Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0311921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311921

Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulation

Vanessa J Gyorffy 1,2,3, Dhruva J Dwivedi 3,4, Patricia C Liaw 3,4, Alison E Fox-Robichaud 3,4, Jennifer L Y Tsang 2,4,‡,*, Alexandra Binnie 5,
Editor: Elvan Wiyarta6
PMCID: PMC11527306  PMID: 39480839

Abstract

Background

Biosampling studies in critically ill patients traditionally involve bedside collection of samples followed by local processing (ie. centrifugation, aliquotting, and freezing) and storage. However, community hospitals, which care for the majority of Canadian patients, often lack the infrastructure for local processing and storage of specimens. A potential solution is a “simplified” biosampling protocol whereby blood samples are collected at the bedside and then shipped to a central site for processing and storage. One potential limitation of this approach is that delayed processing may alter sample characteristics.

Objective

To determine whether delays in blood sample processing affect the stability of cytokines (IL-6, TNF, IL-10, IFN-γ), chemokines (IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, MCP-4, MIP-1α, MIP-1β), cell-free DNA (cfDNA) (released by dying cells), and blood clotting potential in human blood samples.

Methods

Venous blood was collected into EDTA and citrate sample tubes and stored at room temperature (RT) or 4°C for progressive intervals up to 72 hours, prior to processing. Plasma cytokines and chemokines were quantified using single or multiplex immunoassays. cfDNA was measured using Picogreen DNA Quantification. Blood clotting potential was measured using a thrombin generation assay.

Results

Blood samples were collected from 9 intensive care unit (ICU) patients and 7 healthy volunteers. Admission diagnoses for the ICU patients included sepsis, trauma, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleed, and hyperkalemia. After pre-processing delays of up to 72 hours at RT or 4°C, no significant changes were observed in plasma cytokines, chemokines, cfDNA, or thrombin formation.

Conclusions

Delayed sample processing for up to 72 hours at either RT or 4°C did not significantly affect cytokines, chemokines, cfDNA, or blood clotting potential in plasma samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients. A “simplified” biosampling protocol is a feasible solution for conducting biosampling research at hospitals without local processing capacity.

Introduction

Biosampling studies of plasma and serum markers in critically ill patients typically involve collection of whole blood samples at the bedside followed by immediate laboratory processing (e.g. centrifugation and aliquoting), freezing, and short-term storage at the hospital site. Community hospitals often lack the necessary infrastructure to participate in biosampling studies, in particular access to laboratory facilities for processing of research samples and short-term storage [1, 2]. As such, a “simplified” biosampling protocol in which blood samples are shipped to a central site prior to processing would facilitate the participation of community hospitals in these studies. The Genetics of Mortality for Critical Care (GenOMICC) study used this approach to collect DNA for sequencing at over 200 hospitals [3]. It is unclear, however, whether delayed processing is appropriate for plasma and serum markers that may be more sensitive to processing delays, such as cytokines, chemokines, cell free DNA (cfDNA) and blood clotting factors.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether delays in blood processing (i.e. delayed time to centrifugation, aliquotting, and freezing) of up to 72 hours affect the stability of plasma biomarkers that are commonly studied in critically ill patients [48]. These include cytokines (interleukin [IL]-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interferon [IFN]-γ), chemokines (IL-8, IFN-γ-induced proten 10 kDa [IP-10], monocyte chemoattractant protein [MCP]-1, MCP-4, macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α, MIP-1β), cfDNA (cell free DNA), and blood clotting potential (as assessed by thrombin generation assays). We also examined whether the type of anticoagulant (EDTA versus citrate) or the storage temperature (room temperature [RT] versus 4°C) affected biomarker stability.

Materials and methods

Collection and processing of blood samples

ICU patients were recruited from the medical-surgical and neurotrauma ICUs at Hamilton General Hospital, within 24 hours of ICU admission, while healthy volunteers were recruited from the Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute (TaARI) at McMaster University in Hamilton, ON, Canada. For each participant, blood was collected into three citrate tubes (2.7 mL each) and one EDTA tube (10 mL). The blood from the EDTA tube and the pooled citrate tubes was aliquotted into 7 Eppendorf tubes (1mL), each of which was subject to different pre-processing conditions: RT vs 4°C, and 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours pre-processing delay. A maximum delay of 72 hours was chosen to approximate the real world situation of a sample being collected at a community hospital and shipped by courier to a central site for processing. The RT samples were left on the lab bench in the laboratory, which was maintained at 23°C. The 4°C samples were stored in a temperature-controlled cold room (Honeywell Lab Works) with temperature confirmed by temperature tracker. After the pre-processing delay, tubes were centrifuged at 2,500 x g for 15 minutes and plasma was frozen in 60 uL aliquots at -80°C for subsequent analysis. The samples were labelled in a masked fashion to avoid bias in the assays and samples for each individual were run together in batches.

Clinical data for ICU patients was collected from the electronic medical record and included age, sex, date of ICU admission, admission diagnosis, organ supports on admission (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy), date of blood collection, antibiotic use, blood culture results, complete blood count, lactate, and fibrinogen levels.

