Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 9;20(1):e0314020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314020

LFA-1: A potential key player in microglia-mediated neuroprotection against oxygen-glucose deprivation in vitro

Robin Jansen 1,*,#, Marc Pawlitzki 1,, Michael Gliem 1,, Sven G Meuth 1,, Stefanie Schreiber 2,, Michael-W Görtler 2,, Jens Neumann 2,#
Editor: Mária A Deli3
PMCID: PMC11717251  PMID: 39787147

Abstract

For the last 38 years, all neuroprotective agents for patients with ischemic stroke have failed in clinical trials. The innate immune system, particularly microglia, is a much-discussed target for neuroprotective agents. Promising results for neuroprotection by inhibition of integrins with drugs such as natalizumab in animal stroke models have not been translated into clinical practice. Our present study reveals the relevance of a β2 integrin, lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1), as a potential key player in protecting neuronal cell death after oxygen-glucose deprivation in organotypic hippocampal cell cultures. In addition, we identified microglial cells as effector cells for LFA-1-mediated neuroprotection. The counterpart of LFA-1 on microglia is unclear, but we show strong expression of ICAM-5 in hippocampal neurons, suggesting a critical role for direct crosstalk between microglia and neurons for neuronal survival under oxygen-glucose deprivation. The enigma of neuroprotection after ischemic stroke remains to be solved, and our findings highlight the continuing importance and lack of understanding of integrin-mediated pathways after ischemic stroke and the need for further intensive research.

Introduction

With 6.6 million deaths worldwide in 2019, stroke is the second leading cause of death right after ischemic heart disease [1]. Since 1985, when the efficacy of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) was demonstrated in a rabbit stroke model, and despite promising experimental results of several neuroprotective agents for the acute and subacute phase of ischemic stroke in preclinical research, all agents have failed in clinical trials until to date [2,3]. One of the most discussed target to overcome the impressive „roadblock”of neuroprotective agents is the innate immune system. Ischemic events in the brain are accompanied by a complex inflammatory response of the innate immune system. Within this inflammatory response, microglia act as a double-edged sword, exerting both protective and detrimental effects on angiogenesis, synaptic remodelling and neurogenesis as well as disrupting the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) [4]. A key to understanding the function of microglial cells lies in the variety of functional states, in the dynamics of invasion and in the respective mechanisms of communication with surrounding cells [4,5].

There are a number of known mechanisms of "microglial crosstalk" after ischemic stroke. for example, the crosstalk evolves from early neurotransmitter-induced activation of microglia triggered by neuronal death, followed by the release of neurotransmitters (e.g. IGF-1) with protective properties, cytotoxic nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide production, and finally to interleukin-1 (IL-1)-beta-induced activation of astroglial and oligodendrocyte cells [4,68]. However, several aspects of this microglial crosstalk remain incompletely understood. One of the most discussed interaction partners in microglial crosstalk is the β2-integrin, lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1), which is expressed on activated microglia, but also on peripheral blood lymphocytes, neutrophils, monocytes, and natural killer cells [911]. Found throughout mammalian organisms, integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane glycoprotein receptors composed of an α- and β-subunit with the ability to signal inter- and intracellularly (inside-out and outside-in signalling) [12,13]. LFA-1 is a cell-surface receptor expressed on leukocytes and composed of CD11a (α-subunit) and CD18 (β-subunit), and finds its ligand in intracellular adhesion molecule 1–5 (ICAM) [9,14]. ICAMs are transmembrane glycoproteins composed of 2–9 immunoglobulin-like C2 domains and are expressed on the surface of neurons, leukocytes, endothelial cells and many cancer cells [15,16]. LFA-1 expression is mediated by a variety of cytokines such as interferon-gamma, IL-1 or tumor necrosis factor-alpha [15]. Activation of LFA-1 results in a two-way signal that mediates the prevention of apoptosis and cell proliferation [15].

Several lines of evidence support a role for LFA-1 in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and ischemic stroke [9,16,17]. Pharmacological inhibition of integrins is an emerging therapy and has already led to a number of well-established treatments for various diseases, such as the αIIbβ3 inhibitor tirofiban (coronary heart disease or stroke), the α4β7 antibody vedolizumab (ulcerative colitis) or the α4β1 inhibitor natalizumab (multiple sclerosis) [18]. For the latter, promising experimental results in reducing hemispheric ischemic neuronal damage could not be translated to humans, leading to a failed double-blind phase IIb clinical trial in 2020 [12,19]. Reasons for the failure include timing or interactions with other medications such as aspirin or rtPA as well as a small numbers of patients as well [20].

In addition to LFA-1, inhibition of another integrin, the very late antigen-4 (VLA-4), which is composed of CD49b (α-subunit) and CD29 (β-subunit), has shown clear neuroprotective properties in animal studies, although this effect has not been consistent across different stroke models [21,22]. Together with the serological evidence of reduced T-cell expression of CD11a (the α-subunit of LFA-1) in multiple sclerosis patients receiving natalizumab therapy, this raises with the above mentioned experimental evidence of reduced hemispheric damage in natalizumab-treated animals, this raises the question of the role of integrins, and in particular LFA-1, in ischemic cell damage [23]. Our previous findings demonstrate that microglial neuroprotection is dependent on CD11 expression on microglia and, microglia cell functionality is one fundamental mechanism underlying LFA-1-mediated neuroprotection [24].

In the present study, we demonstrate in organotypic hippocampal slice cultures that specific inhibition of microglial LFA-1 by the compound BIRT377 results in a dose-dependent increase in neuronal death following oxygen-glucose deprivation. BIRT377 specifically interacts with LFA-1 by non-covalently binding to the CD11a chain, preventing LFA-1 from binding to its ligands [25,26]. In addition, inhibition of LFA-1 abolished the neuroprotective effect of externally applied microglia (BV-2). The counterpart of microglial LFA-1 remains unclear, but it is tempting to speculate that ICAM-5 may be the neuronal part due to its strong expression in hippocampal neurons.

Results

Microglia engage in cell-cell contact with neurons after OGD

We have previously shown that interference with microglial CD11a, a component of LFA-1 (CD11a/CD18), exacerbates neuronal cell death, presumably by inhibiting microglial migration to vulnerable neurons, but this has not been further investigated. First, we tested whether the previously observed physical interaction between neurons and exogenously applied microglia, termed as "capping", also exists between neurons and endogenous microglia. Therefore, we used organotypic hippocampal slice cultures from transgenic mice expressing Thy-1-eYPF in a subset of pyramidal neurons, specifically in the CA-1 area of the hippocampus. Endogenous microglia were labelled with rhodamine-labelled IB-4. We performed two-photon microscopy (TPM) of the slice culture 24 hours after oxygen-glucose deprivation and confirmed the "capping" under these endogenous conditions (Fig 1A). The molecular mechanism of this physical interaction under ischemic conditions is unknown. In addition, immunohistochemistry revealed a strong expression of ICAM-5 on THY1-expressing pyramidal neurons in the CA-1 region of the hippocampus (Fig 1B), whereas neurons did not express ICAM-1 under normal conditions (Fig 1C).

