Studies suggest that certain oral bacteria can activate EBV, contributing to inflammation and gum disease. There appears to be a detrimental cycle where bacteria and EBV exacerbate each other, worsening gum disease.

The periodontal bacterium P. gingivalis produces butyric acid, which can reactivate EBV [21, 23, 25]. Butyric acid in bacterial culture supernatants induces ZEBRA expression and histone H3 acetylation in EBV-infected cells, leading to their reactivation. P. gingivalis also induces histone acetylation and dissociation of HDAC from the BZLF1 promoter in latently infected cells, further facilitating EBV reactivation [8].

A microRNA (miRNA) is a short, non-coding RNA molecule composed of 18–22 nucleotide sequences found in plants, animals, and viruses. Upstream of the LAT promoter, miR-H1 and miR-H6 are located. Sequences upstream of the LAT promoter encode miR-H1, while miR-H6 encodes miR-H1. In HSV-1, miR-H6 targets ICP4 to help maintain latency. Except for miR-H6, all LAT-encoded v-miRs are oriented in the same direction as the LAT transcripts [24]. Unlike LAT, which is more prevalent in nerve ganglia in trigeminal neuralgia, miR-H6 maintains latency and activates productive disease activation. Evidence from several studies suggests a role for oral bacteria and HSV-miRNA in the development of periodontal inflammatory disorders.

Our study targeted icp4 transcripts interacting with the keystone pathogen P. gingivalis. According to George Hajishengallis’s theory on "keystone pathogens," specific low-abundance microbial species can drive inflammation by disrupting the normal microbiome. Despite its low abundance, P. gingivalis can interact with ICP4 transcripts, influencing the periodontal inflammatory pathway.

Insilico docking enables fundamental investigations into protein interactions and provides a structural foundation for drug development. Protein-protein docking predicts the complex structures formed by individual protein molecules. The steric and physicochemical complementarity concept at the protein-protein interface is crucial for docking and simulation studies.

Insilico docking and simulation of protein-protein complexes revealed a strong inhibitory effect of P. gingivalis KGP gingipain with the ICP4 transcript, as evidenced by the docked complex achieving the lowest energy score of -288.29 kJ mol^-1. Throughout the simulation, the target’s root mean square deviation (RMSD) values remained consistently below 1.5 Angstroms, indicating good stability [26]. Following equilibration, the RMSD of the ligand protein to the receptor protein was 1.0 Angstrom, demonstrating stable binding between the ligand and receptor proteins throughout the simulation. Compared to unstructured regions, alpha helices and beta strands exhibited firmer and more stable conformations, with higher peaks observed in the molecular dynamics (MD) trajectories primarily in loop areas or at the N- and C-terminal regions. Low RMSF (Root Mean Square Fluctuation) values of binding site residues further underscored the stability of the protein-ligand interaction [2729].

Patients with recurrent inflammatory gingival and periodontal symptoms such as bleeding, halitosis, and pocket depths exceeding 7 mm at the same sites were selected for this study on periodontitis subjects. Analysis of patient samples from periodontitis cases revealed the presence of HSV microRNA H6, suggesting its role in activating HSV and potentially altering the periodontal microbiome to induce periodontitis [30]. This study highlights the role of P. gingivalis, a keystone pathogen [1, 2, 6], particularly in periodontitis, in potentially activating latent HSV in the periodontium by inhibiting ICP4 and suppressing HSV microRNA H6, thereby prolonging HSV infection and contributing to the development of periodontitis.

This study has several limitations, including a small sample size and the lack of a control group, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the absence of randomization could introduce selection bias. The use of insilico docking, while insightful, is inherently predictive and requires further validation through experimental studies. The study also focused on a specific subset of patients with recurrent inflammatory symptoms, potentially neglecting influences from host immune response, genetic predisposition, and lifestyle factors. These limitations should be addressed in future research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between microbial and viral factors in periodontitis.