Sample size calculation

Sample size calculations were performed using the G*power software (https://www.psychologie.hhu.de/arbeitsgruppen/allgemeine-psychologie-und-arbeitspsychologie/gpower). Based on a repeated measures ANOVA design with 4 timepoints, a sample size of ≥6 patients or volunteers was sufficient to give >80% power to detect a medium effect size (Cohen’s f) of 0.17 at an α error rate of 0.05.

Quantification of IL-6 levels and cell-free plasma DNA

Plasma levels of IL-6 were quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using the R&D Systems Human IL-6 Quantakine ELISA kit (Minneapolis, USA). The intra- and inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV) for the IL-6 ELISA were 2.6% and 4.5%, respectively. The IL-6 ELISA was performed using EDTA and citrate samples from ICU patients and in EDTA samples from healthy volunteers. Plasma levels of cfDNA were quantified using the Picogreen dsDNA Assay Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific, Mississauga, ON). The intra- and inter-assay CV for the cfDNA assay were 3.7% and 14%, respectively. Quality control samples (“high” and “low” samples) were included to ensure reliability.

Multiplex analysis of cytokine and chemokine levels

Plasma levels of cytokines and chemokines in EDTA samples from ICU patients were measured using the multiplex system from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) (Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Hamilton, ON). Only room temperature samples were analysed. For the cytokine multiplex, the EDTA plasma samples were run “neat” (i.e. undiluted) as well as at a 1:5 dilution in MSD assay buffer. For the chemokine multiplex system, the samples were run at 1:4 and 1:10 dilutions. Two normal plasma samples were included for quality control. In a small number of ICU patient samples, the IFN-γ and TNF values were beyond the curve fit and were therefore extrapolated: these were patients 1,4,and 7 for IFN-γ and patients 1,7, and 8 for TNF. The average intra- and inter-assay CV for the multiplex cytokine assay were 3.5% and 7.6%, respectively. The average intra- and inter-assay CV for the multiplex chemokine assay were 7.9% and 5.1%, respectively.

Thrombin generation assays

Thrombin generation assays were performed using the Technothrombin TGA reagent kit (Vienna, Austria), as previously described [9]. Briefly, citrated plasma (40 uL) was mixed with 50 uL of 1mM thrombin substrate (containing 15 mM calcium chloride [CaCl2]) and coagulation was initiated by addition of Recombiplastin (relipidated tissue factor). Fluorescence was measured at 1-minute intervals over a 60-minute period at excitation and emission values of 360 and 460 nM, respectively, on a Spectramax M5e plate reader (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Thrombin generation profiles were analyzed using TECHNOTHROMBIN TGA software (Technoclone).

Statistical analyses

Data was analyzed using the Prism GraphPad software. Variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. Changes in biomarkers were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB #15523 and HiREB #15362). Informed written consent was obtained from all study participants, or their substitute decision makers, prior to blood collection.

Results

We collected venous blood samples from 9 ICU patients within 24 hours of ICU admission. Baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1 and individual characteristics are shown in (S1 Table). Mean age was 61.1 ± 14.5 years and 6/9 (66.7%) were female. ICU admission diagnoses included sepsis, trauma, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleed, and hyperkalemia. Venous blood was also collected from 7 healthy volunteers with a mean age of 27 ± 7 years, of whom 3/7 (42.9%) were female. The volunteers had no acute or chronic illnesses and were not taking medications at the time of enrolment.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of ICU patients.

ICU patients (n = 9)
Age (mean, years) +/- standard deviation (SD) (minimum-max) 61.1 ± 14.5 (29–74)
Sex, female, N (%) 6 (66.7%)
ICU admission diagnoses
    Sepsis, N (%) 2 (22.2%)
    Trauma, N (%) 3 (33.3%)
    Ruptured abdominal aortic 1 (11.1%)
    aneurysm, N (%)
    Gastrointestinal bleed, N (%) 1 (11.1%)
    Intracranial hemorrhage, N (%) 1 (11.1%)
    Acute kidney injury, N (%) 1 (11.1%)
SOFA (sequential organ failure assessment) score ± SD 3.6 ± 2.7
Mechanical ventilation, N (%) 5 (56.0%)
Vasopressors, N (%) 7 (77.8%)
Dialysis, N (%) 1 (11.1%)
Platelet count (x109/L) ± SD 149.2 ± 79.0
Fibrinogen (g/L) ± SD 2.6 ± 1.0
Lactate (mM) 4.1 ± 3.9
White Blood Cell count (109/L) ± SD 13.1 ± 4.0
Use of antibiotics, N (%) 6 (66.7%)
Positive blood cultures, N (%) 3 (33.3%)

Cytokines are soluble proteins that regulate immune and inflammatory responses [10]. To determine the impact of delayed sample processing on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in critically ill patients, we used a multiplex system to measure IL-6, TNF, IL-10, and IFN-γ levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients stored at RT for up to 72 hours (S2 Table). As shown in Fig 1, delayed processing did not significantly affect levels of IL-6, IL-10, TNF, or IFN-γ (ANOVA, p = 0.31, p = 0.08, p = 0.30, p = 0.32, respectively).

Fig 1. Multiplex assay of cytokine levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

Fig 1

Whole blood was collected from ICU patients (n = 9) into EDTA tubes and stored at room temperature (RT) for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours prior to centrifugation. Plasma levels of IL-6, IL-10, IFN-γ, and TNF were measured using multiplex analysis.

IL-6 is one of the most frequenty measured cytokines in critical care studies [11]. To further investigate whether the choice of anticoagulant (EDTA or citrate) and/or the storage temperature affected the stability of IL-6, we measured IL-6 levels by ELISA assay in EDTA and citrated blood samples from both ICU patients and healthy volunteers. As shown in S1 Fig, baseline IL-6 levels were significantly higher in ICU patients relative to healthy volunteers (p = 0.04). After pre-processing delays of up to 72 hours, no significant changes in IL-6 levels were observed in EDTA samples from healthy volunteers (ANOVA p = 0.67 at RT and p = 0.35 at 4°C) (S1 Fig) or ICU patients (ANOVA p = 0.55 at RT and p = 0.63 at 4°C). Similarly, no significant changes in IL-6 levels were observed in citrate samples from ICU patients at RT or 4° C (S1 Fig).

We also used a multiplex system to measure chemokines, small proteins that control the migration of immune cells in response to inflammation or infection [12]. Delayed processing of EDTA samples from ICU patients stored at RT did not significantly affect the levels of IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, MCP-4, MIP-1α, or MIP-1β (ANOVA, p = 0.31, p = 0.21, p = 0.36, p = 0.06, p = 0.57, and p = 0.35, respectively) (Fig 2, S3 Table).

Fig 2. Multiplex assay of chemokines levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

Fig 2

Blood was collected from ICU patients (n = 9) into EDTA tubes and stored at room temperature (RT) for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours prior to centrifugation. No significant changes were observed in levels of MCP-1, MCP-4, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, MCP-4, IP-10, or IL-8 with delayed processing at RT.

Plasma cfDNA is a marker of cell death, and is most commonly released from neutrophils as a result of NETosis [13]. After delayed processing, no significant changes in cfDNA levels were identified in either ICU patients or healthy volunteers (ANOVA p = 0.89 and p = 0.46, respectively) at RT (Fig 3) or at 4°C (S2 Fig, S4 Table).

Fig 3. cfDNA levels in citrate and EDTA plasma samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients.

Fig 3

Blood was collected from healthy volunteers (n = 7) and ICU patients (n = 9) into citrate or EDTA tubes and stored at room temperature (RT) for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours prior to centrifugation. cfDNA levels were measured using a Picogreen assay.

To assess coagulation potential, thrombin generation assays were used to assess thrombin formation in citrated plasma samples after pre-processing delays of 0, 24, 48 or 72 hours. This assay measures the time to initiation (expressed as lag time) as well as the total amount of thrombin formed (expressed as the area under the curve [AUC]) and can only be performed in citrated plasma samples. At baseline, the lag time was similar in healthy volunteers (3.83 ± 0.75 min) and ICU patients (6.38 ± 4.60 min) (p = 0.28), whereas the AUC was higher in healthy volunteers (4948 ± 736 versus 3492 ± 1452, p = 0.045). After delayed processing at RT, no significant changes were noted in lag time or AUC in samples from ICU patients (ANOVA, p = 0.23 and p = 0.16, respectively) or healthy volunteers (ANOVA, p = 0.60 and p = 0.11, respectively). Similarly, no significant differences in lag time or AUC were noted in samples stored at 4°C from ICU patients (ANOVA, p = 0.56 and p = 0.15, respectively), or healthy volunteers (ANOVA, p = 0.40 and p = 0.90, respectively). One ICU patient (patient 5) showed an increase in lag time and a decrease in AUC after storage at RT. However, this effect was not seen in the same patient when the sample was stored at 4°C (Fig 4, S5 Table).

Fig 4. Thrombin generation parameters (lag time and AUC) in citrated plasma samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients.

Fig 4

Blood was collected from healthy volunteers (n = 7) and ICU patients (n = 9) into citrate tubes and stored at room temperature or at 4°C for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours, prior to centrifugation. Blood clotting potential was measured using a thrombin generation assay. The lag time is expressed as minutes. The units of AUC are “nM thrombin x min”.

Discussion

A “simplified” biosampling approach, that does not require local sample processing, could potentially engage more community hospitals in biosampling studies. The approach entails collecting blood samples at the bedside and shipping them to a central site prior to processing and storage. However, delays in sample processing have the potential to alter assay results. In this study, we show that delays in sample processing of up to 72 hours at either RT or 4°C had no significant impact on the stability of plasma cytokines (IL-6, IL-10, TNF and IFN-γ), chemokines (IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, MCP-4, MIP-1α, or MIP-1β), cfDNA, or blood clotting potential. Moreover, EDTA and citrated plasma samples were equally stable for cytokine, chemokine and cfDNA measurements.