Fig 1. After OGD, neurons express the ICAM-5 protein and establish direct cell-cell interactions with microglia.

Fig 1

A: THY1-expessing Neurons are co-localized with IB-4 positive microglia. B: Hippocampal neurons express ICAM-5 (shown as false color display for contrast reasons). C: Hippocampal neurons were negative for ICAM-1, ICAM-1 positive cells are according to their morphology microglial cells. Scale bar: A 30 μm, A* 15 μm, B 20 μm, C, 15 μm.

LFA-1 antagonism by BIRT377 dose-dependently increases neuronal cell death after OGD

The next step was to investigate whether inhibition of LFA-1 function with BIRT377 had an effect on neuronal survival after OGD. The duration of the OGD was 30 minutes and resulted in submaximal neuronal cell death, allowing us to also detect exacerbation of neuronal cell death [27]. As there are few microglia present in hippocampal slice cultures, with the majority on the surface, the effect of endogenous microglia per se was unclear [28].

LFA-1 antagonism significantly exacerbated neuronal cell death after OGD in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 2B). Fig 2C shows representative fluorescence images of the densitometric quantification (Fig 2C). The data suggest that LFA-1 function is critical for neuronal survival after ischemic brain injury.

Fig 2. After OGD preconditioning, LFA-1 antagonism by BIRT377 increases neuronal cell death in a dose-dependent manner.

Fig 2

A: Within one hour after oxygen-glucose-deprivation, BIRT377 was applied with consecutive cell death measurement after twenty-four hours via propium iodid incorporation (PI). B: After twenty-four hours, quantification of neuronal death in hippocampal CA1–3 region was determined by PI incorporation after application of 5, 10 or 20 μM BIRT377 after OGD and basal treatment (* p < 0,05, ***p < 0.001 vs OGD).n = 26 Error bars indicate SEM. C: Compared to basal conditions, BIRT377 application dose-dependently increases neuronal cell death with accentuation in CA1-regions (representative PI fluorescent images). Dotted lines and annotations (DG = dentate gyrus, CA = cornu ammonis) illustrate anatomical structure of the hippocampus. CA-region in OGD treated slices is not encircled for increased recognition of the PI positive cells in the CA-1 region. Scale bars: C 1 mm.

LFA-1 receptor function is crucial for exogenous microglia to mediate neuroprotection after OGD

Previous work with antisense CD11a treatment resulted in impaired microglial migration to vulnerable neurons, thereby interfering with microglial-mediated neuroprotection [24]. Microglia no longer migrated into the slice culture but remained on the top layer. With BIRT377, we were able to block LFA-1 function at any time after OGD, allowing us to investigate whether microglia that have had time to migrate into the slice are still capable of exerting neuroprotective effects after blocking LFA-1 function at later time points. Previous data showed that the majority of microglia had migrated into the slice culture at 6 hours after OGD. Therefore, we blocked LFA-1 at 1 and 6 hours after OGD (Fig 3A). While application of LFA-1-blocking BIRT377 at 1 hour after OGD abolished the previously observed microglia-mediated neuroprotection, application at 6 hours showed significantly less interference with neuroprotection (Fig 3B). The present results indicate an essential role for sufficient LFA-1 receptor function on microglia and hence neuroprotection, but also that disruption of LFA-1 signalling only partially inhibits the neuroprotective properties of microglia, implicating a role for other signalling pathways and possibly time points.

Fig 3. Neuroprotective properties of microglia are mediated by LFA-1 receptor function in a time dependent manner after OGD.

Fig 3

A. Following the external addition of BV-2 microglia, 20 μM BIRT377 was applied either immediately after or six hours after oxygen-glucose deprivation, with cell death measured by PI after twenty-four hours. B: After twenty-four hours, quantification of neuronal death in hippocampal CA1–3 region was determined by PI incorporation after OGD alone, with externally applied BV-2 microglia and BIRT377 after one and six hours (* p < 0,05, ***p < 0.001 vs OGD)n = 27. Error bars indicate SEM. C: Representative PI fluorescence images of hippocampal slices used in B. Scale bars: C 1 mm.

Discussion

Since all previous immunological stroke therapies have shown efficacy only in animal models and have failed to translate to humans, this study makes an important contribution to elucidating the mechanisms of microglial crosstalk after cerebral ischemia and defines potential new therapeutic targets [29].

The importance of microglial-driven neuroinflammation after ischemic stroke for infarct size and clinical outcome has been demonstrated in numerous animal studies. Thus, drug intervention in the sense of a mediator role to influence microglial activity in the direction of neuroprotection and repair seems obvious [13].

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the importance of LFA-1 receptor function for neuronal survival in oxygen-glucose-depleted organotypic hippocampal slices and to evaluate the role of LFA-1 in microglial neuroprotection. The present in vitro conditions allowed us to look in isolation at neuronal survival in OHCs under ischemic conditions under LFA-1 receptor blockade after one and six hours with and without additional microglial activity. If we assume a cell-to-cell interaction between microglia and neurons, the first requirement is evidence of spatial proximity. The present TPM and immunofluorescence staining shows clustering of neuronal and microglial cells as well as expression of the LFA-1 ligands ICAM-1 and ICAM-5 (Fig 1A–1C). This proximity allows microglia to interact with surrounding neurons via numerous surface receptors such as the lipopolysaccharide receptor CD14, CD36, the purinergic receptor P2Y6 or toll-like receptors by releasing a variety of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1-beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-gamma or nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and protective neurotrophins such as NGF, BDNF and NT-3 [30]. To investigate the role of LFA-1-receptor function, we were able to establish a dose-dependent relationship between neuronal cell death and LFA-1 receptor blockade after OGD (Fig 2A–2C). BIRT377 blocks LFA-1(CD11a), which is critical for the migration of exogenously added microglia into the slice [28]. Our ex vivo studies have shown that the migration of exogenous microglia into the slices is essential for exerting neuroprotection [28,31]. In addition, other studies have shown that ablation of endogenous microglia in vivo exacerbates neuronal damage following experimental stroke. Both observations suggest that both endogenous and exogenous microglia are neuroprotective rather than destructive in stroke models [32].

Since cell invasion does not occur in the present in vitro model (in which LFA-1 receptor function plays an integral role), the cause of the exacerbation of neuronal damage must therefore lie in a disruption of existing cell-to-cell communication by OGD [33]. Since our previous work showed a dependence of microglial neuroprotection on CD11 expression, it has been suggested that the key to LFA-1 mediated neuroprotection lies in microglial cell function [28]. To address the role of LFA-1-mediated, time-dependent microglial neuroprotection, we externally applied BV-2 microglia on cell culture with subsequent BIRT377 application after one and six hours. The expression of LFA-1 on BV-2 microglia is well known and has been described as early as 1996 by Hailer and colleagues, as well as in Pateau et al. (2017) and was confirmed by us by antisense CD11a (LFA1) knockdown in our previous work [28,34,35].

Time-dependent microglial functional states have been known for many years. As microglial activity moves along a continuum between a cytotoxic M1 response and a reparative M2 response, therefore an investigation of LFA-1 receptor function as a function of time was performed. Interestingly, our results showed a greater effect on neuronal cell death after blocking microglial activity at six hours than at one hour (Fig 3A–3C). This provides evidence that early microglia-neuron interactions are less determinant of neuronal cell death than late ongoing cell-to-cell communication. It is important to note that our model does not take in to account a monocytic cell migration and does not consider mechanisms and signaling pathways that could only come into play as a result of the increased cell numbers associated with invasion. Adding the results of the transcriptome data from Xue et al., which revealed a continuum between cytotoxic and reparative function rather than strict dichotomous function, it can also be assumed that in the present model we have only considered a specific functional state of microglial cells induced by oxygen-glucose deprivation [36].

Since we showen that microglia a frequently “cap” neurons and postulate this phenomenon as a neuroprotective property, it is interesting to identify the molecular mechanism behind this physical interaction. LFA-1 may be crucial for migration through neuronal tissue but may also serve as an interaction with neurons. Common counterparts of LFA-1 are ICAMs. Neurons only show ICAM-1 positivity in regions of the dentate gyrus where neurogenesis occurs, whereas hippocampal neurons were positive for ICAM-5. The interaction between ICAM-5 and LFA-1 has been demonstrated in an in vitro assay with neurons and T cells [16]. It is still unclear whether the interaction between LFA-1 and ICAM-5 is responsible for capping. Further experiments interfering with ICAM-5, e. g. with antibodies, are warranted to clarify the physical interaction between microglia and neurons under ischemic conditions and whether ICAM-5 is crucial to induce or elicit neuroprotection.

In conclusion, our results provide important insights into the importance of LFA-1 receptor function in the context of neuronal survival after oxygen-glucose deprivation. This work should provide the impetus for further studies in animal models according to the STAIR guidelines of different stroke mechanisms such as tMCAO or photothrombosis, gender and comorbidities, as well as in existing LFA-1 knock-out models to gain further insight into the LFA-1 receptor and validation to enable potential translation into a clinical trial.

Material und methods

Oxygen–glucose deprivation

Oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) was performed as previously described [24]. To establish experimental conditions, sterile six-well culture plates (TPP) were prepared by saturating them with a 5% CO2/95% N2 atmosphere for 10 minutes. Membrane inserts containing a maximum of three outer hair cells (OHCs) were then placed in 1 ml of glucose-free medium in the culture plates. The OHCs were then subjected to oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) by being exposed to a hypoxic chamber (Billups-Rothenberg) with no glucose medium and a N2/CO2 atmosphere for either 30 or 40 minutes. After the OGD period, the OHCs were returned to normal conditions. Reference control cultures were maintained in normal medium with glucose under normoxic conditions. The cultures were then analysed 24 hours after the OGD treatment. BIRT377 was kindly provided by Terence Kelly (Boehringer Ingelheim).

Analysis of cell death

At 24 hours after oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD), cell death was assessed by measuring the incorporation of propidium iodide (PI) into the cells. The method for analysing cell death was performed as previously described [24]. Specifically, cultures were exposed to medium containing PI (10 μmol) for 2 hours at a temperature of 33°C. Fluorescence images were acquired semi-automatically (Nikon motorized stage; LUCIA software) and analysed by densitometry to quantify necrotic cell death (LUCIA Image analysis software). The region of interest for analysis was defined based on transmission light images, specifically targeting the CA area (CA1-3) and excluding the dentate gyrus. A control square of 150 × 150 μm, located in the stratum moleculare outside the pyramidal cell layer, was used for automatic background, correction. To consolidate data from different experiments, the densitometric mean of each insult within a single experiment was normalised to 1 and expressed as relative fluorescence intensity. All additional data were presented as relative fluorescence intensity, reflecting the extent of damage caused by the insult.

Organotypic hippocampal slice cultures

To reduce the suffering of the animals on death, rapid decapitation was performed after anaesthesia with isoflurane and in the absence of a pain response. Hippocampal interface organotypic cultures were prepared from postnatal day 7–9 Wistar rats (Harlan Winkelmann) as previously described [24]. For immunofluorescence microscopy experiments and two photon microscopy imaging, hippocampal slice cultures were prepared from transgenic B6.Cg-TgN(Thy1-YFP)16Jrs mice (The Jackson Laboratory; distributed by Charles River), which express enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP) at high levels in subsets of central neurons, including the pyramidal cells of the hippocampus. These mice are genetically modified to express enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP) at high levels in specific populations of central neurons, including hippocampal pyramidal cells. Hippocampi were dissected and sliced transversely at a thickness of 350 μm (The Mickle Laboratory Engineering). Slices were transferred to Millicell membranes (Millipore). Cultures were maintained at 37°C in 1 ml of serum-based medium containing 50% MEM-Hanks, 25% HBSS, 17 mm HEPES, 5 mm glucose, pH 7.8 (Cell Concepts), 1 mm l-glutamine (Biochrom), 25% horse serum (Invitrogen), and 0.5% gentamycin (Biochrom) for 2–3 d. Cultures were then maintained in serum-free medium (Neurobasal A medium with B27 complement, 5 mm glucose, 1 mm l-glutamine). The OHCs were selected by adding a non-toxic concentration of propidium iodide (PI) (2 μg/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) 12 h before the experimental start. PI-negative slices were considered to be healthy, and only these slices were used for the experiments. LFA-1 function was inhibited by application of the compound BIRT377 (Tocris), BIRT377 were applied in different concentration to native OHCs and in another set of experiments after addition of exogenous microglia on OHCs at different time points.

Application of BV-2 microglia onto OHCs

Isolated BV-2 microglia were trypsinated (trypsin/EDTA; Biochrom), centrifuged at 500 × g for 2 min, and finally resuspended in Neurobasal medium (Invitrogen). As indicated, OHCs were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and mounted with 3:1 PBS/glycerol. OHCs were then further analyzed with the indicated microscopy approach.

Culture of microglia cell line BV2

The BV2 microglia were cultured in (D)MEM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) (Biochrom), 1% pen/strep (Biochrom), and 1% L-glutamine (Biochrom) at a density not exceeding 5 × 105 cells/ml and maintained in 5% CO2 at 37°C. For the application of BV2 microglia, we trypsinated cells (trypsin/EDTA) (Biochrom) and then centrifuged them at 500g for 5 min and resuspended them in neurobasal medium (Gibco). Cell concentration was determined by counting cells in a “Neubauer” hemocytometer, and viability was assessed by trypan blue staining (0.4% trypan blue in PBS) (Sigma). BV2 microglia were applied directly onto 10-day-old OHSC in a volume of 2 μl of neurobasal medium containing 8 × 104 BV2 microglial cells, resulting in pathophysiologically relevant number of microglia numbers in the slice that closely resembling those found in vivo after global ischemia.

Two-photon microscopy

For two-photon microscopy, the endogenous microglial cells were stained with Alexa 568-conjugated Griffonia simplicifolia isolectin B4 (Invitrogen). OHCs were subjected to two-photon microscopy (TPM) using an Olympus BX51WI stage equipped with a XLUMPL ×20, NA 0.95 water dipping lens and a multibeam scan head (LaVision Biotech, Bielefeld, Germany) run at 16 beams with full laser power. Image detection was done with a cooled CCD camera (Imager Intense, LaVision, Goettingen, Germany). Brain slices were imaged in live modus at 800 and 920 nm wavelength of the laser (MaiTai, Spectra physics) using a scanning window of 90 × 150 μm. These positions defined the maximum cube of tissue available for imaging. This cube was then scanned with a resolution in Z of 0.5 μm, first at 920 nm and then at 800 nm wavelength without a filter. The emission of EYFP at 800 nm was negligible as was the emission of Alexa 568 at 920 nm. Image stacks were exported as two independent 8-Bit multilayer TIFF stacks and subsequently reconstructed using the AMIRA software package (Berlin, Germany).

Animals

As mentioned above, for organotypic cultures Wistar rats ((Harlan Winkelmann GmbH, Borchen, Germany) were sacrificed on day 7–9 postnatal. For immunofluorescence microscopy experiments transgenic B6. Cg-TgN (Thy1-YFP)16Jrs mice (The Jackson Laboratory, Charles River, Wilmington, MA) were sacrificed. Briefly, 7–9 day old Wistar rats (Harlan Winkelmann GmbH, Borchen, Germany) were decapitated and their brains quickly removed under sterile conditions. After isolation of the hippocampi, their dorsal halves were cut transversely at 350 μm using a McIlwain tissue chopper (The Mickle Laboratory Engineering Co., Guildford, UK).

Statistical analysis

All data are given as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc comparison (Tukey’s test). A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Owolabi M. O. et al. Primary stroke prevention worldwide: translating evidence into action. Lancet Public Health 7, e74–e85 (2021). doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00230-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 333, 1581–1587 (1995). doi: 10.1056/NEJM199512143332401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.O’Collins V. E. et al. 1,026 Experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann. Neurol. 59, 467–477 (2006). doi: 10.1002/ana.20741 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Qin C. et al. Dual Functions of Microglia in Ischemic Stroke. Neurosci. Bull. 35, 921–933 (2019). doi: 10.1007/s12264-019-00388-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xue J., Schmidt S. V., Sander J., Draffehn A., Krebs W., Quester I. et al. Transcriptome-based network analysis reveals a spectrum model of human macrophage activation. Immunity, 40(2), 274–288 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Block M. L., Zecca L. & Hong J.-S. Microglia-mediated neurotoxicity: uncovering the molecular mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 57–69 (2007). doi: 10.1038/nrn2038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Interleukin-1β Induces a Reactive Astroglial Phenotype via Deactivation of the Rho GTPase–Rock Axis | Journal of Neuroscience. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/24/11/2837.short. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 8.Microglia Enhance Neurogenesis and Oligodendrogenesis in the Early Postnatal Subventricular Zone | Journal of Neuroscience. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/6/2231.short. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.Arumugam T. V. et al. Contributions of LFA-1 and Mac-1 to brain injury and microvascular dysfunction induced by transient middle cerebral artery occlusion. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 287, H2555–2560 (2004). doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00588.2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hailer N. P., Bechmann I., Heizmann S. & Nitsch R. Adhesion molecule expression on phagocytic microglial cells following anterograde degeneration of perforant path axons. Hippocampus 7, 341–349 (1997). doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hailer N. P., Jarhult J. D. & Nitsch R. Resting microglial cells in vitro: analysis of morphology and adhesion molecule expression in organotypic hippocampal slice cultures. Glia 18, 319–331 (1996). doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Faull R. J. & Ginsberg M. H. Inside-out signaling through integrins. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. JASN 7, 1091–1097 (1996). doi: 10.1681/ASN.V781091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhu J. et al. Requirement of alpha and beta subunit transmembrane helix separation for integrin outside-in signaling. Blood 110, 2475–2483 (2007). doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-03-080077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dalmau I., Vela J. M., González B. & Castellano B. Expression of LFA-1α and ICAM-1 in the developing rat brain: a potential mechanism for the recruitment of microglial cell precursors. Dev. Brain Res. 103, 163–170 (1997). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Anderson M. E. & Siahaan T. J. Targeting ICAM-1/LFA-1 interaction for controlling autoimmune diseases: designing peptide and small molecule inhibitors. Peptides 24, 487–501 (2003). doi: 10.1016/s0196-9781(03)00083-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Birkner K. et al. Neuronal ICAM-5 Plays a Neuroprotective Role in Progressive Neurodegeneration. Front. Neurol. 10, 205 (2019). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu Z., Huang Y., Cao B.-B., Qiu Y.-H. & Peng Y.-P. Th17 Cells Induce Dopaminergic Neuronal Death via LFA-1/ICAM-1 Interaction in a Mouse Model of Parkinson’s Disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 54, 7762–7776 (2017). doi: 10.1007/s12035-016-0249-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Slack R. J., Macdonald S. J. F., Roper J. A., Jenkins R. G. & Hatley R. J. D. Emerging therapeutic opportunities for integrin inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 21, 60–78 (2022). doi: 10.1038/s41573-021-00284-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Elkind M. S. V. et al. Natalizumab in acute ischemic stroke (ACTION II). Neurology 95, e1091–e1104 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lourbopoulos A. et al. Translational Block in Stroke: A Constructive and “Out-of-the-Box” Reappraisal. Front. Neurosci. 15, (2021). doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.652403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Neumann J. et al. Very-late-antigen-4 (VLA-4)-mediated brain invasion by neutrophils leads to interactions with microglia, increased ischemic injury and impaired behavior in experimental stroke. Acta Neuropathol. (Berl.) 129, 259–277 (2015). doi: 10.1007/s00401-014-1355-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Langhauser F. et al. Blocking of α4 Integrin Does Not Protect From Acute Ischemic Stroke in Mice. Stroke 45, 1799–1806 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jilek S. et al. Natalizumab treatment alters the expression of T-cell trafficking marker LFA-1 α-chain (CD11a) in MS patients. Mult. Scler. Houndmills Basingstoke Engl. 20, 837–842 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Neumann J. et al. Microglia Cells Protect Neurons by Direct Engulfment of Invading Neutrophil Granulocytes: A New Mechanism of CNS Immune Privilege. J. Neurosci. 28, 5965–5975 (2008). doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0060-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kelly T. A. et al. Cutting edge: a small molecule antagonist of LFA-1-mediated cell adhesion. J. Immunol. Baltim. Md 1950 163, 5173–5177 (1999). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hosseini B. H. et al. Immune synapse formation determines interaction forces between T cells and antigen-presenting cells measured by atomic force microscopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 17852–17857 (2009). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905384106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rybachuk O., Kopach O., Krotov V., Voitenko N. & Pivneva T. Optimized Model of Cerebral Ischemia In situ for the Long-Lasting Assessment of Hippocampal Cell Death. Front. Neurosci. 11, (2017). doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Neumann J. et al. Microglia provide neuroprotection after ischemia. FASEB J. Off. Publ. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Biol. 20, 714–716 (2006). doi: 10.1096/fj.05-4882fje [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Veltkamp R. & Gill D. Clinical Trials of Immunomodulation in Ischemic Stroke. Neurother. J. Am. Soc. Exp. Neurother. 13, 791–800 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s13311-016-0458-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Suzumura A. Neuron-Microglia Interaction in Neuroinflammation. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 14, 16–20. doi: 10.2174/1389203711314010004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mitrasinovic OM. Microglia Overexpressing the Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Receptor Are Neuroprotective in a Microglial-Hippocampal Organotypic Coculture System. Journal of Neuroscience 25, 4442–4451 (2015) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lalancette-Hebert M, Gowing G, Simard A, Weng YC, Kriz J. Selective Ablation of Proliferating Microglial Cells Exacerbates Ischemic Injury in the Brain. Journal of Neuroscience 27, 2596–2605 (2007) doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5360-06.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li N. et al. Ligand-specific binding forces of LFA-1 and Mac-1 in neutrophil adhesion and crawling. Mol. Biol. Cell 29, 408–418 (2018). doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-12-0827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Paetau S, Rolova T, Ning L, Gahmberg CG. Neuronal ICAM-5 inhibits microglia adhesion and phagocytosis and promotes an anti-inflammatory response in LPS stimulated microglia. Front Mol Neurosci. 10 (2017) doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hailer NP, JI J T, Nitsch R. Resting Microglial Cells In Vitro: Analysis of Morphology and Adhesion Molecule Expression in Organotypic Hippocampal Slice Cultures. Glia. (1996). doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Xue J. et al. Transcriptome-based network analysis reveals a spectrum model of human macrophage activation. Immunity 40, 274–288 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mária A Deli

7 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-13219LFA-1: A potential key player in microglia-mediated neuroprotection against oxygen-glucose deprivation in vitroPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jansen,

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 all the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 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,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.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

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"Michael Gliem: Speaking fees from Novartis and Pfizer. 

Mark Pawlitzki  received honoraria for lecturing and travel expenses for attending meetings from Alexion, ArgenX, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, Hexal, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva. His research is funded by the by ArgenX, Biogen, Hexal and Novartis. 

Sven Meuth receives honoraria for lecturing, and travel expenses for attending meetings from Academy 2, Argenx, Alexion, Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, BioNtech, BMS, Celgene, Datamed, Demecan, Desitin, Diamed, Diaplan, DIU Dresden, DPmed, Gen Medicine and Healthcare products, Genzyme, Hexal AG, Impulze GmbH, Janssen Cilag, KW Medipoint, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Neuropoint, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ONO Pharma, Oxford PharmaGenesis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Springer Medizin Verlag, Chugai Pharma, QuintilesIMS ,Teva, Wings for Life international and Xcenda.

His research is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), German Academic Exchange Service, Hertie Foundation, Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Studies (IZKF) Muenster, German Foundation Neurology and Alexion,  Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Biogen, Diamed, DGM e.v., Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Gesellschaft von Freunden und Förderern der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf e.V., HERZ Burgdorf, Merck Serono, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Roche, and Teva."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Dr. Michael-W. Görtler.

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Additional Editor Comments:

==============================

The manuscript was evaluated by two experts. They suggested some important amendments that are needed for acceptance including changes in the images, improvements of the text. At least one further experimental figure showing the mechanism of the observed neuroprotective effect is needed.==============================

[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: Partly

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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This study shows the critical role of the β2 integrin, LFA-1, in microglia-mediated neuroprotection during oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in hippocampal cell cultures. The research demonstrates that LFA-1 is necessary for neuronal survival under ischemic conditions, as its inhibition with the compound BIRT377 resulted in a dose-dependent increase in neuronal death. ICAM-5, which is strongly expressed in hippocampal neurons, was identified as a potential ligand for LFA-1, indicating an important interaction between microglia and neurons that is essential for neuroprotection. These findings highlight the significance of LFA-1 in neuroprotective signaling and emphasize the need for further investigation into integrin-mediated pathways in the context of ischemic stroke.

Minor concerns:

In the introduction, it is mentioned that IGF-1 is an example of a neurotransmitter, but its canonical function is as a growth factor mainly released from the liver, although also produced in many tissues. IGF-1's main activity is to induce proliferation; however, in the brain, it has been related to survival and neuroprotection.

What happens to the BV-2 microglial cells that are co-incubated with the hippocampal organotypic cultures? Is there any kind of tissue penetration? Do microglial BV-2 cells secrete proinflammatory cytokines? Are they M1 or M2 phenotype? Are they pre-treated to express a specific phenotype?

Did you try higher doses of BIRT377?

Is PI incorporation specific to neuronal cells?

Please include better pictures of the OHCs in Figures 2C and 3C, as they are very small, and without nuclei counterstaining, it is very hard to identify the damage zone and the affected cells.

Authors show that N=7. How was this calculated? What is the effect size? Was it calculated a priori?

Does BIRT377 have a differential effect on endogenous microglia and BV-2?

Major concerns:

The abstract is very general and does not provide important information such as methodology, a summary of results, and a brief conclusion. It also states that there is no single therapy to induce neuroprotection after a stroke in patients, which is hard to believe. I recommend being more cautious with statements like this.

The control in Figures 2C and 3D show a strong discrepancy in propidium iodide incorporation intensity. The timeline indicates that they are exposed to PI for 24 hours; if there is any other difference in the protocol that explains this fluorescence inconsistency, it should be included in the manuscript.

I strongly recommend including a conclusion or summary at the end of the discussion, which includes only technical English, avoiding expressions such as “Like a stone into water.” This can be confusing for some international readers.

Stressed microglia are reported to promote an M1 proinflammatory phenotype, which can be harmful to neural tissue. Why does BIRT377, once blocking OGD in non-stressed BV2, increase survival (Figure 2B)? Also, endogenous microglia and BV2 are likely to have opposing responses since one is stressed and the other is not. Please include a discussion about this.

The number of results seems a little short. It would be interesting to see what the mediators are in the effect exogenous microglia upon survival in hippocampal tissue cultures. Maybe qPCR or ELISA for cytokines and neurotrophins could complement this work.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors investigated LFA-1 inhibition with BIRT377 on neuronal death after oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in cultured hippocampal slices. The authors found that BIRT377 treatment enhanced neuronal death after OGD, and abolished the neuroprotective effect of transplanted BV2 cells on OGD-preconditioned slices. Below are some comments on the manuscript.

(1) In figure 1C, the authors show expression of ICAM5 but not ICAM1 in neurons. At which experimental conditions (OGD vs. Normal) was this done?

(2) In figure 3, the authors show that BV2 cell transplantation is neuroprotective on OGD-preconditioned slices, which can be partially abolished by LFA-1 inhibition. The expression of LFA-1 in BV2 cells should be experimentally confirmed.

(3) There is a lack of scale bars on the immunofluorescent images in all figures.

(4) It is difficult to see the morphology of the slices in figure 2C and figure 3C. The authors should either provide bright-light images of the slices together with the fluorescent images or enhance the intensity of the fluorescent images to show the slice morphology.

(5) The manuscript needs careful proof-reading: in several occasions, the authors start the sentence with “previously”, “previous studies” or “previous data” without providing any literature reference; in line 7 of the abstract: “hippocampal cell culture” should be “hippocampal slice culture”; in line 16 of the introduction, IGF-1 is not a neurotransmitter; in the “Organotypic hippocampal slice cultures” section of the method: repeated texts in lines 5-8; for microglia labelling: it is stated in the main text that rhodamine-IB4 was used; however, in the method section it is indicated that Alexa568-IB4 was used.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 9;20(1):e0314020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314020.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Jul 2024

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: This study shows the critical role of the β2 integrin, LFA-1, in microglia-mediated neuroprotection during oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in hippocampal cell cultures. The research demonstrates that LFA-1 is necessary for neuronal survival under ischemic conditions, as its inhibition with the compound BIRT377 resulted in a dose-dependent increase in neuronal death. ICAM-5, which is strongly expressed in hippocampal neurons, was identified as a potential ligand for LFA-1, indicating an important interaction between microglia and neurons that is essential for neuroprotection. These findings highlight the significance of LFA-1 in neuroprotective signaling and emphasize the need for further investigation into integrin-mediated pathways in the context of ischemic stroke.

Minor concerns:

In the introduction, it is mentioned that IGF-1 is an example of a neurotransmitter, but its canonical function is as a growth factor mainly released from the liver, although also produced in many tissues. IGF-1's main activity is to induce proliferation; however, in the brain, it has been related to survival and neuroprotection.

What happens to the BV-2 microglial cells that are co-incubated with the hippocampal organotypic cultures? Is there any kind of tissue penetration?

Answer: Using two-photon microscopy, we demonstrated that added BV-2 microglia penetrates the slice in a time-dependent manner following a OGD [1]

Do microglial BV-2 cells secrete proinflammatory cytokines? Are they M1 or M2 phenotype?

Answer: Measuring cytokines was not within the scope of this study; therefore, we did not include it. While we have not determined the microglia phenotype, we assume that they are initially M1 polarized.

Are they pre-treated to express a specific phenotype?

Answer: No, the BV-2 microglia were not pre-treated.

Did you try higher doses of BIRT377?

Answer: No, we did not apply higher doses.

Is PI incorporation specific to neuronal cells?

Answer: No, PI intercalates into the DNA of every necrotic cell.

Please include better pictures of the OHCs in Figures 2C and 3C, as they are very small, and without nuclei counterstaining, it is very hard to identify the damage zone and the affected cells.

Answer: PI is a nuclear counterstain.

Authors show that N=7. How was this calculated? What is the effect size? Was it calculated a priori?

Answer: We need to apologize. The number of slices were false. We corrected the numbers (higher) in the manuscript.

Does BIRT377 have a differential effect on endogenous microglia and BV-2?

Answer: We did not differentiate between the two types. However, the data indicate that BIRT377 had an effect in both conditions: ODG with endogenous microglia (Figure 2) and exogenous microglia (Figure 3). This suggests that BIRT377 acts similarly on both types of microglia.

Major concerns:

The abstract is very general and does not provide important information such as methodology, a summary of results, and a brief conclusion. It also states that there is no single therapy to induce neuroprotection after a stroke in patients, which is hard to believe. I recommend being more cautious with statements like this.

The control in Figures 2C and 3D show a strong discrepancy in propidium iodide incorporation intensity. The timeline indicates that they are exposed to PI for 24 hours; if there is any other difference in the protocol that explains this fluorescence inconsistency, it should be included in the manuscript.

I strongly recommend including a conclusion or summary at the end of the discussion, which includes only technical English, avoiding expressions such as “Like a stone into water.” This can be confusing for some international readers.

Answer: We adapted the manuscript accordingly.

Stressed microglia are reported to promote an M1 proinflammatory phenotype, which can be harmful to neural tissue. Why does BIRT377, once blocking OGD in non-stressed BV2, increase survival (Figure 2B)? Also, endogenous microglia and BV2 are likely to have opposing responses since one is stressed and the other is not. Please include a discussion about this.

Answer: BIRT377 blocks LFA-1(CD11a) which is crucial for migration of externally added microglia into the slice. [1] Our ex vivo studies demonstrated that the migration of exogenous microglia into the slice is essential for exerting neuroprotection [1,2]. Additionally, other studies have shown that the ablation of endogenous microglia in vivo exacerbates neuronal damage following experimental stroke. Both observations indicate that both endogenous and exogenous microglia are neuroprotective rather than destructive in stroke models [3]Both observations indicate that endogenous, as well as exogenous microglia are neuroprotective rather than destructive in stroke models. These aspects are included in the discussion.

The number of results seems a little short. It would be interesting to see what the mediators are in the effect exogenous microglia upon survival in hippocampal tissue cultures. Maybe qPCR or ELISA for cytokines and neurotrophins could complement this work.

Answer: We regret that the project has been terminated. Future studies will aim to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms; we hope we can conduct such study in short term.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors investigated LFA-1 inhibition with BIRT377 on neuronal death after oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in cultured hippocampal slices. The authors found that BIRT377 treatment enhanced neuronal death after OGD, and abolished the neuroprotective effect of transplanted BV2 cells on OGD-preconditioned slices. Below are some comments on the manuscript.

(1) In figure 1C, the authors show expression of ICAM5 but not ICAM1 in neurons. At which experimental conditions (OGD vs. Normal) was this done?

Answer: It was done under normal conditions.

(2) In figure 3, the authors show that BV2 cell transplantation is neuroprotective on OGD-preconditioned slices, which can be partially abolished by LFA-1 inhibition. The expression of LFA-1 in BV2 cells should be experimentally confirmed.

Answer: The expression of LFA-1 has been documented in other publications [4,5]. We conducted CD11a (LFA-1) antisense knockdown in BV-2 microglia, which resulted in impaired microglial migration [1]. This information has been included in the manuscript.

(3) There is a lack of scale bars on the immunofluorescent images in all figures.

Answer: We added the scale bars.

(4) It is difficult to see the morphology of the slices in figure 2C and figure 3C. The authors should either provide bright-light images of the slices together with the fluorescent images or enhance the intensity of the fluorescent images to show the slice morphology.

Answer: We enhanced the quality of images.

(5) The manuscript needs careful proof-reading: in several occasions, the authors start the sentence with “previously”, “previous studies” or “previous data” without providing any literature reference; in line 7 of the abstract: “hippocampal cell culture” should be “hippocampal slice culture”; in line 16 of the introduction, IGF-1 is not a neurotransmitter; in the “Organotypic hippocampal slice cultures” section of the method: repeated texts in lines 5-8; for microglia labelling: it is stated in the main text that rhodamine-IB4 was used; however, in the method section it is indicated that Alexa568-IB4 was used.

Answer: We completed proofreading and made changes according to your addressed points.

References:

1. Neumann J, Gunzer M, Gutzeit HO, Ullrich O, Reymann KG, Dinkel K. Microglia provide neuroprotection after ischemia. FASEB Journal. 2006;20. doi:10.1096/fj.05-4882fje

2. Mitrasinovic OM. Microglia Overexpressing the Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Receptor Are Neuroprotective in a Microglial-Hippocampal Organotypic Coculture System. Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;25: 4442–4451. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0514-05.2005

3. Lalancette-Hebert M, Gowing G, Simard A, Weng YC, Kriz J. Selective Ablation of Proliferating Microglial Cells Exacerbates Ischemic Injury in the Brain. Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27: 2596–2605. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5360-06.2007

4. Paetau S, Rolova T, Ning L, Gahmberg CG. Neuronal ICAM-5 inhibits microglia adhesion and phagocytosis and promotes an anti-inflammatory response in LPS stimulated microglia. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;10. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2017.00431

5. Hailer NP, J T JI, Nitsch R. Resting Microglial Cells In Vitro: Analysis of Morphology and Adhesion Molecule Expression in Organotypic Hippocampal Slice Cultures. Glia. 1996.

Decision Letter 1

Mária A Deli

9 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-13219R1LFA-1: A potential key player in microglia-mediated neuroprotection against oxygen-glucose deprivation in vitroPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jansen,

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.

==============================

The manuscript was improved, but there are still problems to be solved. The attached clean copy is not the same as the version with tracked changes. The authors need to address ALL comments of both reviewers and these should be incorporated in the revised text as well. I suggest the authors to use color highlight in yellow in revision 2 as compared to the original submission to ensure all changes are visible and clear. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Authors addressed all the concerns, however, I still think the amount of results is a little short for a journal as PLOS ONE

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has not been revised at all in the clean version, except that one or two sentences were inserted in the method section. For the version with tracked changes, some revisions have been made based on reviewers' comments. However, not all comments had been addressed even though the authors claimed that they did so in the responses to reviewers.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 9;20(1):e0314020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314020.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Oct 2024

Response to Reviewers

Dear academic editors, dear reviewers,

Please find attached the updated manuscript and a version in track change mode with the changes highlighted in yellow as discussed. You will also find the answers to the reviewers' questions below. All answers are included in the uploaded manuscript files.

Reviewer #1: This study shows the critical role of the β2 integrin, LFA-1, in microglia-mediated neuroprotection during oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in hippocampal cell cultures. The research demonstrates that LFA-1 is necessary for neuronal survival under ischemic conditions, as its inhibition with the compound BIRT377 resulted in a dose-dependent increase in neuronal death. ICAM-5, which is strongly expressed in hippocampal neurons, was identified as a potential ligand for LFA-1, indicating an important interaction between microglia and neurons that is essential for neuroprotection. These findings highlight the significance of LFA-1 in neuroprotective signaling and emphasize the need for further investigation into integrin-mediated pathways in the context of ischemic stroke.

Minor concerns:

In the introduction, it is mentioned that IGF-1 is an example of a neurotransmitter, but its canonical function is as a growth factor mainly released from the liver, although also produced in many tissues. IGF-1's main activity is to induce proliferation; however, in the brain, it has been related to survival and neuroprotection.

What happens to the BV-2 microglial cells that are co-incubated with the hippocampal organotypic cultures? Is there any kind of tissue penetration?

Answer: Using two-photon microscopy, we demonstrated that added BV-2 microglia penetrates the slice in a time-dependent manner following a OGD [1]

Do microglial BV-2 cells secrete proinflammatory cytokines? Are they M1 or M2 phenotype?

Answer: Measuring cytokines was not within the scope of this study; therefore, we did not include it. While we have not determined the microglia phenotype, we assume that they are initially M1 polarized.

Are they pre-treated to express a specific phenotype?

Answer: No, the BV-2 microglia were not pre-treated.

Did you try higher doses of BIRT377?

Answer: No, we did not apply higher doses.

Is PI incorporation specific to neuronal cells?

Answer: No, PI intercalates into the DNA of every necrotic cell.

Please include better pictures of the OHCs in Figures 2C and 3C, as they are very small, and without nuclei counterstaining, it is very hard to identify the damage zone and the affected cells.

Answer: PI is a nuclear counterstain.

Authors show that N=7. How was this calculated? What is the effect size? Was it calculated a priori?

Answer: We need to apologize. The number of slices were false. We corrected the numbers (higher) in the manuscript.

Does BIRT377 have a differential effect on endogenous microglia and BV-2?

Answer: We did not differentiate between the two types. However, the data indicate that BIRT377 had an effect in both conditions: ODG with endogenous microglia (Figure 2) and exogenous microglia (Figure 3). This suggests that BIRT377 acts similarly on both types of microglia.

Major concerns:

The abstract is very general and does not provide important information such as methodology, a summary of results, and a brief conclusion. It also states that there is no single therapy to induce neuroprotection after a stroke in patients, which is hard to believe. I recommend being more cautious with statements like this.

The control in Figures 2C and 3D show a strong discrepancy in propidium iodide incorporation intensity. The timeline indicates that they are exposed to PI for 24 hours; if there is any other difference in the protocol that explains this fluorescence inconsistency, it should be included in the manuscript.

I strongly recommend including a conclusion or summary at the end of the discussion, which includes only technical English, avoiding expressions such as “Like a stone into water.” This can be confusing for some international readers.

Answer: We adapted the manuscript accordingly.

Stressed microglia are reported to promote an M1 proinflammatory phenotype, which can be harmful to neural tissue. Why does BIRT377, once blocking OGD in non-stressed BV2, increase survival (Figure 2B)? Also, endogenous microglia and BV2 are likely to have opposing responses since one is stressed and the other is not. Please include a discussion about this.

Answer: BIRT377 blocks LFA-1(CD11a) which is crucial for migration of externally added microglia into the slice. [1] Our ex vivo studies demonstrated that the migration of exogenous microglia into the slice is essential for exerting neuroprotection [1,2]. Additionally, other studies have shown that the ablation of endogenous microglia in vivo exacerbates neuronal damage following experimental stroke. Both observations indicate that both endogenous and exogenous microglia are neuroprotective rather than destructive in stroke models [3]Both observations indicate that endogenous, as well as exogenous microglia are neuroprotective rather than destructive in stroke models. These aspects are included in the discussion.

The number of results seems a little short. It would be interesting to see what the mediators are in the effect exogenous microglia upon survival in hippocampal tissue cultures. Maybe qPCR or ELISA for cytokines and neurotrophins could complement this work.

Answer: We regret that the project has been terminated. Future studies will aim to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms; we hope we can conduct such study in short term.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors investigated LFA-1 inhibition with BIRT377 on neuronal death after oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in cultured hippocampal slices. The authors found that BIRT377 treatment enhanced neuronal death after OGD, and abolished the neuroprotective effect of transplanted BV2 cells on OGD-preconditioned slices. Below are some comments on the manuscript.

(1) In figure 1C, the authors show expression of ICAM5 but not ICAM1 in neurons. At which experimental conditions (OGD vs. Normal) was this done?

Answer: It was done under normal conditions.

(2) In figure 3, the authors show that BV2 cell transplantation is neuroprotective on OGD-preconditioned slices, which can be partially abolished by LFA-1 inhibition. The expression of LFA-1 in BV2 cells should be experimentally confirmed.

Answer: The expression of LFA-1 has been documented in other publications [4,5]. We conducted CD11a (LFA-1) antisense knockdown in BV-2 microglia, which resulted in impaired microglial migration [1]. This information has been included in the manuscript.

(3) There is a lack of scale bars on the immunofluorescent images in all figures.

Answer: We added the scale bars.

(4) It is difficult to see the morphology of the slices in figure 2C and figure 3C. The authors should either provide bright-light images of the slices together with the fluorescent images or enhance the intensity of the fluorescent images to show the slice morphology.

Answer: We enhanced the quality of images.

(5) The manuscript needs careful proof-reading: in several occasions, the authors start the sentence with “previously”, “previous studies” or “previous data” without providing any literature reference; in line 7 of the abstract: “hippocampal cell culture” should be “hippocampal slice culture”; in line 16 of the introduction, IGF-1 is not a neurotransmitter; in the “Organotypic hippocampal slice cultures” section of the method: repeated texts in lines 5-8; for microglia labelling: it is stated in the main text that rhodamine-IB4 was used; however, in the method section it is indicated that Alexa568-IB4 was used.

Answer: We completed proofreading and made changes according to your addressed points.

References:

1. Neumann J, Gunzer M, Gutzeit HO, Ullrich O, Reymann KG, Dinkel K. Microglia provide neuroprotection after ischemia. FASEB Journal. 2006;20. doi:10.1096/fj.05-4882fje

2. Mitrasinovic OM. Microglia Overexpressing the Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Receptor Are Neuroprotective in a Microglial-Hippocampal Organotypic Coculture System. Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;25: 4442–4451. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0514-05.2005

3. Lalancette-Hebert M, Gowing G, Simard A, Weng YC, Kriz J. Selective Ablation of Proliferating Microglial Cells Exacerbates Ischemic Injury in the Brain. Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27: 2596–2605. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5360-06.2007

4. Paetau S, Rolova T, Ning L, Gahmberg CG. Neuronal ICAM-5 inhibits microglia adhesion and phagocytosis and promotes an anti-inflammatory response in LPS stimulated microglia. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;10. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2017.00431

5. Hailer NP, J T JI, Nitsch R. Resting Microglial Cells In Vitro: Analysis of Morphology and Adhesion Molecule Expression in Organotypic Hippocampal Slice Cultures. Glia. 1996.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_rebuttalletter.docx

pone.0314020.s001.docx (52.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Mária A Deli

5 Nov 2024

LFA-1: A potential key player in microglia-mediated neuroprotection against oxygen-glucose deprivation in vitro

PONE-D-24-13219R2

Dear Dr. Jansen,

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,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.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: Yes

**********

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

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the critical concerns sufficiently in the updated version. I have no further comments.

**********

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

Mária A Deli

30 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-13219R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jansen,

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

Prof. Mária A. Deli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_rebuttalletter.docx

    pone.0314020.s001.docx (52.5KB, 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