Conclusion

This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting a potential link between P. gingivalis, herpes virus microRNA-6, and the pathogenesis of periodontitis. Insilico analysis demonstrated a plausible interaction between P. gingivalis KGP gingipain and ICP4, a critical viral regulatory protein. Furthermore, the consistent detection of miRNA-6 in periodontitis patients supports the hypothesis of viral involvement in disease progression. While these findings offer intriguing insights, the exploratory nature of this study necessitates further investigation with larger cohorts. A comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between microbial and viral factors is essential for elucidating the aetiology of periodontitis and developing targeted therapeutic interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOC)

pone.0312162.s001.doc (85.5KB, doc)
S1 File. Values used to build graphs.

(DOCX)

pone.0312162.s002.docx (16.6KB, docx)
S1 Raw images

(PDF)

pone.0312162.s003.pdf (1.7MB, pdf)

Data Availability

"All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files."

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Naqvi AR, Slots J. Human and herpesvirus microRNAs in periodontal disease. Periodontol 2000. 2021;87(1):325–39. doi: 10.1111/prd.12404 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Imai K, Ogat Y, Ochiai K. Microbial interaction of periodontopathic bacteria and Epstein-Barr virus and their implication of periodontal diseases. J Oral Biosci. 2012; 54(3):164–8. doi: 10.1016/j.job.2012.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Leow NM, Moreno F, Marletta D, Hussain SB, Buti J, Almond N, et al. Recurrence and progression of periodontitis and methods of management in long-term care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2022;49 Suppl 24:291–313. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13553 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ramachandran M, Buddala P, Delhikumar CG, Parameswaran N, Chandrasekaran V, Jagadisan B, et al. Recurrent Infection Due to Phagocyte Dysfunction. Indian J Pediatr. 2019;86(9):861–2. doi: 10.1007/s12098-019-02915-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pomowski A, Usón I, Nowakowska Z, Veillard F, Sztukowska MN, Guevara T, et al. Structural insights unravel the zymogenic mechanism of the virulence factor gingipain K from Porphyromonas gingivalis, a causative agent of gum disease from the human oral microbiome. J Biol Chem. 2017;292(14):5724–35. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.776724 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Duan F, Liao J, Huang Q, Nie Y, Wu K. HSV-1 miR-H6 inhibits HSV-1 replication and IL-6 expression in human corneal epithelial cells in vitro. Clin Dev Immunol. 2012;2012:192791. doi: 10.1155/2012/192791 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Slots J. Herpesviral-bacterial interactions in periodontal diseases. Periodontol 2000. 2010;52(1):117–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00308.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Naqvi AR, Shango J, Seal A, Shukla D, Nares S. Herpesviruses and MicroRNAs: New Pathogenesis Factors in Oral Infection and Disease? Front Immunol. 2018;9:2099. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02099 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Umbach JL, Kramer MF, Jurak I, Karnowski HW, Coen DM, Cullen BR. MicroRNAs expressed by herpes simplex virus 1 during latent infection regulate viral mRNAs. Nature. 2008;454(7205):780–3. doi: 10.1038/nature07103 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hajishengallis G, Darveau RP, Curtis MA. The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(10):717–25. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2873 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Naqvi AR, Brambila MF, Martínez G, Chapa G, Nares S. Dysregulation of human miRNAs and increased prevalence of HHV miRNAs in obese periodontitis subjects. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(1):51–61. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13040 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.O-Brien-Simpson NM, Veith PD, Dashper SG, Reynolds EC. Porphyromonas gingivalis gingipains: the molecular teeth of a microbial vampire. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2003;4(6):409–26. doi: 10.2174/1389203033487009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yan Y, Tao H, He J, Huang SY. The HDOCK server for integrated protein-protein docking. Nat Protoc. 2020;15(5):1829–52. doi: 10.1038/s41596-020-0312-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hildebrand PW, Rose AS, Tiemann JKS. Bringing Molecular Dynamics Simulation Data into View. Trends Biochem Sci. 2019;44(11):902–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2019.06.