Several previous studies have looked at how delays in sample processing affect plasma cytokine levels [1416]. Thavasu et al. analysed whole blood samples (n = 5) from healthy volunteers that were spiked with recombinant cytokines. They reported that delayed processing of up to 24 hours at RT had no effect on IL-1α, IL-1β, or IFN-γ levels but modestly decreased IL-6, TNF, IFN-γ, and IFN-α levels [14]. The use of recombinant cytokines, however, may have impacted these results. Two additional studies measured endogenous cytokines in healthy volunteers and reported small changes in IL-6, TNF, IL-1β, IL-8, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β after 4 or 24 hours pre-processing delay [15, 16]. In these studies, however, plasma cytokine levels were close to the lower limit of detection of the assays, which may have impacted precision. Finally, Jackman et al. measured cytokine and chemokine levels in EDTA samples from 10 healthy volunteers and 10 trauma patients after up to 72 hours of pre-processing delay [17]. They observed no changes in TNF, IFN-γ, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β levels in healthy volunteers or trauma patients but did note an increase in IL-8 levels as well as small decreases in IL-6, IL-10, MCP-1, and IP-10 in trauma patients only. In the present study, although IL-8 levels were stable overall in both ICU patients and healthy volunteers, the one trauma patient (ICU patient #1) showed a notable 10-fold increase in IL-8 after 72 hours of pre-processing delay (Fig 2).

IL-8 is a unique chemokine that is stored in the Weibel-Palade bodies (WPBs) of vascular endothelial cells and is released upon endothelial activation or injury [18, 19]. Circulating IL-8 levels are increased in patients with trauma, sepsis, burns, and acute pancreatitis and predict the development of multiple organ failure [18]. Vascular trauma can induce the release of bone marrow-derived endothelial precursor cells (EPCs) into the circulation [19]. ICU patient #1 was the only trauma patient in the present study and also the only patient to show a significant increase in IL-8 after delayed processing. One hypothesis is that circulating endothelial cells and/or EPCs resulting from vascular trauma promote ongoing IL-8 production in trauma blood samples. Further studies will be required to confirm this hypothesis and to determine whether increases in IL-8 are consistently observed in trauma patient samples with delayed processing. Other cytokines and chemokines were not significantly altered in this patient.

Plasma cfDNA, which is released from injured or dying cells, is present at low levels in the blood of healthy individuals [20]. Elevated levels of plasma cfDNA have been reported in pathologic states including cancer, trauma, autoimmune diseases, and sepsis. In septic patients, high levels of plasma cfDNA (up to 10-fold higher than normal) are predictive of poor outcome [21, 22]. A previous study reported that cfDNA levels are stable in EDTA plasma samples for up to 6 hours at RT and 4°C [23]. In this study, we extended the pre-processing delay up to 72 hours at RT or 4°C and observed no significant changes in cfDNA levels (Fig 3). Since cfDNA can be released by circulating white blood cells, another factor that could impact plasma cfDNA levels is ex vivo DNA release during high-speed centrifugation. However, a previous study reported that centrifugation speeds from 400g to 16,000g had no effect on cfDNA levels [24]. Moreover, a centralized sample processing strategy would ensure consistency in centrifugation speed, which would minimize this potential confounder.

Thrombin generation assays measure the dynamics of blood clotting, including pro- and anti-coagulant activities [25]. The assay is conducted using citrated plasma and is widely used for research purposes as well as in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of bleeding and thrombotic disorders. Rapid processing of blood samples is recommended, ideally within 1 hour of blood draw [25]. In the present study, however, we found that storing citrated blood samples for up to 72 hours at RT or 4°C did not affect thrombin formation in samples from healthy volunteers or ICU patients (Fig 4). In one patient (patient 5), the lag time and AUC were more stable when the blood was stored at 4°C. Thus, cold storage of unprocessed samples at 4°C may be preferred over RT storage.

The strengths of the current study include the analysis of samples from both healthy volunteers and ICU patients (encompassing a range of biomarker concentrations), the use of multiple time points, and the inclusion of multiple types of biomarkers. With regards to limitations, although the biomarkers assessed in this study are amongst those most commonly assayed in critical care studies, there are many other plasma biomarkers that were not assayed and that may not be stable with delayed processing [4, 5]. In addition, although the sample size was sufficient to exclude a medium effect size of 0.5, smaller effect sizes cannot be excluded. Finally, the marked increase in IL-8 that was observed in the only trauma patient raises the possibility of a trauma-specific effect on IL-8 that should be confirmed in a larger cohort.

Conclusions

In summary, our results demonstrate that delays in blood processing of up to 72 hours at either RT or 4°C did not significantly affect the stability of plasma cytokines, chemokines, cfDNA, and blood clotting factors in samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients. Thus, a “simplified” approach to biosampling in which samples are collected at the bedside and shipped to a central site for processing may be a feasible solution to increase biosampling research participation in hospitals lacking local sample processing capacity.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. IL-6 levels in citrate and EDTA plasma samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients, as measured by ELISA.

Blood was collected from healthy volunteers (n = 7) and ICU patients (n = 9) into citrate or EDTA tubes. The blood was stored at RT or 4°C for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours. No significant changed were observed in IL-6 levels with delayed processing conditions at RT or 4°C.

(TIFF)

pone.0311921.s001.tiff (288.3KB, tiff)
S2 Fig

(TIFF)

pone.0311921.s002.tiff (292.5KB, tiff)
S1 Table. Baseline characteristics of individual ICU patients.

AAA (abdominal aortic aneurysm); AKI (acute kidney injury); GI (gastrointestinal); ICH (intracranial hemorrhage); SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score); N.D. (not done).

(PDF)

pone.0311921.s003.pdf (35.8KB, pdf)
S2 Table. Multiplex cytokine levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

(PDF)

pone.0311921.s004.pdf (65.1KB, pdf)
S3 Table. Multiplex chemokine levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

(PDF)

pone.0311921.s005.pdf (107.5KB, pdf)
S4 Table. Cell-free DNA levels in plasma samples from ICU patients and healthy volunteers.

(PDF)

pone.0311921.s006.pdf (80.9KB, pdf)
S5 Table. Thrombin generation parameters in citrate plasma samples from ICU patients and healthy volunteers.

(PDF)

pone.0311921.s007.pdf (75.8KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Uzma Saeed for screening and recruiting ICU patients for this study and Dr. Neha Sharma and Mr. Caleb Reid for assistance with laboratory assays.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

VJG received a summer studentship from the Canadian Network of COVID-19 Clinical Trials Networks (https://www.ccctg.ca/our-initiatives/network-of-networks). No other authors received financial compensation for their work. The funder played no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tsang JLY, Fowler R, Cook DJ, Ma H, Binnie A. How can we increase participation in pandemic research in Canada? Can J Anaesth 2022; 69: 293–7. doi: 10.1007/s12630-021-02119-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tsang JLY, Fowler R, Cook DJ, Burns KEA, Hunter K, Forcina V, et al. Motivating factors, barriers and facilitators of participation in COVID-19 clinical research: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian community intensive care units. PLoS One 2022; 17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kousathanas A, Pairo-Castineira E, Rawlik K, Stuckey A, Odhams CA, Walker S, et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19. Nature 2022; 607: 97–103. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04576-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hotchkiss RS, Moldawer LL, Opal SM, Reinhart K, Turnbull IR, Vincent JL. Sepsis and septic shock. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2016; 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Matthay MA, Zemans RL, Zimmerman GA, Arabi YM, Beitler JR, Mercat A, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2019; 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gould TJ, Lysov Z, Liaw PC. Extracellular DNA and histones: double-edged swords in immunothrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13 Suppl 1: S82–91. doi: 10.1111/jth.12977 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.von Meijenfeldt FA, Havervall S, Adelmeijer J, Lundström A, Rudberg AS, Magnusson M, et al. Prothrombotic changes in patients with COVID-19 are associated with disease severity and mortality. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2020; 5: 132–41. doi: 10.1002/rth2.12462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Levi M, van der Poll T. Coagulation and sepsis. Thromb Res 2017; 149: 38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2016.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gould TJ, Vu TT, Swystun LL, Dwivedi DJ, Mai SH, Weitz JI, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps promote thrombin generation through platelet-dependent and platelet-independent mechanisms. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2014; 34: 1977–84. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Turner MD, Nedjai B, Hurst T, Pennington DJ. Cytokines and chemokines: At the crossroads of cell signalling and inflammatory disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014; 1843: 2563–82. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2014.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Binnie A, Tsang JLY, dos Santos CC. Biomarkers in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Current opinion in critical care 2014; 20: 47–55 doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thiam HR, Wong SL, Wagner DD, Waterman CM. Cellular Mechanisms of NETosis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2020; 36: 191–218. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-020520-111016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sokol CL, Luster AD. The chemokine system in innate immunity. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2015; 7: 1–20. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a016303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thavasu PW, Longhurst S, Joel SP, Slevin ML, Balkwill FR. Measuring cytokine levels in blood. Importance of anticoagulants, processing, and storage conditions. J Immunol Methods 1992; 153: 115–24. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(92)90313-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Flower L, Ahuja RH, Humphries SE, Mohamed-Ali V. Effects of sample handling on the stability of interleukin 6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and leptin. Cytokine 2000; 12: 1712–6. doi: 10.1006/cyto.2000.0764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee JE, Kim JW, Han BG, Shin SY. Impact of Whole-Blood Processing Conditions on Plasma and Serum Concentrations of Cytokines. Biopreserv Biobank 2016; 14: 51–5. doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.0059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jackman RP, Utter GH, Heitman JW, Hirschkorn DF, Law JP, Gefter N, et al. Effects of blood sample age at time of separation on measured cytokine concentrations in human plasma. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011; 18: 318–26. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00465-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rondaij MG, Bierings R, Kragt A, Van Mourik JA, Voorberg J. Dynamics and plasticity of Weibel-Palade bodies in endothelial cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2006; 26: 1002–7. doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000209501.56852.6c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gill M, Dias S, Hattori K, Rivera ML, Hicklin D, Witte L, et al. Vascular trauma induces rapid but transient mobilization of VEGFR2(+)AC133(+) endothelial precursor cells. Circ Res 2001; 88: 167–74. doi: 10.1161/01.res.88.2.167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jackson Chornenki NL, Coke R, Kwong AC, Dwivedi DJ, Xu MK, McDonald E, et al. Comparison of the source and prognostic utility of cfDNA in trauma and sepsis. Intensive care Med Exp 2019; 7. doi: 10.1186/s40635-019-0251-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wong FC, Sun K, Jiang P, Cheng YK, Chan KC, Leung TY, et al. Cell-free DNA in maternal plasma and serum: A comparison of quantity, quality and tissue origin using genomic and epigenomic approaches. ClinBiochem 2016; 49: 1379–86. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liaw PC; Fox-Robichaud AE; Liaw KL; McDonald E; Dwivedi DJ; Zamir NM; et al. Mortality Risk Profiles for Sepsis: A Novel Longitudinal and Multivariable Approach. Crit Care Explor 2019; 1: e0032. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chan KCA, Yeung SW, Lui WB, Rainer TH, L̀o YMD. Effects of preanalytical factors on the molecular size of cell-free DNA in blood. Clin Chem 2005; 51: 781–4. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2004.046219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Does centrifugation cause the ex vivo release of DNA from blood cells? ClinChem 2002; 48: 2074–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Depasse F, Binder NB, Mueller J, Wissel T, Schwers S, Germer M, et al. Thrombin generation assays are versatile tools in blood coagulation analysis: A review of technical features, and applications from research to laboratory routine. J Thromb Haemost 2021; 19: 2907–17. doi: 10.1111/jth.15529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elvan Wiyarta

10 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-03943Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsang,

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.

We appreciate the effort and work that went into your study titled "Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulation." The topic is of significant interest and relevance to the field. After careful review by two independent reviewers, we have decided that your manuscript could potentially be suitable for publication in PLOS ONE, subject to major revisions. Both reviewers acknowledge the technical soundness and the rigor of the statistical analysis of your study. However, several significant concerns have been raised that need to be addressed comprehensively in your revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 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,

Elvan Wiyarta, M.D.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Data Completeness and Presentation:

Reviewer 2 has raised concerns about the completeness of data presentation, specifically regarding the assays for all treatment conditions. Please ensure that all relevant data, including those for control conditions and different storage times and temperatures, are fully presented and discussed. This may involve adding supplementary material if necessary.

Methodological Clarifications:

Clarify the rationale behind the 72-hour cut-off for sample processing delays. It is crucial to explain why this specific timeframe was chosen and how it aligns with the objectives of your study.

Justify the decision to measure IL-6 as the only cytokine in both citrate and EDTA tubes. A detailed explanation will help strengthen the methodology section of your paper.

Discussion and Literature Comparison:

The discussion section requires expansion to thoroughly interrogate the literature on IL-8 over time, particularly concerning patient 1 with a 10-fold increase in IL-8. Compare your findings with existing studies on IL-8 in ICU or vascular trauma contexts to provide a deeper analysis of your results.

Address the small sample size by documenting it as a Study Limitation. Discuss how the sample size may affect the generalizability of your findings and any implications for future research.

Data Availability Statement:

Address Reviewer 2's concern regarding the data availability statement. PLOS ONE requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction. Please revise your Data Availability Statement to comply with this policy, or provide a more detailed explanation of any restrictions and how researchers can access the data if necessary.

Additional Clarifications and Information:

Provide more details on how blood samples were collected and processed, including information on maintaining two temperatures, the type and number of tubes collected from each participant, and specifics on the aliquot protocol.

Include information on the timing of assays and whether samples were labeled in a manner that prevented the laboratory staff from knowing the treatment conditions, to ensure the integrity of the data.

[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: 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: No

**********

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: Good study, well-written

Clarity required:

1. What determined the 72-hour cut-off?

2. Why was IL-6 the only cytokine measured in citrate and EDTA tubes?

Suggested revision:

3. The Discussion needs to interrogate the literature more on IL-8 over time eg.

Patient 1 with a 10-fold increase in IL-8. Apart from vascular trauma, is there any other explanation, or other studies on IL-8 in ICU or vascular trauma?

4. The small sample size needs to be documented as a Study Limitation.

Reviewer #2: Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulation

This manuscript describes a study of the effect of delayed processing times, temperature during delayed processing, and tube type on various biomarkers, including cytokines, chemokines, cell-free DNA, and thrombin (blood clotting potential). Samples were taken from a small number of healthy donors as well as ICU patients, and were either processed immediately or left for 24, 48, or 72 hours at either room temperature or 4oC. The authors report no effect of any of the treatment conditions on any of the biomarkers they measured, and conclude that collecting samples and shipping them to a central location for processing should be acceptable for research studies.

Major concern:

1. Not all the assays were reported for all the treatments (other than thrombin, which the authors explained could not be done on EDTA tubes). Why is this? For example, Figure 1 is cytokines from ICU patients, EDTA tubes, room temperature and Figure 2 is chemokines from ICU patients, EDTA tubes, room temperature. For both of these figures, where are the data for healthy individuals, citrate tubes, and 4 degrees C? Without seeing all the data, it is impossible to confirm that the data support the conclusions.

2. The study only included 7 healthy volunteers and 9 ICU patients. Is this enough subjects to be able to see an effect? A power calculation would be useful here.

Other comments:

3. Where were the blood samples collected from the healthy volunteers? At the same location as for the patients?

4. How many tubes total were collected from each participant? With 4 time periods and two temperatures, were there 8 EDTA and 24 citrate tubes collected? Or were there only 3 citrate and 1 EDTA tubes collected? If the latter, were the tubes aliquotted after they were collected and then put under the various time and temperature treatments? And if so, what was the aliquot protocol and what were they aliquotted into?

5. Were the exact type and number of tubes that were collected from the healthy subjects also collected from the ICU patients?

6. How were the two temperatures maintained? Were the room temperature samples left on a bench, or were they packed into a temperature controlled container? Were the 4C samples put in a refrigerator? Or packed in a cooler? If the latter, was there a temperature tracker included to confirm the samples stayed cold for the entire time? And was each set (by time-delay) packed separately?

7. When were the assays run?/how long were the samples frozen prior to running the assays?

8. Were the samples labeled in a masked fashion so that the laboratory staff did not know which sample had been treated which way?

9. Were all samples per individual run together in the same assay batch?

10. Were there any quality control samples included in the assays to ensure that the assays were running reliably?

11. Were any data collected from the healthy volunteers, such as age and sex?

12. Figure 3 is cfDNA for all treatments at room temperature, and Supplemental Figure 2 is all treatments at 4C. Why not show them together in one figure?

13. There are some extreme values for some of the biomarkers. It would be nice for the authors to put these into context. What is considered the normal range and are the extreme values clinically relevant?

14. Related to that, it is difficult to compare changes over time because some of the y-axis values are either shown with different scales, or so large that the changes cannot be seen. For example, Figure 2 IL-8, patient #1 is so extreme you can’t make out the variation for the other patients. And MCP-1, the scale is different for patient 3 compared with the other patients. Displaying the values of each biomarker at each time/temperature/tube in a table (perhaps supplemental) would be beneficial.

**********

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: Nadine Rapiti

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.

Decision Letter 1

Elvan Wiyarta

20 May 2024

PONE-D-24-03943R1Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsang,

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 Jul 04 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,

Elvan Wiyarta, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: 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: Corrections accepted, for choice of 72 hour time frame, IL-6 measurement in citrate and EDTA tubes and the sample size. The Discussion around the IL-8 increase improves the objectivity of the paper.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a lot of work to address my comments. Some lingering items:

1. The authors have added additional results in supplemental tables. However, I still cannot find the following:

a. Cytokines, EDTA, ICU patients, cold storage

b. Cytokines, EDTA, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

c. Cytokines, citrate, ICU patients room temp & cold storage

d. Cytokines, citrate, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

e. Chemokines, EDTA, ICU patients, cold storage

f. Chemokines, EDTA, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

g. Chemokines, citrate, ICU patients room temp & cold storage

h. Chemokines, citrate, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

i. Also: IL-6, citrate, healthy participants is missing from Supplemental Figure 1

Were these assays run but not reported? Or not run? The methods section should specify exactly what assays were run on what conditions, and if the above assays were not run, then indicate why.

2. Figures 1, 2, and 4 seem to be missing so I was not able to compare the text and the figures (although if the data have not changed from the original version then I do not need to re-review these).

3. How many quality control samples were included in the batches, and can you report the coefficient of variation (CV) or another statistic to measure the reliability of the assays? Also, were quality control samples included in all assays, or only the IL-6 and cfDNA assays?

4. The authors indicate that they had greater than 80% power to detect a “medium effect size of 0.5”. What are the units of this 0.5? and what does “medium” mean?

**********

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: Nadine Rapiti

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):e0311921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311921.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Aug 2024

August 19th, 2024

Dear PLOS ONE editorial team,

We thank the reviewers and the editorial team for reviewing our revised manuscript entitled “Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulation”. Our responses to the reviewers’ questions are provided below. We are submitting a revised copy of the manuscript with tracked changes as well as a clean copy.

We thank the reviewers for their helpful feedback and comments. We hope that we have addressed their concerns appropriately.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed. Corrections accepted, for choice of 72 hour time frame, IL-6 measurement in citrate and EDTA tubes and the sample size. The Discussion around the IL-8 increase improves the objectivity of the paper.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a lot of work to address my comments. Some lingering items:

1. The authors have added additional results in supplemental tables. However, I still cannot find the following:

a. Cytokines, EDTA, ICU patients, cold storage

b. Cytokines, EDTA, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

c. Cytokines, citrate, ICU patients room temp & cold storage

d. Cytokines, citrate, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

e. Chemokines, EDTA, ICU patients, cold storage

f. Chemokines, EDTA, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

g. Chemokines, citrate, ICU patients room temp & cold storage

h. Chemokines, citrate, healthy participants, room temp & cold storage

i. Also: IL-6, citrate, healthy participants is missing from Supplemental Figure 1

Were these assays run but not reported? Or not run? The methods section should specify exactly what assays were run on what conditions, and if the above assays were not run, then indicate why.

Response: Thank you for this question. Due to budget limitations, we could only perform the multiplex assay in one set of samples. We chose the ICU patient samples because we felt they were more clinically-relevant and the EDTA samples because EDTA is typically used as the anticoagulant in proteomics studies. We also chose the room temperature samples, rather than 4˚C samples, because we felt they were more likely to show a change with delayed processing and reflected the scenario in which samples are mailed without ice. We have edited the Methods section to clarify these issues.

2. Figures 1, 2, and 4 seem to be missing so I was not able to compare the text and the figures (although if the data have not changed from the original version then I do not need to re-review these).

Response: We apologize for any confusion. The figures were included with the original submission but were left out of the resubmission as they were unchanged. We are including them again with this submission.

3. How many quality control samples were included in the batches, and can you report the coefficient of variation (CV) or another statistic to measure the reliability of the assays? Also, were quality control samples included in all assays, or only the IL-6 and cfDNA assays?

Response: Thank you for this question. For the cfDNA and IL-6 assays, we included both “high” and “low” quality control samples. The intra- and inter-assay CV for the cfDNA assay were 3.7% and 14%, respectively. The intra- and inter-assay CV for the IL-6 ELISA were 2.6% and 4.5%, respectively.

For the multiplex cytokine and chemokine assays, two normal plasma samples were included as quality control samples. The average intra- and inter-assay CV for the multiplex cytokine assay were 3.5% and 7.6%, respectively. The average intra- and inter-assay CV for the multiplex chemokine assay were 7.9% and 5.1%, respectively.

For the thrombin generation assay, a normal pooled plasma sample was included in each run. The intra-assay CV for the lag time and area under the curve (AUC) were 7.9% and 5.2%, respectively. The inter-assay CV for the lag time and area under the curve (AUC) were 10.2% and 12.1 %, respectively.

We have updated the manuscript to include the CV values for each assay.

4. The authors indicate that they had greater than 80% power to detect a “medium effect size of 0.5”. What are the units of this 0.5? and what does “medium” mean?

Response: Thank you for this question. Our original sample size calculation was based on a paired t-test design comparing an individual cytokine or chemokine in paired samples after 0 vs 72 hours of sample processing delay. Based on this calculation, a sample size of ≥ 7 patients is sufficient to give 80% power to detect a “medium” effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.5 with an � error rate of 0.05. Cohen’s d is a unitless measure calculated from the anticipated difference between the group means divided by the standard deviation. An effect size of 0.2 is considered “small”, 0.5 is “medium”, and 0.8 is “large”. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included the sample size calculation for a repeated measures ANOVA design. Using this experimental design, ≥6 samples is sufficient to give a Cohen’s f (effect size) of 0.17, which is considered a small to medium effect size for a repeated measures experiment. Sample size calculations were conducted using the G*power software.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - Second revision.docx

pone.0311921.s009.docx (17.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Elvan Wiyarta

27 Sep 2024

Impact of sample processing delays on plasma markers of inflammation, chemotaxis, cell death, and blood coagulation

PONE-D-24-03943R2

Dear Dr. Tsang,

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,

Elvan Wiyarta, M.D.

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Elvan Wiyarta

22 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-03943R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsang,

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

Mr. Elvan Wiyarta

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 Fig. IL-6 levels in citrate and EDTA plasma samples from healthy volunteers and ICU patients, as measured by ELISA.

    Blood was collected from healthy volunteers (n = 7) and ICU patients (n = 9) into citrate or EDTA tubes. The blood was stored at RT or 4°C for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours. No significant changed were observed in IL-6 levels with delayed processing conditions at RT or 4°C.

    (TIFF)

    pone.0311921.s001.tiff (288.3KB, tiff)
    S2 Fig

    (TIFF)

    pone.0311921.s002.tiff (292.5KB, tiff)
    S1 Table. Baseline characteristics of individual ICU patients.

    AAA (abdominal aortic aneurysm); AKI (acute kidney injury); GI (gastrointestinal); ICH (intracranial hemorrhage); SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score); N.D. (not done).

    (PDF)

    pone.0311921.s003.pdf (35.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Multiplex cytokine levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

    (PDF)

    pone.0311921.s004.pdf (65.1KB, pdf)
    S3 Table. Multiplex chemokine levels in EDTA plasma samples from ICU patients.

    (PDF)

    pone.0311921.s005.pdf (107.5KB, pdf)
    S4 Table. Cell-free DNA levels in plasma samples from ICU patients and healthy volunteers.

    (PDF)

    pone.0311921.s006.pdf (80.9KB, pdf)
    S5 Table. Thrombin generation parameters in citrate plasma samples from ICU patients and healthy volunteers.

    (PDF)

    pone.0311921.s007.pdf (75.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_FINAL.docx

    pone.0311921.s008.docx (22.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - Second revision.docx

    pone.0311921.s009.docx (17.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES