Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 19;19(8):e0308912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308912

Identification of microbial antigens in liver tissues involved in the pathogenesis of primary biliary cholangitis using 16S rRNA metagenome analysis

Tomohiro Katsumi 1,*, Hidenori Sato 2, Ryoko Murakami 2, Takumi Hanatani 1, Fumi Uchiyama 1, Fumiya Suzuki 1, Keita Maki 1, Kyoko Hoshikawa 1, Hiroaki Haga 1, Takafumi Saito 1, Yoshiyuki Ueno 1
Editor: Hin Fung Tsang3
PMCID: PMC11332946  PMID: 39159233

Abstract

Background

Multiple factors are involved in the pathogenesis of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), a chronic cholestatic liver disease, characterized by intrahepatic cholangiopathy. In particular, studies have suggested that environmental factors such as the presence of granulomas in the portal vein region are important for the development of PBC. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze and identify foreign-derived antigens in PBC liver tissue to confirm their involvement in PBC pathogenesis.

Methods

Portal areas and hepatocyte regions were selectively dissected from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded PBC liver tissue samples using the microlaser method, followed by total DNA extraction. We then validated whether the bacterial strains identified through 16S rRNA metagenomic analysis were detected in PBC liver tissues.

Results

The most frequently detected bacterial genera in the PBC liver tissue samples were Sphingomonas panacis, Providencia, and Cutibacterium. These bacterial genera were also detected in the other PBC samples. Validation for the detection of S. panacis, the most abundant genus, revealed polymerase chain reaction bands extracted from the portal areas of all samples. They were also more highly expressed than bands detected in the hepatocyte region.

Conclusion

S. panacis antigen was specifically detected in the portal areas of PBC liver tissues. The introduction of foreign-derived antigens into the liver as an environmental factor could be a possible mechanism for the development of PBC.

Introduction

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease characterized by pathological intrahepatic small bile duct damage, the pathogenesis of which remains unknown [15]. Multiple factors are believed to be involved in the pathogenesis of PBC, with autoimmune mechanisms being considered the main triggering factors, considering that PBC is often associated with chronic thyroiditis and Sjogren’s syndrome [610].

In recent years, extensive genome-wide association studies have been conducted to identify PBC disease-specific genes [1113]. Other studies identified a locus on the X chromosome that may be involved in the female predominance of PBC, suggesting a genetic predisposition to PBC [14]. Alternatively, a recent case–control study on Japanese patients with PBC and sex- and age-matched controls showed that environmental unsanitation and chronic exposure to chemicals (e.g., smoking and hair dye) during childhood may be risk factors for the development of PBC [15]. Therefore, these environmental factors may also play a major role in the development of PBC [2, 16].

Several types of PBC mouse models have been established, including models in which genetic factors are involved (e.g., NOD.c3c4 mice), models in which autoimmune mechanisms may be involved (e.g., dnTGF-βRII mice), and PBC-like pathologies caused by 2OA, 6BH immunization or Escherichia coli (E.coli) infection 2OA, and 6BH immunization [17]. In line with this, mice with a PBC-like pathology caused by E. coli infection suggest the involvement of environmental factors [18]. Granulomas found within the portal vein region of PBC liver tissues have been identified as key environmental factors [19, 20]. Specifically, studies have detected the presence of Propionibacterium acnes in PBC granulomas [21], identifying urinary tract infections as a risk factor for the development of the disease. Of particular interest is the finding that the corresponding antigen of anti-mitochondrial antibodies (AMA), the pyruvate dehydrogenase E2 component (PDC-E2), is conserved across species in these bacteria [22, 23]. This molecular homology strongly supports the role of environmental factors in the development of disease.

Although these studies have suggested that environmental factors are also important in the pathogenesis of PBC, the pathogenesis-associated exogenous antigens present in PBC organisms have not been continuously and universally identified. As such, identifying these exogenous antigens as environmental factors can help elucidate the pathogenesis of PBC, an intractable liver disease, and uncover future therapies.

The current study aimed to comprehensively analyze the exogenous antigens in PBC liver tissues and serum via 16S rRNA metagenome analysis and confirm their involvement in the pathogenesis of PBC.

Materials and methods

PBC sample selection

PBC cases were selected using the following diagnostic criteria: itchy skin, which is a typical clinical manifestation of PBC; elevated serum biliary enzymes and high IgM levels on blood biochemical tests; and positivity for AMA. In addition, cases of histopathologically confirmed PBC with interlobular bile duct lesions and granulomas were included in this study. Cases with histologically concomitant autoimmune hepatitis, severe fibrosis, or noncompensated cirrhosis were excluded. Cases with liver carcinogenesis in the background of PBC were also excluded. The control group comprised healthy volunteers. These PBC cases were diagnosed at Yamagata University Hospital, and liver tissue was used for the study only when permission to use the specimens was obtained from the patients.

Selective laser microdissection

Laser microdissection (LMD), a method used for sectioning extremely small portions of a histopathological specimen, is an ideal technique for molecular analysis involving minute specimens. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections of PBC liver tissues collected via liver biopsy were prepared on glass slides with foil (PEN-Membrane Slides, Leica) and stained with hepatoxylin eosin (HE).

From the FFPE liver tissue samples, the portal vein and hepatocyte regions were selectively excised using the LMD method (Leica LMD 6500, Leica MICROSYSTEMS, UV laser cutting) and collected in individual 0.5-mL polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tubes (PCR-05-C, Axygen). The hepatocyte area was selected and removed from the area without inflammatory cell infiltration. The laser was adjusted to a wavelength of 349 nm to minimize sample damage. The area of the excised portal vein and hepatocyte regions per sample was measured.

DNA extraction from liver tissues and sera

DNA was extracted from the LMD-separated portal vein area and hepatocytes using the MagMAX FFPE DNA/RNA Ultra Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), followed by Quality check and concentration measurements (Qubit assays, Life Technologies). DNA was also extracted from the PBC sera for validation experiments (QIAamp MinElute Virus Spin Kit, QIAGEN). Concentration measurements and quality check were performed using the same procedure.

16S rRNA sequencing

Multiplex polymerase chain reactions were performed on the extracted DNA samples using two primer pools corresponding to the V2, V4, and V8 regions (amplicon sizes of 250, 288, and 295 bp, respectively) or the V3, V6–7, and V9 regions (amplicon sizes of 215, 260, and 209 bp, respectively) of the 16S rRNA gene (16S metagenomics kit, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Each hypervariable regions (V1-V9 regions) of 16s RNA demonstrate considerable sequence diversity among different bacteria and used for accurate identification. A sequence library was constructed using the IonAmpliSeq library kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. To ensure the quality of each library, digital electrophoresis was performed using a D1000 Screen Tape on a 2200 Tape Station (Agilent Technologies). Amplified 30–140 pM libraries were subjected to emulsion PCR, and purified libraries were loaded onto an Ion P1 chip v3, after which ion semiconductor sequencing was performed using an Ion Proton sequencer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). To obtain taxonomy assignment, >101 bp read lengths in sequence files were run through the assembly programs constructed using Bowtie2 version 2.3.5, along with consecutive mapping on the Greengenes database (published May 2011, including 16Sr RNA gene sequence information for 406,998 strains). The read depths against the 16S rRNA gene regions were calculated using bedtools software version 2.29.0 and the In House R script.

Validation study

Validation PCR study was performed to detect the bacterial genera identified from the results in the 16S rRNA metagenome analysis results. Primers were designed refer to Sphingomonas paucimobilis and S. panacis reference sequences (NCBI accession AB055142, NZ_CP014168 respectively). The clustalw version 2.1 was used for alignment.

PCR (Agilent 4200 TapeStation, Agilent Technologies) was used to verify whether the bacterial genera identified via 16S rRNA metagenome analysis could be detected in PBC sera and liver tissues using other cohort samples. In particular, we compared whether PCR detection levels differed between the portal vein and hepatocyte regions.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the research ethics committee of Yamagata University (Approval number: 2021-230) and written informed consent was obtained from all patients and all control subjects for serum and liver tissue prior to participation. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

All accessed data were fully anonymized for research purpose (date 22-Oct-2021).

Statistics and data analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize the characteristics of PBC samples and Student’s t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of differences.

Results

Clinical characteristics of the patients

The characteristics of the patients with PBC (n=24) included in this study are summarized in Table 1. As seen in the table, female predominance was apparent, with blood biochemical tests showing elevated transaminase, biliary enzymes, and high IgM levels. All cases tested negative for antinuclear antibodies. The liver tissues showed mild fibrosis.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the patients with primary biliary cholangitis.

Characteristics n=24
Age, years 54 (40-65)
Gender, female 63%
Biochemical examination
T.Bil (mg/dL) 0.8 (0.5-1.1)
Alb (g/dL) 4.1 (3.7-4.3)
AST (U/L) 41 (24-75)
ALT (U/L) 43 (15-70)
γ-GTP (U/L) 270 (91-1201)
Plt (x104/μL) 248 (198-278)
PT-INR 0.96 (0.84-1.01)
AMA-M2 (index) 227 (115-534)
IgM (mg/dL) 360 (221-508)

Parameters are presented as the mean (range). T.Bil, total bilirubin; Alb, albumin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; γ-GTP, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase; Plt, platelet count; PT-INR, prothrombin time-international normalized ratio; AMA-M2, anti-mitochondrial M2 antibody; IgM, immunoglobulin M

DNA library in PBC sera

Fig 1A shows that the quality check of the DNA library in E. coli (as a control) and PBC sera detected an amplification read peak at 200–300 bp, which was sufficient for 16S rRNA metagenome analysis. Fig 1B shows the read peak histogram in PBC samples. The final mean DNA concentration was 12 ng/μl for PBC and 15 ng/μl for E. coli.

Fig 1. DNA library in control and PBC sera.

Fig 1

(A) The quality check of DNA library in E.coli (as a control) and PBC sera detected an amplification read peak at 200–300 bp. (B) The Reads peak histogram in PBC samples. The results of the library check ensured the quantity and quality of DNA required for metagenomic analysis.

PBC portal area and hepatocyte area after LMD

A total of 10 PBC liver biopsy samples were sectioned into portal and hepatocellular regions using LMD. Fig 2A shows the PBC liver histology before and after LMD of the portal area, whereas Fig 2B shows the PBC liver histology before and after LMD of the hepatocyte area.

Fig 2. Laser capture microdissection (LMD) of paraffin-embedded liver tissues from PBC portal area and hepatocyte area.

Fig 2

(A) The PBC liver histology before and after selective LMD of the portal area. (B) The PBC liver histology before and after LMD of the hepatocyte area. Each area was selectively and reliably dissected. Scale bare = 50 μm.

Table 2 presents the total areas of the portal and hepatocellular regions. In all samples, the hepatocyte area was dissected more than the portal vein area. This was the volume of the samples collected, reflecting the proportion of the area in the liver tissue.

Table 2. The total areas of the dissected portal and hepatocyte regions after LMD.

sample LMD region LMD area (μm2)
PBC1 Portal 30,535
Hepato 186,429
PBC2 Portal 27,558
Hepato 280,424
PBC3 Portal 50,156
Hepato 255,432
PBC4 Portal 140,554
Hepato 169,123
PBC5 Portal 91,137
Hepato 212,061
PBC6 Portal 15,526
Hepato 58.926
PBC7 Portal 16,410
Hepato 173,873
PBC8 Portal 38,409
Hepato 150,780
PBC9 Portal 16,339
Hepato 126,735
PBC10 Portal 24,666
Hepato 148,715
Total (mean) Portal 45,129
Hepato 176,250

16S rRNA metagenome analysis in sera

The following is a list of the most common bacterial genera detected by metagenomic analysis of PBC sera (Table 3). In the PBC group, the most frequently detected reads were Providencia (mean 2578 reads), Sphingomonas (mean 2096 reads), Cupriavidus (mean 372 reads), and Lactobacillus (mean 359 reads). The reads detected in the healthy control group were Providencia (mean 28 reads), Sphingomonas (mean 9.5 reads), Cupriavidus (mean 2.5 reads), and Lactobacillus (mean 160 reads), all of which were significantly higher in the PBC sera. Each of these three alpha-proteobacteria was found to contain sequences of the 16S region in two or more locations, indicating their presence in PBC sera.

Table 3. The list of the most common bacterial genera detected by metagenomic analysis of PBC and healthy control sera (mean read counts).

Genus Healthy Control (n=3) PBC (n=24) p-value
Providencia 28 2578.1 <0.001
Sphingomonas 9.5 2096 <0.001
Cupriavidus 2.5 372.2 <0.001
Lactobacillus 160.5 359.3 <0.001
Aquabacterium 2.5 213.2 <0.001
Spirosoma 6.5 200.1 <0.001

Validation study in serum samples

Sphingomonas paucimobilis, the reference species of Sphingomonas, was used as a control for comparison in the validation PCR study. The gene sequences that could detect both S. panacis and S. paucimobilis reference species detected by 16S rRNA metagenome analysis were used as primers (S1 Table), whereas PCR was used to validate the results. Fig 3 shows that S. panacis was detected in the PBC sera of 2 out of the 11 cases (detection rate was 18%).

Fig 3. Validation study in serum samples.

Fig 3

Sphingomonas paucimobilis, the reference species of Sphingomonas, was used as a control for comparison in the validation PCR study. The gene sequences that could detect both S. panacis and S. paucimobilis reference species. S. panacis was detected in the 2 PBC sera samples (sample ID: S8 and S11) and the detection rate was 18%.

16S rRNA metagenome analysis in PBC liver tissues

16S rRNA metagenome analysis of 4 PBC liver tissue samples showed that more reads and bacteria were detected in both liver tissues than in the serum samples in Table 4. The most frequently detected bacterial genera were S. panacis (mean: 336,508 reads), Providencia (mean: 254,173 reads), and Cutibacterium (mean: 245,375 reads). These results were similar to those of the phylogenetic analysis of PBC sera, with the three most frequently detected bacteria being the same in all four tissue samples.

Table 4. The detected bacterial genera by 16S rRNA metagenome analysis in PBC liver tissues (mean read counts).

PBC 1 PBC 2 PBC 3 PBC 4
Sphingomonas panacis 537,934 346,982 258,339 202,780
Providencia 324,427 347,571 183,687 161,007
Cutibacterium 233,392 388,344 126,194 233,570
Homo 36,807 43,660 71,712 14,843
Bradyrhizobium 14,768 11,841 12,684 13,179
Staphylococcus 14,117 32,936 20,907 13,426
Acinetobacter 6,517 4,401 914 841
Scardovia 6,092 13,545 5,553 1,471
Corynebacterium 5,370 13,563 31,572 4,394
Bacillus 3,289 4,331 1,836 1,808
Methylorubrum 3,213 3,211 1,224 1,308
Streptococcus 2,290 3,039 312 15
Burkholderia 1,963 2,579 991 1,335
Lawsonella 1,814 6,280 20,324 8,989
Bartonella 1,784 1,605 772 676
Brevundimonas 1,682 30 10 26
Gluconobacter 1,518 2,164 2,309 334
Candidatus_hamiltonella 1,216 108 2 3
Ralstonia 1,064 381 15 1,237
Planococcus 987 2,623 755 1,770
Thalassospira 979 1140 774 528
Devosia 881 714 520 51
Clostridium 700 555 463 279
Chloracidobacterium 647 480 262 188
Paenibacillus 586 1,026 4 4
Segniliparus 580 2,517 14 1
Stenotrophomonas 579 435 288 194

Validation study in liver tissues

To validate the conventional PCR findings in PBC liver tissues, six samples were used to compare the detection sensitivity of the hepatocellular and portal regions. Fig 4A shows a comparison of the concentration of the PCR-amplified product (280 bp) of DNA extracted from the portal and hepatocellular regions. The PCR band extracted from the portal region was detected in all the samples. The concentration of S. panacis band detected in the portal region was higher than that of the band detected in the hepatocyte region in all samples. Furthermore, when the concentration of the PCR-detected bands was standardized between the hepatocellular and portal areas of each LMD section, the PCR product extracted from the portal area was significantly more highly expressed than that from the hepatocellular area (Fig 4B).

Fig 4. Validation study in liver tissues.

Fig 4

(A) A comparison of the concentration of the PCR-amplified product (280 bp) of DNA extracted from the portal and hepatocellular regions. The PCR band extracted from the portal region was detected in all the samples. The concentration of S. panacis band detected in the portal region was higher than that of the band detected in the hepatocyte region in all samples. (B) The concentration of the PCR-detected bands was standardized between the hepatocellular and portal areas of each LMD section, the PCR product extracted from the portal area was significantly more highly expressed than that from the hepatocellular area.

Discussion

PBC, drug-induced sarcoidosis, and viral hepatitis have been shown to promote the formation of epithelial granulomas in the liver [2427]. Granulomas, which are composed of macrophage-derived epithelial cells and lymphocytes, exhibit the characteristics of a type IV allergy given that they are predisposed to bacterial infection and foreign body invasion. Therefore, we examined whether the formation of granulomas in PBC is triggered by foreign antigen invasion (i.e., the involvement of environmental factors in the development of PBC).

The current study evaluated PBC cases with typical histopathology and performed LMD selectively in the portal vein and hepatocyte areas of the liver tissue. The portal vein region contained granulomas, CNSDC (damaged bile ducts), and inflammation-inducing cells (mainly lymphocytes). After performing 16S rRNA metagenomic analysis to detect foreign-derived antigens, we found that S. panacis was the most frequently detected bacterial genus in the portal vein region. The highest number of reads was detected in all PBC liver tissue samples examined in this study. Furthermore, 16S rRNA metagenomic analysis of serum from PBC and controls showed that S. panacis was more frequently detected in the PBC group, although the number of detected reads was lower than that in liver tissue. Finally, S. panacis was detected specifically in the portal vein region of the liver tissues via PCR in both the portal vein and hepatocyte regions. Furthermore, even after standardization of the LMD cut-out area, the expression of S. panacis in the portal vein region was clearly different.

PBC is a multifactorial disease, indicating that several factors are involved in its pathogenesis, including autoimmune mechanisms, genetic predisposition, and environmental factors [2]. Among these factors, urinary tract infection has long been reported as a risk factor for the development of PBC. E.coli has been the predominant causative pathogen in most cases of urinary tract infections. Moreover, ample evidence has shown that E.coli infection is an important factor in disrupting immunological tolerance of mitochondria through molecular mimicry between human and E.coli E2 subunits of the 2-oxoacid dehydrogenase complex, the major autoantigen for AMA, leading to the production of disease-specific autoantibodies for AMA and PBC [28]. Studies have suggested that bacterial infections, such as E.coli, which retain PDC-E2 molecular homology, may induce immune abnormalities by introducing foreign-derived antigens into the body. S. panacis, which was highly expressed, is a member of the genus Sphingomonas, which is the same genus as Novosphingomonas previously reported to be detected in PBC sera. These results strongly indicate that molecular homology in the corresponding antigens and the mechanism of immune tolerance breakdown after infection are involved in the PBC pathogenesis. S. panacis, a bacterium normally found in soil and other sources, may be pathogenic [29]. In particular, cohort studies examining PBC environmental factors have reported differences in early childhood hygiene as a risk factor for developing PBC, which may be associated with the environment to which S. panacis is likely to be exposed. Sustained bacterial exposure may promote persistent in vivo entry of exogenous antigens, which may cause excessive antibody production and induction of inflammation by AMA-responsive antigens.

S. panacis, newly detected in this study, is consistent with previous reports at the genus level and appears to be an important bacterium involved in environmental factors of hygiene and infection.

In addition, selective LMD of the portal and hepatocellular regions of PBC liver tissues demonstrated that S. panacis was rarely expressed in the hepatocellular region and expression was restricted to the portal region. This could be a possible mechanism by which foreign-derived antigens enter the liver via the important hepatic inflow pathways of the hepatic artery, portal vein, and lymphatic vessels and trigger the development of PBC. Granulomas are type IV allergic reactions that are typically unresponsive to the original antigen in vivo. Therefore, granuloma formation can be attributed to the influx of antigens from outside the body via a pathway wherein the initial reaction, such as an infection, culminates in an allergic reaction. Given that the portal region is home to various cells that engage in dynamic reactions, large amounts or chronic persistent exposure to foreign antigens could likely cause abnormal reactions.

A limitation of this study was the small number of cases in the validation experiment. Further validation of the number of cases is needed.

The current study showed that PBC may be triggered by bacteria. Elucidating the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of PBC, an intractable liver disease, could facilitate the development of effective treatments that promote better outcomes in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The primers to detect both S. panacis and S. paucimobilis reference species.

(DOCX)

pone.0308912.s001.docx (13.9KB, docx)
S2 Table. LMD raw data to show the area of portal site and hepatocyte after LMD.

(XLSX)

pone.0308912.s002.xlsx (13.9KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

Whole genome sequencing data are contained.

(TXT)

pone.0308912.s003.txt (2.7MB, txt)
S4 Table. PBCserum 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

(TXT)

pone.0308912.s004.txt (2.8MB, txt)
S5 Table. PBC FFPE 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

(TXT)

pone.0308912.s005.txt (475.3KB, txt)
S1 Raw images. PCR gel raw images.

(PDF)

pone.0308912.s006.pdf (292.4KB, pdf)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Measures for Intractable Diseases (from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research C (23K07409) from JSPS.

References

  • 1.Lleo A, Wang GQ, Gershwin ME, Hirschfield GM. Primary biliary cholangitis. Lancet. 2020;396:1915–26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31607-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lleo A, Leung PSC, Hirschfield GM, Gershwin ME. The Pathogenesis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Comprehensive Review. Semin Liver Dis. 2020;40:34–48. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1697617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tanaka A. Current understanding of primary biliary cholangitis. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2021;27:1–21. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2020.0028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Younossi ZM, Bernstein D, Shiffman ML, Kwo P, Kim WR, Kowdley KV, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Primary Biliary Cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:48–63. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0390-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mayo MJ. Mechanisms and molecules: What are the treatment targets for primary biliary cholangitis? Hepatology. 2022;76:518–531. doi: 10.1002/hep.32405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gulamhusein AF, Hirschfield GM. Primary biliary cholangitis: pathogenesis and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;17:93–110. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0226-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Carbone M, Milani C, Gerussi A, Ronca V, Cristoferi L, Invernizzi P. Primary biliary cholangitis: a multifaceted pathogenesis with potential therapeutic targets. J Hepatol. 2020;73:965–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.05.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Selmi C, Gershwin ME, Lindor KD, et al. Quality of life and everyday activities in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007;46:1836–43 doi: 10.1002/hep.21953 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cordell HJ, Fryett JJ, Ueno K, Darlay R, Aiba Y, Hitomi Y, et al. An international genome-wide meta-analysis of primary biliary cholangitis : Novel risk loci and candidate drugs. J Hepatol. 2021;75:572–581. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.04.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tanaka A, Leung PS, Young HA, Gershwin ME. Toward solving the etiological mystery of primary biliary cholangitis. Hepatol Commun. 2017;275–287. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hitomi Y, Ueno K, Aiba Y, Nishida N, Kono M, Sugihara M, et al. A genome-wide association study identified PTPN2 as a population-specific susceptibility gen locus for primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2024. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000894 Online ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hitomi Y, Nakamura M. The Genetics of Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A GWAS and Post-GWAS Update. Genes. 2023;14:405. doi: 10.3390/genes14020405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hitomi Y, Aiba Y, Ueno K, Nishida N, Kawai Y, Kawashima M, et al. rs9459874 and rs1012656 in CCR6/FGFR1OP confer susceptibility to primary biliary cholangitis. J Autoimmun. 2022;126:102775 doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2021.102775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Asselta R, Paraboschi EM, Gerussi A, Cordell HJ, Mells GF, Sandford RN, et al. X chromosome contribution to the genetic architecture of primary biliary cholangitis. Gastroenterology. 2021;160:2483–2495.e26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.02.061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Matsumoto K, Ohfuji S, Abe M, Komori A, Takahashi A, Fujii H, et al. Environ- mental factors, medical and family history, and comorbidities associated with primary biliary cholangitis in Japan : a multicenter case-control study. J Gastroenterol. 2022;57:19–29. doi: 10.1007/s00535-021-01836-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tanaka A, Leung PS, Gershwin ME. Environmental basis of primary biliary cholangitis. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2018;243:184–9. doi: 10.1177/1535370217748893 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Katsumi T, Tomita K, Leung PS, Yang GX, Gershwin ME, Ueno Y. Animal models of primary biliary cirrhosis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2015;48:142–153. doi: 10.1007/s12016-015-8482-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Banales JM, Huebert RC, Karlsen T, Strazzabosco M, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ. Cholangiocyte pathobiology. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol.2019;16:269–281. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0125-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Iordache A, Fuursted K, Rift CV, Rasmussen A, Willemoe GL, Hasselby JP. Hepatic granulomas following liver transplantation: A retrospective survey, and analysis of possible microbiological etiology. Pathol Res Pract. 2024;255:155201. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2024.155201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mironova M, Gopalakrishna H, Rodriguez Franco G, Holland SM, Koh C, Kleiner DE, et al. Granulomatou liver diseases. Hepatol Commun. 2024;8:e0392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Harada K, Tsuneyama K, Sudo Y, Masuda S, Nakanuma Y. Molecular identification of bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene in liver tissue of primary biliary cirrhosis: is Propionibacterium acnes involved in granuloma formation? Hepatology. 2001;33:530–536. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.22653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Colapietro F, Lleo A, Generali E.Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2022;63:166–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tanaka A, Leung PSC, Gershwin ME.Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;34–35:3-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lamps LW. Hepatic Granulomas: A Review With Emphasis on Infectious Causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:867–75. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0123-RA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ungprasert P, Crowson CS, Simonetto DA, Matteson EL. Clinical characteristics and outcome of hepatic sarcoidosis: A population-based study 1976-2013. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017; 112:1556–63. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kleiner DE, Chalasani NP, Lee WM, Fontana RJ, Bonkovsky HL, Watkins PB, et al. Hepatic histological findings in suspected drug-induced liver injury: Systematic evaluation and clinical associations. Hepatology. 2014;59:661–70. doi: 10.1002/hep.26709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.De Martin E, Michot JM, Papouin B, Champiat S, Mateus C, Lambotte O, et al. Characterization of liver injury induced by cancer immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Hepatol. 2018;68:1181–1190. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.01.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tanaka A, Leung PSC, Gershwin ME. Pathogen infections and primary biliary cholangitis. Clin Exp Immunol. 2019;195:25–34. doi: 10.1111/cei.13198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim YJ, Park JY, Balusamy SR, Huo Y, Nong LK, Thi Le H, et al. Comprehensive Genome Analysis on the Novel Species Sphingomonas panacis DCY99TReveals Insights into Iron Tolerance of Ginseng. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:2019. doi: 10.3390/ijms21062019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hin Fung Tsang

9 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-05687Identification of microbial antigens in liver tissues involved in the pathogenesis of primary biliary cholangitis using 16S rRNA metagenome analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Katsumi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 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,

Hin Fung Tsang

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. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and previous work in the [introduction, conclusion, etc.].

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

[If the overlap is with the authors’ own works: Moreover, upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts).]

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission and further consideration of the manuscript is dependent on the text overlap being addressed in full. Please ensure that your revision is thorough as failure to address the concerns to our satisfaction may result in your submission not being considered further.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Measures for Intractable Diseases (from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research C (23K07409) from JSPS"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This study was supported in part by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Measures for Intractable Diseases (from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research C (23K07409) from JSPS."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Measures for Intractable Diseases (from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research C (23K07409) from JSPS"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

7. 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.

8. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 collection details of the liver sample have not been mentioned, such as the number of patients from whom the samples were obtained, the hospitals from which the samples were collected, how these samples were obtained from pateint, and other relevant details.

Please use more recent references, as out of the 34 references, 14 are older than 5 years.

Statistical analysis is not available; therefore, it is necessary for you to include statistical analysis in your research, especially when comparing samples and when you have a control group.

Additionally, no information has been provided regarding age and gender differences in the results.

Reviewer #2: GENERAL COMMENTS

The paper is commendably well-written, providing lucid explanations of both the disease itself and the objectives of the study, thereby ensuring accessibility for readers unacquainted with the subject matter. The authors adeptly contextualize their research within the existing literature, delineating the gaps they seek to address. The research's objective is articulated with clarity, underscoring its significance for enhancing understanding of the disease and hinting at its potential implications for designing novel therapeutic approaches. The selection and description of materials and methods are appropriate, facilitating replication. While the results are effectively presented and supplemented with figures and tables for enhanced comprehension, minor issues merit attention.

The findings convincingly demonstrate the presence of exogenous pathogen-associated antigens, particularly bacteria, in both tissue and serum samples obtained from PBC patients participating in the study. Importantly, the identified species align with previous reports, reinforcing the theory of environmental factors' involvement in the disease's pathogenesis. The ensuing discussion is well-informed, seamlessly integrating insights gleaned from the literature with the study's results. The authors conscientiously acknowledge the study's limitations, recognizing them as areas for improvement in future investigations.

Overall, the study successfully achieves its aim of identifying exogenous pathogens, presenting their results, and contributing to the understanding of the disease and its pathogenesis. Furthermore, it paves the way for further experimentation, underlining the imperative for continued research in this domain. While there are minor issues that warrant review and refinement in the final draft, the paper's substantive contributions to the field of PBC research warrant its publication, pending resolution of these issues, as it promises to catalyze advancements in future studies of PBC.

MINOR ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

*Materials and methods:

1. Remember always clarifying the significance of initials the first time they are mentioned, even if it sounds unnecessary (e.g., stained with HE, what does HE stand for?) (page 12, final line)

2. Regarding the 16S rRNA analysis (page 14, lines 1 to 3), is there any information on why those specific regions were selected or past studies that have used them? It would be good to give a little more context on why those regions are used for the analysis and references to past, similar studies that used them.

3. For the validation study (page 14, line 17), I would suggest adding a little bit on how the authors designed the primers. Software used and other details.

4. About statistics analysis. Did the authors use any kind of statistics? Even just descriptive statistics? If so, it should have been mentioned.

*Results:

1. About the table for the clinical characteristics of the patients (page 29), in the legend it says that the parameters are presented as the median for continuous variables, then I assume some statistics were used. As said before, all kinds of statistics should be mentioned.

2. Did the authors have patients fill in questionnaires? If so, it also should be mentioned.

3. DNA library in PBC sera paragraph (page 16), I think grammar can be improved in this section, for some reason I find it hard to understand some phrases (e.g., fig 1B shows that reads peak histogram in PBC samples?)

4. 16S rRNA metagenome analysis in sera (page 17, lines 7 to 9), there are two phrases with the same meaning in this section, it turns repetitive.

*Tables and figures:

1. This detail was something that I found mostly in tables and legends, but I will advise the authors to check the entire document for the style regarding the writing of species names, as in some parts of the document the species are written in italics, but in some they are not in italics. It may sound like a small thing but being consistent throughout the text is important.

2. Also in table 4, the writing for Sphingomonas panacis should be checked as the species (i.e., panacis) should always go all lower case.

3. Legend for figure 3 (Page 28, line 6), there is a phrase that sounds loose, like some information is missing or the phrase is incomplete.

4. In figure 2B, where is the before image for the hepatocyte area? It is mentioned in the legend that it is supposed to be a before and after image, but the figure only shows the after. Also, the scale bar is missing in this figure 2B.

5. In figure 3, do the samples have any kind of ID that could be put in the graphic to indicate to which sample each line corresponds? If so, it should be added to the image for better interpretation.

Reviewer #3: Following suggestions are recommended to further improve your manuscript;

1) kindly check out some recent plos one publications and format your manuscript as per journal guidelines.

2) kindly add line numbers.

3) kindly arrange all the intext and end bibliography as per journal guidelines.

4) it is recommended to arrange all the manuscript sections as per journal format.

5) kindly make a separate table for primer sequences instead of discussing them in paragraph.

6) it is suggested to correct the manuscript spacing as per journal format.

7) kindly arrange all the figures and figure legends as per journal guidelines, as they should be mentioned after the paragraph they are discussed in.

8) what does (mean 2578 reads) means throughout the manuscript.

9) kindly revise all the tables of manuscript to be in uniform format.

**********

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: Yes: Souzan H Eassa

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 Aug 19;19(8):e0308912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308912.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jul 2024

Responses to Reviewers:

We are grateful for the reviewers' very thoughtful and constructive suggestions. Most of their suggestions are reasonable and acceptable. Accordingly, we have additionally answered their queries. The followings are our point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author):

The collection details of the liver sample have not been mentioned, such as the number of patients from whom the samples were obtained, the hospitals from which the samples were collected, how these samples were obtained from pateint, and other relevant details.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. We have added the PBC sample collection sentence in Material and Methods session. The number of patients was mentioned in Result session.

Please use more recent references, as out of the 34 references, 14 are older than 5 years.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have replaced them with more recent references.

Statistical analysis is not available; therefore, it is necessary for you to include statistical analysis in your research, especially when comparing samples and when you have a control group.

Additionally, no information has been provided regarding age and gender differences in the results.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. We have created a new statistical analysis session and additionally described the methods used in this study.

Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):

The paper is commendably well-written, providing lucid explanations of both the disease itself and the objectives of the study, thereby ensuring accessibility for readers unacquainted with the subject matter. The authors adeptly contextualize their research within the existing literature, delineating the gaps they seek to address. The research's objective is articulated with clarity, underscoring its significance for enhancing understanding of the disease and hinting at its potential implications for designing novel therapeutic approaches. The selection and description of materials and methods are appropriate, facilitating replication. While the results are effectively presented and supplemented with figures and tables for enhanced comprehension, minor issues merit attention.

The findings convincingly demonstrate the presence of exogenous pathogen-associated antigens, particularly bacteria, in both tissue and serum samples obtained from PBC patients participating in the study. Importantly, the identified species align with previous reports, reinforcing the theory of environmental factors' involvement in the disease's pathogenesis. The ensuing discussion is well-informed, seamlessly integrating insights gleaned from the literature with the study's results. The authors conscientiously acknowledge the study's limitations, recognizing them as areas for improvement in future investigations.

Overall, the study successfully achieves its aim of identifying exogenous pathogens, presenting their results, and contributing to the understanding of the disease and its pathogenesis. Furthermore, it paves the way for further experimentation, underlining the imperative for continued research in this domain. While there are minor issues that warrant review and refinement in the final draft, the paper's substantive contributions to the field of PBC research warrant its publication, pending resolution of these issues, as it promises to catalyze advancements in future studies of PBC.

*Materials and methods:

1. Remember always clarifying the significance of initials the first time they are mentioned, even if it sounds unnecessary (e.g., stained with HE, what does HE stand for?) (page 12, final line)

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have corrected the wording appropriately, especially in the areas indicated.

2. Regarding the 16S rRNA analysis (page 14, lines 1 to 3), is there any information on why those specific regions were selected or past studies that have used them? It would be good to give a little more context on why those regions are used for the analysis and references to past, similar studies that used them.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have added the information and reasons why certain areas were used, as you have indicated.

3. For the validation study (page 14, line 17), I would suggest adding a little bit on how the authors designed the primers. Software used and other details.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have additionally described the primer design method and the software we used.

4. About statistics analysis. Did the authors use any kind of statistics? Even just descriptive statistics? If so, it should have been mentioned.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. We have created a new statistical analysis session and additionally described the methods used in this study.

*Results:

1. About the table for the clinical characteristics of the patients (page 29), in the legend it says that the parameters are presented as the median for continuous variables, then I assume some statistics were used. As said before, all kinds of statistics should be mentioned.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. We have created a new statistical analysis session and additionally described the methods.

2. Did the authors have patients fill in questionnaires? If so, it also should be mentioned.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. There are no questionnaires or other items listed for patients in this study.

3. DNA library in PBC sera paragraph (page 16), I think grammar can be improved in this section, for some reason I find it hard to understand some phrases (e.g., fig 1B shows that reads peak histogram in PBC samples?)

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have corrected the grammar in the areas pointed out.

4. 16S rRNA metagenome analysis in sera (page 17, lines 7 to 9), there are two phrases with the same meaning in this section, it turns repetitive.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We deleted the repeated part.

*Tables and figures:

1. This detail was something that I found mostly in tables and legends, but I will advise the authors to check the entire document for the style regarding the writing of species names, as in some parts of the document the species are written in italics, but in some they are not in italics. It may sound like a small thing but being consistent throughout the text is important.

2. Also in table 4, the writing for Sphingomonas panacis should be checked as the species (i.e., panacis) should always go all lower case.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have corrected the notations noted.

3. Legend for figure 3 (Page 28, line 6), there is a phrase that sounds loose, like some information is missing or the phrase is incomplete.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have added information such as sample names to Figure 3.

4. In figure 2B, where is the before image for the hepatocyte area? It is mentioned in the legend that it is supposed to be a before and after image, but the figure only shows the after. Also, the scale bar is missing in this figure 2B.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have included pre- and post-LMD diagrams of the hepatocellular region. We have also added scale bar.

5. In figure 3, do the samples have any kind of ID that could be put in the graphic to indicate to which sample each line corresponds? If so, it should be added to the image for better interpretation.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We have added information such as sample names and ID to Figure 3.

Reviewer #3 (Comments to the Author):

Following suggestions are recommended to further improve your manuscript;

1) kindly check out some recent plos one publications and format your manuscript as per journal guidelines.

2) kindly add line numbers.

3) kindly arrange all the intext and end bibliography as per journal guidelines.

4) it is recommended to arrange all the manuscript sections as per journal format.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We revised our manuscript as per journal guidelines.

5) kindly make a separate table for primer sequences instead of discussing them in paragraph.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We made a separate table for primer sequences (S1 Table).

6) it is suggested to correct the manuscript spacing as per journal format.

7) kindly arrange all the figures and figure legends as per journal guidelines, as they should be mentioned after the paragraph they are discussed in.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We revised our manuscript as per journal guidelines.

8) what does (mean 2578 reads) means throughout the manuscript.

Our answer:

We appreciate the important question. These mean reads number refers to the number of short reads detected in RNA sequencing (16S rRNA metagenome). In other words, it shows how many specific regional reads were detected in a certain bacterium by sequencing.

9) kindly revise all the tables of manuscript to be in uniform format.

Our answer:

We thank for this reasonable comment. We revised our manuscript as per journal guidelines.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0308912.s007.doc (47KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Hin Fung Tsang

2 Aug 2024

Identification of microbial antigens in liver tissues involved in the pathogenesis of primary biliary cholangitis using 16S rRNA metagenome analysis

PONE-D-24-05687R1

Dear Dr. Tomohiro Katsumi,

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,

Hin Fung Tsang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All the comments have been addressed. I would suggest to accept the manuscript. I must appreciate the author's findings and hard work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Souzan H Eassa

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Hin Fung Tsang

9 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-05687R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Katsumi,

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. Hin Fung Tsang

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 Table. The primers to detect both S. panacis and S. paucimobilis reference species.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308912.s001.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    S2 Table. LMD raw data to show the area of portal site and hepatocyte after LMD.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0308912.s002.xlsx (13.9KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

    Whole genome sequencing data are contained.

    (TXT)

    pone.0308912.s003.txt (2.7MB, txt)
    S4 Table. PBCserum 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

    (TXT)

    pone.0308912.s004.txt (2.8MB, txt)
    S5 Table. PBC FFPE 16S rRNA metagenome raw data.

    (TXT)

    pone.0308912.s005.txt (475.3KB, txt)
    S1 Raw images. PCR gel raw images.

    (PDF)

    pone.0308912.s006.pdf (292.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0308912.s007.doc (47KB, doc)

    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