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pellegrini G, Carmagnola D, Toma M, Rasperini G, Orioli M, Dellavia C. Involvement of the endocannabinoid system in current and recurrent periodontitis: A human study. J Periodontal Res. 2023;58(2):422–32. doi: 10.1111/jre.13103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shah R, Mehta DS. Prevalence of herpesviruses in gingivitis and chronic periodontitis: relationship to clinical parameters and effect of treatment. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2016;20(3):279–85. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.179896 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kornman KS. Refractory periodontitis: critical questions in clinical management. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(3 Pt 2):293–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb02092.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kubar A, Saygun I, Ozdemir A, Yapar M, Slots J. Real-time polymerase chain reaction quantification of human cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus in periodontal pockets and the adjacent gingiva of periodontitis lesions. J Periodontal Res. 2005;40(2):97–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2005.00770.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhu C, Li F, Wong MC, Feng XP, Lu HX, Xu W. Association between Herpesviruses and Chronic Periodontitis: A Meta-Analysis Based on Case-Control Studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144319 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen C, Feng P, Slots J. Herpesvirus-bacteria synergistic interaction in periodontitis. Periodontol 2000. 2020;82(1):42–64. doi: 10.1111/prd.12311 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Slots J. Human viruses in periodontitis. Periodontol 2000. 2010;53:89–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00325.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Contreras A, Slots J. Mammalian viruses in human periodontitis. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1996;11(6):381–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1996.tb00199.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Louten J, Beach M, Palermino K, Weeks M, Holenstein G. MicroRNAs Expressed during Viral Infection: Biomarker Potential and Therapeutic Considerations. Biomark Insights. 2016;10(Suppl 4):25–52. doi: 10.4137/BMI.S29512 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tang S, Bertke AS, Patel A, Margolis TP, Krause PR. Herpes simplex virus 2 microRNA miR-H6 is a novel latency-associated transcript-associated microRNA, but reduction of its expression does not influence the establishment of viral latency or the recurrence phenotype. J Virol. 2011;85(9):4501–9. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01997-10 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Santos RS, Macedo RF, Souza EA, Soares RS, Feitosa DS, Sarmento CF. The use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of refractory periodontitis: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(7):577–85. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.02.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Arumuganainar D, Yadalam PK, Alzahrani KJ, Alsharif KF, Alzahrani FM, Alshammeri S, et al. Inhibitory effect of lupeol, quercetin, and solasodine on Rhizopus oryzae: A molecular docking and dynamic simulation study. J Infect Public Health. 2023;16(1):117–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.12.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Celik I, Rudrapal M, Yadalam PK, Chinnam S, Balaji TM, Varadarajan S, et al. Resveratrol and its natural analogues inhibit RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of Rhizopus oryzae in mucormycosis through computational investigations. Polycycl Aromat Compd. 2023;43(5). doi: 10.1080/10406638.2022.2050061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yadalam PK, Anegundi RV, Ramadoss R, Joseph B, Veeramuthu A. Felodipine repurposed for targeting TRPV1 receptor to relieve oral cancer pain. Oral Oncol. 2022;134:106094. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106094 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yadalam PK, Sivasankari T, Rengaraj S, Mugri MH, Sayed M, Khan SS, et al. Gene Interaction Network Analysis Reveals IFI44L as a Drug Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Periodontitis. Molecules. 2022;27(9):2749. doi: 10.3390/molecules27092749 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kim EH, Kim S, Kim HJ, Jeong HO, Lee J, Jang J, et al. Prediction of Chronic Periodontitis Severity Using Machine Learning Models Based On Salivary Bacterial Copy Number. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:571515. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.571515 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Maria Giulia Nosotti

31 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-24760Exploring the Interplay Between Porphyromonas gingivalis KGP Gingipain, Herpes Virus MicroRNA-6, and Icp4 Transcript in Periodontitis: Computational and Clinical InsightsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ardila,

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.

I recommend revisiting the following points: 

  • Review the clinical part and explain in more detail

  • Specify whether the periodontal therapy is surgical or SRP, it is not clear in the text

  • The conclusion is wrong because herpes virus is not present in all patients with periodontitis. Review the conclusions

  • Review some typos (Insilco instead of In silico)

  • How the tissue collection was done and the region of collection should be better described. It was not a byopsy but a scaling removal. What type of tissue was achieved? Inclusion and excluison criteria also needs clarification. Include clinical signs of sites "recurrent"

  • Results: The atuhros could better work on Figures. SOme of them can be merged and give the reader a easy view of in silico resut

  • Focus the conclusions more on the results obtained

Overall the work is good and the topic interesting

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2024 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 rebuttal 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Giulia Nosotti, Master's Degree

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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. 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.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. 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

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 study "Exploring the Interplay Between Porphyromonas gingivalis KGP Gingipain, Herpes Virus MicroRNA-6, and Icp4 Transcript in Periodontitis: Computational and Clinical Insights " is an interesting analysis of multiples approaches in subjects affected by periodontitis. Results indicate a relatinhsip between Pg and HSV in periodontitis occurence. There are some points to be clarified before further analysis.

Abstract: The authors can review Background and include computational analysis in Methods. As presetned, it is not possible understand both analysis.

Introduction: Authors did a good job. The text is clear and explain the hypothesis and the plausibility of the study.

Methods

Review some typos (Insilco instead of In silico)

How the tissue collection was done and the region of collection should be better described. It was not a byopsy but a scaling removal. What type of tissue was achieved? Inclusion and excluison criteria also needs clarification. Include clinical signs of sites "recurrent".

Results: The atuhros could better work on Figures. SOme of them can be merged and give the reader a easy view of in silico resut. A Graphical abstrct of findigns could be an interesting option to explain this new pathway.

Conclusion could be less especulative and focus on results.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

The clinical part of the manuscript is very confusing. Since there is no equivalent for recurrent periodontitis and the new classification the stud patients can't be assigned automatically to Periodontitis Stage 3 (line 164-166) if they do not fit the requirements. Also the classification is made base on CAL and not PD so you need to correct this since the only way to precisely asses the bone loss is through CAL calculation. It is also not clear what kind of therapy the patients received. In a part of the manuscript you state they received surgical therapy then in other SRP and in other conventional therapy. You must be more specific with that and stick to it through all the manuscript.

Line 168-169 it is not clear what you meant here since there is no timepoint description in your manuscript so T1 sites has no meaning (assuming T is from timepoint).

The study has no limitations written even if in STROBE declaration they are listed as written in page 11.

Also the conclusion is wrong because herpes virus is not present in all patients with periodontitis. This is why it was important to classify correctly their patients.

Also in order to provide a clinical validation you must do this by evaluating clinical parameters. What you have done is a PCR validation of the computational analysis.

**********

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.]

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0312162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312162.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Sep 2024

Dear Editor and Referees,

We are grateful for the constructive comments you provided, which helped us to improve the manuscript significantly.

Our responses to your comments are outlined below and highlighted in yellow in the new version.

Editor

Thank you for your constructive feedback and recommendations. We have carefully reviewed the points you raised and addressed them in detail in our responses to the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #1:

1. Abstract: The authors can review Background and include computational analysis in Methods. As presented, it is not possible understand both analysis.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reviewed and refined the Background section of the abstract for clarity and conciseness. Additionally, we have revised the abstract to include the computational analysis within the Methods section. The updated abstract now clearly describes the computational docking analysis performed to investigate the interaction between ICP4 and KGP gingipain, alongside the clinical methods used to detect HSV microRNA-6. We hope this revision meets your expectations and provides a clearer understanding of both analyses conducted in the study.

2. Methods.

Review some typos (Insilco instead of In silico).

RESPONSE: The typos were corrected.

How the tissue collection was done, and the region of collection should be better described. It was not a biopsy but a scaling removal. What type of tissue was achieved? Inclusion and exclusion criteria also need clarification. Include clinical signs of sites "recurrent".

RESPONSE: All these aspects were resolved in the revised version.

3. Results: The authors could better work on Figures. Some of them can be merged and give the reader an easy view of in silico result. A Graphical abstract of findigns could be an interesting option to explain this new pathway.

RESPONSE: The figures were corrected.

4. Conclusion could be less speculative and focus on results.

RESPONSE: In the revised version, the conclusions focus on the results obtained.

Reviewer #2:

1.The clinical part of the manuscript is very confusing. Since there is no equivalent for recurrent periodontitis and the new classification the study patients can't be assigned automatically to Periodontitis Stage 3 (line 164-166) if they do not fit the requirements. Also, the classification is made based on CAL and not PD, so you need to correct this since the only way to precisely assess the bone loss is through CAL calculation.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have used both probing depth and clinical attachment loss for assessing the severity.

2. It is also not clear what kind of therapy the patients received. In a part of the manuscript, you state they received surgical therapy then in other SRP and in other conventional therapy. You must be more specific with that and stick to it through all the manuscript.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your valuable feedback. All patients received non-surgical therapy followed by surgical therapy as a standard protocol.

3. Lines 168-169 it is not clear what you meant here since there is no timepoint description in your manuscript so T1 sites has no meaning (assuming T is from timepoint).

RESPONSE: The recommendation was amended in the revised version.

4. The study has no limitations written even if in STROBE declaration they are listed as written in page 11.

RESPONSE: The limitations were added at the end of the discussion.

5. Also, the conclusion is wrong because herpes virus is not present in all patients with periodontitis. This is why it was important to classify correctly their patients.

RESPONSE: The recommendation was amended in the revised version.

6. Also, to provide a clinical validation, you must do this by evaluating clinical parameters. What you have done is a PCR validation of the computational analysis.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the importance of clinical validation in evaluating the clinical parameters of our study. We consider that the insilco validation of the P. gingivalis-ICP4 interaction is a crucial step in confirming the interaction between MIRH-6 transcription factors and ICP4 in maintaining latency in the nerve ganglia of the periodontium. This interaction is fundamental to understanding the role of P. gingivalis gingipain KGP and its inhibition of ICP4 in the development and progression of periodontal disease.

Protein-protein docking, and molecular dynamics simulation are necessary to assess the stability and dynamics of the protein-protein interactions between KGP and ICP4. These computational techniques provide insights into the binding affinity and structural changes of the complex, helping to validate the proposed interaction and understand its functional implications.

The clinical validation study is important for providing evidence of the relevance of the P. gingivalis-ICP4 interaction in human periodontal disease. By selecting patients who have demonstrated additional clinical attachment loss despite standard periodontal treatments, the study aims to show the association between this interaction and treatment-resistant or recurrent periodontal disease.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are carefully chosen to ensure the study population accurately represents the target patient group. The thorough monitoring and collection of tissue samples allow for the analysis of HSV micro-RNA and its potential role in the disease process.

Overall, the insilco validation and clinical validation study provide important scientific and clinical evidence to support our hypothesis and contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying periodontal disease.

Please see the next references:

Manaithiya A, et al. Elucidating molecular mechanism and chemical space of chalcones through biological networks and machine learning approaches. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024 Jul 6;23:2811-2836. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.07.006.

Brueckner AC, et al. MDFit: automated molecular simulations workflow enables high throughput assessment of ligands-protein dynamics. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2024 Jul 17;38(1):24. doi: 10.1007/s10822-024-00564-2.

De La Torre S, et al. Computational approaches for lead compound discovery in dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition using machine learning and molecular dynamics techniques. Comput Biol Chem. 2024 Jul 10;112:108145. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2024.108145.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response.docx

pone.0312162.s004.docx (19KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Maria Giulia Nosotti

2 Oct 2024

Exploring the Interplay Between Porphyromonas gingivalis KGP Gingipain, Herpes Virus MicroRNA-6, and Icp4 Transcript in Periodontitis: Computational and Clinical Insights

PONE-D-24-24760R1

Dear Dr. Ardilla,

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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Maria Giulia Nosotti, Master's Degree

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #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 #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 #2: In the abstract and manuscript in the conclusion please modify in the last sentence "periodontitis" with "reccurent periodontitis". It is more accurate since all your patients had recurrent periodontitis.

**********

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 #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Maria Giulia Nosotti

7 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-24760R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ardila,

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

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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.

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. Maria Giulia Nosotti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOC)

    pone.0312162.s001.doc (85.5KB, doc)
    S1 File. Values used to build graphs.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312162.s002.docx (16.6KB, docx)
    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    pone.0312162.s003.pdf (1.7MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.docx

    pone.0312162.s004.docx (19KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    "All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files."


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES