Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0315714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315714

Peptidoglycan recognition protein PGRP-5 is involved in immune defence and neuro-behavioral disorders in zebrafish embryos

Xi Li 1,#, Guanghua Xiong 2,#, Manni Luo 2,#, Siwan Mao 2, Ruiying Zhang 2, Ziwei Meng 2, Juan Li 1, Xinjun Liao 1,*
Editor: Jisheng Liu3
PMCID: PMC11785313  PMID: 39888929

Abstract

Peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) are the evolutionarily highly conserved class of pattern recognition receptors, however, their functions on the innate immune system and neuro-inflammatory response in aquatic organism are still poorly understood. In this study, we systematically investigated the molecular functions of PGRPs in zebrafish embryos. Firstly, we identified three PGRPs in zebrafish and phylogenetic analysis suggested that DrPGRP-5 was a novel member of the PGRP superfamily in evolution. Secondly, the endogenous mRNA levels of DrPGRP-5 were highly expressed in brain and muscle while significantly down-regulated in liver and egg at 72 hpf in zebrafish embryos. Thirdly, the mRNA levels of DrPGRP-5 were greatly elevated after 6 h of E. coli infection but reached its highest value at 24 h after M. luteus stimulation. Moreover, knock-down DrPGRP-5 could significantly reduce the pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6, but increased the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokine TGF-β. On the other hand, the locomotor behavior abilities and the antioxidant enzyme activities such as CAT and SOD were obviously decreased under the DrPGRP-5 KD conditions. Finally, incubation of zebrafish embryos with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective agents (10 μM Minocycline) can partially rescue the DrPGRP5-regulated locomotor behavior. Taken together, our data suggested that zebrafish PGRP-5 is involved in the innate immune defenses and regulated the neurobehavior and neuro-inflammation, which may provide new strategies for the treatment of neuro-inflammatory diseases in the aquatic organisms.

1. Introduction

The innate immune system recognizes microorganisms through highly conserved pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) in evolution from insects to mammals [1,2]. These PRRs can identify specific components of external pathogenic microorganisms, namely pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), thereby activating relevant signaling pathways to initiate natural immune responses and effectively eliminate pathogens [3,4]. To date, numerous PRRs have been reported such as peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs), Gram-negative binding proteins (GNBPs), and Toll-like receptors (TLRs) [5,6]. However, the immune and other biological functions of PRRs in aquatic organisms such as zebrafish has not been fully studied yet.

PGRPs are a class of evolutionarily conserved molecules involved in the immune response against pathogens, which can activate the Toll pathway or immune deficiency (IMD) pathway to produce antibacterial or antiviral effects [7,8]. PGRPs can recognize Lys- and DAP-type peptidoglycans in bacterial walls in various species from insects to mammals, which possessed the ability to trigger the prophenoloxidase (PPO) cascade [9,10]. The C-terminal PGRP domain, which is homologous to bacterial type 2 amidases and bacteriophages, is a conserved feature of members of the PGRP family [11,12]. At present, studies on PGRPs have been explored in both invertebrates and vertebrates, and there has been several research on their expression and function in insects, fish and mammals [13,14]. However, PGRPs were not found in lower organisms such as nematodes and plants [15]. The discovery of PGRPs suggests that PGRPs may become a powerful link between invertebrate and vertebrate immunity [16,17]. The unique conserved domain of PGRPs determines its important role in both vertebrates and invertebrates, and the diversity of PGRPs in species and its structure also indicates their multiple functions in innate immunity and other biological regulatory effects.

Nowadays, with the development of fisheries and aquaculture, the fish are facing the survival challenge due to pathogenic microorganisms in the aquatic environment [18]. The abuse of a large number of antibiotics has led to an increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, posing a great threat to the development of fisheries economy and human health [19,20]. Studying PGRPs in fish is crucial as they are the most important PRRs molecules for resisting bacterial and viral infections in aquatic ecosystems [21,22]. Almost all PGRPs contain one or two PGRP conserved domains composed of 165 amino acid residues at the carboxyl or C-terminus, which has a specific binding site for the cell wall acyl peptide fragment of bacterial PGN [23,24]. In teleosts, several PGRPs have been identified in zebrafish and rockfish [25,26]. Zebrafish PGRPs, which mediate numerous intracellular signaling pathways including TLR signaling and cell death, have the amidase activity and broad-spectrum bactericidal activity in contrast to insect and other mammalian homologs [27,28]. However, the spatiotemporal expression patterns of each type of PGRP in zebrafish and its dynamic changes under pathogen stimulation are currently unclear.

Recent studies had found the role of peptidoglycans and their recognition molecules in neural development and behavior in neurons and glial cells [29]. PRRs recognize conserved microbial molecular features such as peptidoglycans on bacterial surfaces and have become potential key regulatory factors for gut microbiota-brain interactions in the placenta and developing brain [30]. Evidence has been found that PGN and its sensing molecules play multiple important roles beyond innate immunity, which extend to neural development and behavior in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [31]. However, little is known about whether PGRP is involved in neuro-inflammation or behavioral abnormalities in zebrafish embryos.

In order to gain insight into the function of zebrafish PGRPs in innate immunity and neural behavior, we firstly identified three zebrafish PGRP genes, including a short PGRP with amidase activity (designated as DrPGRP5) and two long PGRPs (designated as DrPGRP2 and DrPGRP6, respectively) in the present study. Then, we conducted a phylogenetic tree analysis on the zebrafish PGRP genes and homologous genes of other species. Meanwhile, the mRNA expression levels of zebrafish three PGRPs in various tissues and DrPGRP5 in response to Gram-negative and positive bacteria stimulation were also investigated by real-time qRT-PCR experiments. Besides, we also examined the dynamic expression of inflammatory genes at different time points and their expression levels under PGRP5 gene knockdown conditions. Furthermore, we explored the behavioral changes and neuro-related enzyme activities of DrPGRP5 knockdown on zebrafish, and validated the regulation of DrPGRP-5 on neuro-behavior through pharmacological rescue experiments. Altogether, the information will help to elucidate the new biological functions of PGRPs on neuro-inflammatory effects in fish.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Zebrafish maintenance

The wild type AB zebrafish were purchased from China Zebrafish Resource Center (CZRC, http://www.zfish.cn/) to ensure a clear genetic background and no pathogen infection. In our facilities, the adult zebrafish were grown and kept in recirculating water tank at a temperature of 28±1°C with a photoperiod of 14 h of light and 10 h of darkness. Brine shrimp were given twice daily to the zebrafish. Within spawning boxes, male and female adult fish were segregated overnight into different areas (1:1 or 2:1 ratio). Spawning began the following morning after the baffle was taken out. Embryos were then gathered in egg water and prepared for usage. After treatment, all zebrafish were immediately anesthetized by 0.02% MS-222 and sacrificed for various tissues collection. In addition, all experiments were approved by the Ethics committee and carried out according to approved guidelines for animal welfare (IACUC protocol# JGSU-IACC-202203002). We strictly adhere to biosafety rules of Jinggangshan University and all methods are reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.

2.2. Multiple sequences alignment and phylogenetic analysis

The BLAST method was used to examine the potential candidates for the zebrafish PGRP genes against the NR database with a cut-off E-value of 0.01. Pfam (http://pfam.xfam.org/) and SMART (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/) were used to further confirm the deduced amino acid sequences in order to find conserved domains needed for particular functions. Sequences from other representative species, such as Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, and Oryzias latipes, were then matched with those from zebrafish PGRPs. With the use of the BLOSUM series of weight matrices and the ClustalX program, multiple sequence alignments were carried out [32]. The neighbor-joining (NJ) approach was used using MEGA 6 software to create a phylogenetic tree, and 1000 bootstrap repetitions were used to assess the branching’s dependability [33].

2.3. The spatial and temporal expression patterns of zebrafish PGRPs

Total RNAs from various tissues in three-month adult zebrafish were extracted using TRIzol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, CAS no. 15596018, USA). To create the first-strand cDNA, 1 μg of total RNA was used and reverse transcribed with M-MLV reverse transcriptase from Promega (USA). The reverse transcription reaction was heated for 5 minutes at 95°C after being incubated at 42°C for 1 hour. The SYBR Green qPCR Mix (Biosharp, CAS no. BL698A, China) was used for the qRT-PCRs. The PGRP2, PGRP5 and PGRP6 genes from different tissues were examined for the spatial and temporal expression profiles, with the expression of the β-actin gene serving as an internal control.

2.4. Bacterial challenge and embryo exposure experiments

We selected the Gram+ and Gram- strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli ATCC 27325) and Micrococcus luteus (M. luteus ATCC 10240) and perform activation culture on LB medium until the logarithmic growth phase. Adjust the bacterial concentration to the desired level (e.g. 1 x 107 CFU/mL) using spectrophotometry for subsequent experiments. After 6 hours of zebrafish embryo development, the above two bacterial solutions were added into the culture medium and incubated for different time periods. Then, the total RNA of zebrafish embryos at 72 hpf was extracted in advance and the mRNA expression level of PGRP5 gene in various tissues were detected. Simultaneously set up a control group without bacterial inoculation to evaluate the specific impact of bacterial challenge on embryos. Besides, dead embryos and larvae were removed daily, and fresh solution was changed every day. Finally, the survival rate and hatching rate of zebrafish embryos in each group was statistically analyzed.

2.5. Morpholino knockdown and qRT-PCRs

Using morpholinos, we aimed to silence the DrPGRP5 gene in zebrafish embryos. Briefly, GeneTools (OR, USA) created the antisense morpholino oligonucleotide (5’-ATGTTATCTTCTTACTTGTAACCGA-3’) to selectively target the zebrafish PGRP5 mRNA (GenBank No. NM_001044321). As a negative control, the standard vivo-morpholino from Gene Tools (5’-CCTCTTACCTCAGTTACAATTTATA-3’) was employed. For microinjection, morpholinos were diluted to the necessary concentrations in 1 nl of 1% phenol red-containing Danieau’s solution, and then one nanoliter (nl) was injected into the yolk region of the embryo at the one- to two-cell stage.

The ABI StepOne Plus system (Applied Biosystems, USA) was used to measure the relative expression levels of the genes involved in inflammation. The heat cycle was as follows: denaturation for 2 min at 95°C, then 40 cycles each lasting 15 s at 95°C, 15 s at 60°C, and 30 s at 72°C for extension. The examination of the dissociation curve was used to determine the purity of the generated PCR products. The relative expression values of a particular gene were analyzed using the comparative Ct method and normalized to an endogenous control β-actin (triplicates for each treatment). Table 1 contains a list of the primer sequences utilized in this experiment.

Table 1. Sequences of primer pairs used in the real-time quantitative PCR reactions.

Gene name Forward primer Reverse primer Accession No.
PGRP2 ATTGCCCGAGCATCATTCCT GCTACACCATACCCCACGTT NM_001045166
PGRP5 CGCTGATATGGACGGACACA AGCACAAAATTGGGTCGCAC NM_001044321
PGRP6 GTCTTCGTAAAGCCTCCGGT GATGGTCAGACGAGGCCATT NM_001045222
IL-1β CGTGAAGTGAACGTGGTGGA GTACGAGATGTGGAGACGTGG AY340959
IL6 CCTCAAACCTTCAGACCGCT GAACAGGATCGAGTGGACCG NM_001261449
TNF-α CAATCCGCTCAATCTGCACG TACAGATGTGTTGGCGGCAC NM_212859
TGF-β GTCCGAGATGAAGCGCAGTA TCAAATGAGAGCCAGCGGTT NM_001044759
β-actin CGAGCAGGAGATGGGAACC CAACGGAAACGCTCATTGC AF057040.1

2.6. Behavioral analysis in zebrafish embryos under PGRP5 knock-down conditions

After 72 hpf of medication treatment, a zebrafish behavioral experiment was conducted. In a nutshell, 12 zebrafish larvae from each AlCl3 or CYP-treated group were put into a 24-well plate, one larva per well, with 500 μL of embryo media, and kept inside the dark box of the zebrafish behavioral instrument for around 15 min to adjust before engaging in behavioral tracking. Using the DanioVision Observation Chamber System (Noldus IT, Netherlands), the free-swimming activities of zebrafish were captured in response to a 20-min light-to-dark photoperiod stimulation. Using the EthoVision XT software, the movies were evaluated for behavioral changes in the behavioral metrics taken from behavioral trajectory records, such as the overall distance and average speed in each concentration group. Minocycline hydrochloride (CAS: HY-17412A) was purchased from MedChemExpress (MCE) Co., Ltd (New Jersey, USA) and used for pharmacological experiments.

2.7. Detection of neural and antioxidant enzyme activities in zebrafish

With a few modest adjustments to the manufacturer’s instructions, the levels of acetylcholinesterase (AchE), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and reactive oxygen species (ROS) concentrations were tested using emzyme activity kits. In a nutshell, 40 zebrafish larvae from each group were collected and homogenized in 500 μL of ice-cold PBS on ice. To obtain the supernatant, the homogenate was centrifuged at 2500 x g for 10 min at 4°C. The BCA protein assay kit (Cat No. P0010, Beyotime Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China) was used to measure the protein concentration. Following that, the microplate reader (SpectraMax iD3, MD, USA) is used to measure the absorbance, and the associated enzyme activities were calculated using the provided formula.

2.8. Statistical analysis

SPSS 19.0 was used to analyze all of the experiment outcomes in the current study. The mean ± SEM (Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates) were calculated and used to depict the statistics. The unpaired student t-test or one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey multiple comparison test were used to establish the statistical significance. p < 0.05 was seen as significant for all tests and denoted with the *, whereas p< 0.01 was regarded as extremely significant and denoted with the **.

3. Results

3.1. Sequence analysis of zebrafish PGRPs

In order to identify PGRP genes in the zebrafish genome, we searched the NCBI GenBank database for genes homologous to human PGRPs. As a result, we totally identified three PGRP genes (namely PGRP2, PGRP5 and PGRP6) in the zebrafish GRCz11 genome by using BLAST comparsion. It is worth mentioning that zebrafish PGRP5 had the highest homology to mammalian PGRP-1 when compared to other zebrafish PGRPs. Meanwhile, multiple sequence alignments indicated that zebrafish PGRPs were highly homologous to other PGRPs from various species such as ricefish (Oryzias latipes), human (Homo sapiens) and mouse (Mus musculus) (Fig 1A and S1 File). All zebrafish PGRPs share one N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase domain at their C-terminus with the majority of vertebrate and invertebrate PGRPs, which have 61% (DrPGRP2), 52% (DrPGRP5) and 70% (DrPGRP6) conserved identities when compared with ricefish, human and mouse, respectively (Fig 1B). Furthermore, all zebrafish PGRPs are predicted to have amidase activity because they have well conserved amidase catalytic sites (His 316, Tyr352, His427 and Cys436 of PGRP2; His 98, Tyr132, His206 and Cys214 of PGRP5; His 359, Tyr395, His470 and Cys478 of PGRP6), which is known to be critical for Zn2+ and amidase activity in zebrafish.

Fig 1. Multiple alignments of C-terminal amino acid sequences contained conserved amidase domains in zebrafish (Danio rerio, Dr), ricefish (Oryzias latipes, Ol), human (Homo sapiens, Hs) and mouse (Mus musculus, Ms) PGRPs.

Fig 1

(A) The multiple sequence alignment of PGRPs was presented. The conserved amino acid residues were shaded in red, and similar amino acids were marked with red characters. (B) The homology percentage of PGRPs gene sequences was presented. The protein sequences were listed as followed: Zebrafish (PGRP2: NP_001038631; PGRP5: NP_001037786; PGRP6:NP_001038687), ricefish (PGRP2: NP_004065551; PGRP5: NP_004075905; PGRP6:NP_004071889), human (PGRP1: NP_005082; PGRP2: NP_443122; PGRP3: NP_443123; PGRP4: NP_065126) and mouse (PGRP1: NP_033428; PGRP2: NP_067294; PGRP3: NP_997130; PGRP4: NP_997146).

A phylogenetic tree was created based on the entire lengths of the PGRPs in zebrafish using the neighbor-joining method and 1000 bootstrap tests. Our results showed that zebrafish DrPGRP2 and DrPGRP6 are most similar to ricefish OlPGRP2 and OlPGRP6, which suggested that the two species have the highest homology in evolution (Fig 2). Interestingly, DrPGRP5 and OlPGRP5 was separately clustered together with human and mouse PGRPs, which demonstrated that zebrafish PGRP5 displayed an unique evolutionary characteristics.

Fig 2. Phylogenetic tree analysis of DrPGRPs with other known PGRPs form various species.

Fig 2

Phylogenetic tree was obtained from a CLUSTALW alignment and MEGA6 Neighbor-joining of 14 sequences. The number at each node indicates the bootstrap analysis from 1000 replicates.

3.2. Tissue differential expression patterns of DrPGRPs

In order to further explore the structural characteristics of PGRPs in zebrafish, we identified the putative domains in each PGRP. The results revealed that each PGRP contains a conserved N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase (ami_2) domain in the C-terminal of full-length sequences (Fig 3A). Structural analysis suggested the ami_2 domain is conserved through evolution, and these proteins are predicted to be amidases potentially serving as peptidoglycan receptors triggering immune signaling pathways.

Fig 3. Structural characteristics and expression patterns of zebrafish PGRPs genes.

Fig 3

(A) Schematic representations of the zebrafish PGRP structures. Characteristic domains and lengths of the amino acid sequences are indicated. The green boxes represent the low complexity region, and pink boxes stand for PGRP domains that contained a conserved N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase (ami_2) region. (B) The mRNA expression levels of zebrafish PGRPs in different tissues. The relative transcript levels of DrPGRP2, 5, 6 in brain, eye, muscle, egg, liver and intestine were presented. The values in each group were presented as means ± SEM (Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates). For all experiments, *p < 0.05; **p <0 .01.

To investigate the tissue-dependent expression patterns, we performed real time-quantitative PCRs using gene-specific primers for DrPGRP2, DrPGRP5 and DrPGRP6 (Fig 3B). DrPGRP5 had the high expression in the brain, eye and muscle but a low expression in the egg and liver. On the other hand, DrPGRP2 and DrPGRP2 were significantly high expressed in the intestine tissues. These results indicated that the expression profiles of the three DrPGRPs in zebrafish are differentially regulated despite the high conservation of these proteins.

3.3. Bactericidal activity of zebrafish PGRP-5 gene

Since some PGRPs from other vertebrates have been shown the potential antibacterial activity, we wondered whether zebrafish PGRPs have bactericidal activity. Our results suggested that the expression of PGRP-5 showed different expression characteristics against Gram-negative bacteria (E. coli) and Gram-positive bacteria (M. luteus). Firstly, the survival rate significantly decreased over time under two different bacterial stimuli, especially at 72 h, with E. coli showing a more severe decline than M. luteus (Fig 4A). In addition, the hatching rate at 24 hpf has also decreased under the stimulation of two kinds of bacteria, but M. luteus has decreased more than E. coli (Fig 4B).

Fig 4. Zebrafish PGRP5 exhibits differential expression characteristics under different bacterial stimuli.

Fig 4

(A) The survival rate of zebrafish embryos at 72 hpf after Gram-negative E.coli (A) and Gram-positive M. luteus (B) challenge. (B) The hatching rate of zebrafish embryos at 24 hpf after E.coli and M. luteus challenge. (C) The temporal mRNA expression profiles of zebrafish PGRP5 in zebrafish larvae after E. coli challenge. (D) The temporal mRNA expression profiles of zebrafish PGRP5 in zebrafish larvae after M. luteus challenge. We detected the expression of PGRP5 gene under different stimuli at time points 6, 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively. The values in each group were presented as means ± SEM (Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates). For all experiments, *p < 0.05; **p <0.01.

On the other hand, the mRNA expression levels of DrPGRP-5 were significantly increased at 6 hours after infection of E. coli, and then returned to normal level at 24 hours. After that, the expression level decreased with the infection time (Fig 4C). On the contrary, the expression of DrPGRP-5 was up-regulated after infection of M. luteus, which reached the peak at 24 hours post infection (Fig 4D). From above results, it is demonstrated that zebrafish PGRP-5 plays different functions in against Gram-positive and negative bacteria.

3.4. The inflammatory cytokines were differentially regulated upon PGRP-5 KD conditions

As an important pattern recognition receptor, PGRP can regulate the expressions of many downstream effector genes. Therefore, we wonder to explore whether the classic inflammatory cytokines were regulated by PGRP-5. Firstly, we blocked the zebrafish PGRP-5 gene by vivo-morpholinos. Based on the pre-experimental results, the transcriptomic expression of PGRP-5 could be reduced by approximately 80% using morpholinos by quantitative real-time PCR analysis (S1 Fig). Our results suggested that majority of the inflammatory genes were significantly decreased after PGRP-5 KD conditions. For instance, IL-1β is a component of systemic inflammation, and its expression was dose-dependently reduced from 6 to 72 hours, but there was no discernible change when PGRP5-KD was present (Fig 5A). On the other hand, IL-6, a leukocytic endogenous mediator, has a much lower expression level after infection. However, under PGRP5-KD circumstances, IL-6 mRNA clearly dropped almost at the time of each infection (Fig 5B). TNF-a was a soluble cytokine that is released by a number of immune cells when they are stimulated. In the PGRP5-KD circumstances, the expression level of TNF-α gene was markedly reduced (Fig 5C). TGF-β, on the other hand, is an anti-inflammatory cytokine that controls a number of biological processes, including inflammation, cell differentiation, and embryonic development. In the PGRP5-KD circumstances, the levels of these genes significantly increased (Fig 5D). These findings collectively showed that the inflammatory genes were differently regulated in zebrafish embryos under PGRP5-KD circumstances.

Fig 5. The pro-inflammatory cytokines were mainly inhibited but anti-inflammatory genes were significantly activated in zebrafish embryos under PGRP5-KD conditions.

Fig 5

(A) The relative mRNA levels of IL-1β at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hpf both in the mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. (B) The relative mRNA levels of IL-6 at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hpf both in the mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. (C) The relative mRNA levels of TNF-α at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hpf both in the mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. (D) The relative mRNA levels of TGF-β at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hpf both in the mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. The values in each group were presented as means ± SEM (Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates). For all experiments, *p < 0.05 and **p <0 .01 for intra-group comparison; #p < 0.05 and ##p <0 .01 for inter-group comparison.

3.5. The neurobehavioral dysfunction after PGRP5-KD in zebrafish embryos

In addition, we have further investigated the neurotoxic effects of PGRP-5 in zebrafish embryos. We used the DanioVision Observation Chamber System to evaluate the locomotor behavior of zebrafish larvae after PGRP5-KD conditions. Our results suggested that PGRP5-KD can significantly decrease the locomotion behavior of zebrafish larvae at 5 dpf, which were observed from both the locomotion traces and the behavioral heatmaps (Fig 6A). Besides, both the total distances moved and the mean velocity was significantly down-regulated in PGRP5-KD groups compared with the control group (Fig 6B and 6C).

Fig 6. PGRP5 plays an important role in neurobehavioral alteration and oxidative stress in zebrafish embryos.

Fig 6

(A) The movement tracks of zebrafish at 5 dpf larvae that exposed to mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. Three representative photographs are shown in each group. (B) The total distance moved of zebrafish larvae that both in control and PGRP5-KD conditions. (C) The average velocity of zebrafish larvae that both in mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. (D) Detection the contents of ROS, along with enzymatic activities of CAT, SOD and AChE in larval zebrafish that both in mock and PGRP5-KD conditions. The values are presented as means ± SEM (Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates). *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01. (E) The behavioral trajectory characteristics of zebrafish under 10 μM minocycline drug exposure. (F-G) The total distance and mean velocity of zebrafish larvae that exposed to mock and 10 μM minocycline.

To test whether the oxidative stress was regulated in zebrafish embryos after PGRP5-KD conditions, the corresponding antioxidant enzyme activities were detected in zebrafish embryos at 72 hpf. Our results suggested that the enzyme activity of CAT, SOD, and ROS was significantly decreased under PGRP5-KD group (Fig 6D). On the other hand, AcHE is a key enzyme in biological nerve conduction and plays an important role in the excitatory effect of neurotransmitters on postsynaptic membrane. Our results have shown that the enzyme activities of AcHE were obviously up-regulated after PGRP5-KD conditions. These results demonstrated that the neurobehavioral effects and oxidative stress were regulated by PGRP5 in zebrafish embryos.

Furthermore, we employed the tetracycline antibiotic minocycline to treat the PGRP5-KD zebrafish and studied the characteristics of locomotor behavior in order to further assess if changes in oxidative stress will alter the neurobehavior in zebrafish. According to the findings, incubating 10 μM minocycline, which has anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties, can partially treat neurobehavioral disorders that display a marked improvement in locomotor behavior (Fig 6E). In addition, the minocycline-treated group’s mean velocity and total moving distance of zebrafish larvae were considerably increased when compared to the control group, respectively (Fig 6F and 6G). Overall, these findings showed that by controlling neuro-inflammation in zebrafish embryos, minocycline might partially reverse the PGRP5-regulated neurobehavioral impairment.

4.Discussion

Like other vertebrates, zebrafish have both an innate and an adaptive immune system, but aquatic species rely more heavily on innate immunity than mammals do to protect themselves from bacterial infection [34,35]. Pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) and their signaling pathways have essential roles in recognizing various components of pathogens and triggering inflammatory responses that eliminate invading microorganisms and damaged cells [36]. Peptidoglycan Recognition Protein (PGRP) is one of the pattern recognition proteins that plays a significant role in the innate immunological responses of insects and humans [37]. In the present study, we identified three PGRP homologues in the zebrafish, analyzed their expression patterns and characterized their functions in immune responses.

Phylogenetic analysis suggested that zebrafish PGRP2, PGRP5 and PGRP6 proteins are highly conserved and have one PGRP domain on the C-terminus, which is homologous to the PGRP domains of other vertebrate PGRPs including human and mouse. Furthermore, the amino acids of His98, Tyr132, His206 and Cys214 in zebrafish PGRP5, which are required for Zn2+ binding and amidase activity. In particular, the cysteine residue of this site is indispensable for amidase activity, but is not present in human and mouse HsPGRP1, 3 and 4. On the other hand, zebrafish PGRPs are selectively expressed in a wide range of tissues including the liver, intestine, maturing oocytes and skin. Both PGRP-2 and PGRP-5 are expressed in growing embryos, and PGRP-2 is also highly expressed in the eggs. The fact that PGRPs are expressed in a variety of organs indicates that this family of proteins plays a significant role in adult zebrafish defense against bacterial infections.

It is known that amidase or bactericidal activity can be found in mammalian PGRPs [38]. It’s possible that humans and zebrafish PGRPs share a similar mechanism for eliminating microorganisms. According to our findings, the brain, eye, and spleen of zebrafish exhibit high levels of PGRP-5 expression, while each kind of PGRP displayed a distinct tissue expression profile. Broad-spectrum antibacterial action of zebrafish PGRPs is demonstrated against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Comparable to zebrafish PGRPs, recombinant Sebastes schlegeli PGRPs have broad-spectrum antibacterial action according to previous studies [39]. As a matter of fact, it has been proposed that zebrafish PGRP-5 plays a role in a variety of signals transduction pathways that support immune responses as well as other biological processes like development and apoptosis [40]. Thus, it would be important to look into the precise role that zebrafish PGRP plays in innate immunity. It has been demonstrated that PRRs in vertebrates, such as TLRs and NODs, are involved in the signaling cascade that triggers the release of inflammatory cytokines [40]. According to our research, zebrafish PGRPs may mediate the innate immune defense by removing pathogenic microorganisms and lowering pro-inflammatory cytokines.

In addition, IAB and probiotic treatments promote neuronal health and influence inflammatory pathways through PGRPs-mediated neural and immune signaling in drosophila model [41]. Our results strongly suggested that zebrafish PGRP-5 had the potential to induce neurotoxicity and locomotor impairments in zebrafish larvae. The moved distance and swimming velocity of zebrafish larvae exposed to PGRP-5 knock-down conditions at 72 hpf were severely decreased when compared with those in the control group. Meanwhile, enzyme activities of antioxidant proteins including CAT, SOD, and ROS were significantly down-regulated under PGRP5-KD condtions. Besides, the up-regulation of AChE in PGRP5-KD could potentially be attributed to several factors. One possibility is that the knockdown of PGRP5 might disrupt normal cellular signaling pathways that regulate the expression of AChE and its knockdown could lead to compensatory mechanisms or imbalances in downstream signaling resulting in the increased expression of AChE. Another consideration is that PGRP5 might directly or indirectly interact with transcription factors and the absence or reduced function of PGRP5 could remove an inhibitory effect or trigger a feedback loop that promotes AChE up-regulation. In conclusion, we have identified the new role of zebrafish PGRP-5, which are highly conserved with PGRP homologues from other vertebrates. Zebrafish PGRP-5 has both amidase and bactericidal activities, and they widely regulated the neurobehavioral dysfunction and oxidative stress in zebrafish embryos. Taken together, further research is needed to understand the molecular mechanisms of zebrafish PGRP5 in other aquatic organisms.

5.Conclusion

In summary, our findings indicated that zebrafish PGRP5 plays an important role in immune defense and neurobehavioral disorder in zebrafish embryos. PGRP-5 is evolutionarily specific, and it is also present unique characteristics in response to bacterial infections. In addition, PGRP-5 can inhibit the locomotor behavior and modulate the neuro-inflammatory genes and oxidative stress. Taken together, our studies provided a global view of functional role of PGRP-5 in zebrafish embryos. The information will be helpful to understand the possible molecular mechanisms of PRRs in aquatic organisms.

Supporting information

S1 File. The full-length amino acid sequences of PGRP proteins from four homologous species.

(DOCX)

pone.0315714.s001.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Detection of knockdown efficiency of zebrafish PGRP5 gene by real-time quantitative PCR.

(TIF)

pone.0315714.s002.tif (45.8KB, tif)

Acknowledgments

We would like to give special thanks to the colleagues from the Department of Stomatology and its Nursing Department at Affiliated Hospital of Jinggangshan University provided technical guidance and data analysis services.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (82160048, 82460319), Anhui Natural Science Foundation Project (2308085MH265), Anhui Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department (2024AH040205), Anhui Excellent Talents Support Program for Universities (YQYB20230170), Jiangxi Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department (GJJ2201611), PhD Initiation Project of Fuyang Normal University (KYQD20230004) and PhD Initiation Project of Jinggangshan University (JZB2016).

References

  • 1.Lanz-Mendoza H, Contreras-Garduño JJD, Immunology C. Innate immune memory in invertebrates: Concept and potential mechanisms. 2022;127:104285. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2021.104285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Domínguez-Andrés J, Dos Santos JC, Bekkering S, Mulder WJ, van der Meer JW, Riksen NP, et al. Trained immunity: adaptation within innate immune mechanisms. 2023;103(1):313–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ishikawa G, Liu A, Herzog ELJFimb. Evolving perspectives on innate immune mechanisms of IPF. 2021;8:676569. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.676569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Moriyama K, Nishida OJIjoms. Targeting cytokines, pathogen-associated molecular patterns, and damage-associated molecular patterns in sepsis via blood purification. 2021;22(16):8882. doi: 10.3390/ijms22168882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Namwong P, Wang S, Kong Q, Mou H, Ma L, Srisapoome PJA. Transcriptome analysis and pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) identification in different tissues of adult Pacific oysters infected with Vibrio parahaemolyticus. 2023;562:738824. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Royet J, Dziarski RJNRM. Peptidoglycan recognition proteins: pleiotropic sensors and effectors of antimicrobial defences. 2007;5(4):264–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tanji T, Hu X, Weber AN, Ip YTJM, biology c. Toll and IMD pathways synergistically activate an innate immune response in Drosophila melanogaster. 2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hou J, Gan Z, Chen SN, Nie PJD, Immunology C. Molecular and functional characterization of a short-type peptidoglycan recognition protein, PGRP-S in the amphibian Xenopus laevis. 2019;98:13–9. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2019.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhao S, Wang X, Cai S, Zhang S, Luo H, Wu C, et al. A novel peptidoglycan recognition protein involved in the prophenoloxidase activation system and antimicrobial peptide production in Antheraea pernyi. 2018;86:78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2018.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Montaño AM, Tsujino F, Takahata N, Satta YJBeb. Evolutionary origin of peptidoglycan recognition proteins in vertebrate innate immune system. 2011;11:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-79 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li X, Wang S, Qi J, Echtenkamp SF, Chatterjee R, Wang M, et al. Zebrafish peptidoglycan recognition proteins are bactericidal amidases essential for defense against bacterial infections. 2007;27(3):518–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gorbushin AMJF, Immunology S. Identification of peptidoglycan recognition proteins in hemocytes and kidney of common periwinkle Littorina littorea. 2022;120:11–4. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2021.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chang M, Nie P, Wei LJMi. Short and long peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) in zebrafish, with findings of multiple PGRP homologs in teleost fish. 2007;44(11):3005–23. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2006.12.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hou J, Hao W, Li MC, Gan Z, Chen SN, Lu YS, et al. Identification and characterization of two long-type peptidoglycan recognition proteins, PGRP-L1 and PGRP-L2, in the orange-spotted grouper, epinephelus coioides. 2023;134:108580. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li E, Qin J, Feng H, Li J, Li X, Nyamwasa I, et al. Immune-related genes of the larval Holotrichia parallela in response to entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis beicherriana LF. 2021;22:1–19. doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-07506-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhao L, Niu J, Feng D, Wang X, Zhang RJFiI. Immune functions of pattern recognition receptors in Lepidoptera. 2023;14:1203061. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1203061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cerenius L, Söderhäll KJD, Immunology C. Immune properties of invertebrate phenoloxidases. 2021;122:104098. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2021.104098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sheng L, Wang L. The microbial safety of fish and fish products: Recent advances in understanding its significance, contamination sources, and control strategies. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2021;20(1):738–86. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Limbu SM, Chen LQ, Zhang ML, Du ZY. A global analysis on the systemic effects of antibiotics in cultured fish and their potential human health risk: a review. Rev Aquacult. 2021;13(2):1015–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cherian T, Ragavendran C, Vijayan S, Kurien S, Peijnenburg WJ. A review on the fate, human health and environmental impacts, as well as regulation of antibiotics used in aquaculture. Environmental Advances. 2023:100411. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jang JH, Kim H, Cho JH. Rainbow trout peptidoglycan recognition protein has an anti-inflammatory function in liver cells. Fish Shellfish Immun. 2013;35(6):1838–47. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2013.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sellaththurai S, Ganeshalingam S, Jung S, Choi JY, Kim D-J, Lee J. Insight into the molecular structure and function of peptidoglycan recognition protein SC2 (PGRP-SC2) from Amphiprion clarkii: Investigating the role in innate immunity. Fish Shellfish Immun. 2022;131:559–69. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2022.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shen D, Mei X, Guo J, Tong M, Xia D, Qiu Z, et al. Peptidoglycan recognition protein-S1 (PGRP-S1) from Diaphania pyloalis (Walker) is involved in the agglutination and prophenoloxidase activation pathway. 2022;809:146004. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2021.146004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu H, Zha S, Zhang W, Yuan W, Lin Z, Bao YJF, et al. Genome-wide identification and characteristic analysis of PGRP gene family in Tegillarca granosa reveals distinct immune response of the invasive pathogen. 2022;121:232–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kim MY, Jang JH, Lee J-W, Cho JHJF, Immunology S. Molecular cloning and characterization of peptidoglycan recognition proteins from the rockfish, Sebastes schlegeli. 2010;28(4):632–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2009.12.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chang M, Nie PJVi, immunopathology. RNAi suppression of zebrafish peptidoglycan recognition protein 6 (zfPGRP6) mediated differentially expressed genes involved in Toll-like receptor signaling pathway and caused increased susceptibility to Flavobacterium columnare. 2008;124(3–4):295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2008.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bai L, Zhou Y, Sheng C, Yin Y, Chen Y, Ding X, et al. Common carp Peptidoglycan Recognition Protein 2 (CcPGRP2) plays a role in innate immunity for defense against bacterial infections. 2023;133:108564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sundaramoorthy NS, Raman T, Nagarajan S. Zebrafish as an Indispensable Tool for Infectious Diseases and Immune Modulatory Studies. Zebrafish Model for Biomedical Research: Springer; 2022. p. 181–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tosoni G, Conti M, Heijtz RD. Bacterial peptidoglycans as novel signaling molecules from microbiota to brain. Current opinion in pharmacology. 2019;48:107–13. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2019.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gonzalez-Santana A, Heijtz RDJTimm. Bacterial peptidoglycans from microbiota in neurodevelopment and behavior. 2020;26(8):729–43. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Arentsen T, Qian Y, Gkotzis S, Femenia T, Wang T, Udekwu K, et al. The bacterial peptidoglycan-sensing molecule Pglyrp2 modulates brain development and behavior. 2017;22(2):257–66. doi: 10.1038/mp.2016.182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG. The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(24):4876–82. Epub 1998/02/28. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.24.4876 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC147148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9. Epub 2013/10/18. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3840312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Novoa B, Figueras A. Zebrafish: model for the study of inflammation and the innate immune response to infectious diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;946:253–75. Epub 2011/09/29. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0106-3_15 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wang MX, Shandilya UK, Wu X, Huyben D, Karrow NAJT. Assessing Larval Zebrafish Survival and Gene Expression Following Sodium Butyrate Exposure and Subsequent Lethal Bacterial Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) Endotoxin Challenge. 2023;15(10):588. doi: 10.3390/toxins15100588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Keogh CE, Rude KM, Gareau MG. Role of pattern recognition receptors and the microbiota in neurological disorders. J Physiol. 2021;599(5):1379–89. Epub 2021/01/07. doi: 10.1113/JP279771 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8221416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xiong GH, Xing LS, Lin Z, Saha TT, Wang CS, Jiang HB, et al. High throughput profiling of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera immunotranscriptome during the fungal and bacterial infections. Bmc Genomics. 2015;16. ARTN 321 doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1509-1 WOS:000367568300001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Montiel-Castro AJ, Gonzalez-Cervantes RM, Bravo-Ruiseco G, Pacheco-Lopez G. The microbiota-gut-brain axis: neurobehavioral correlates, health and sociality. Front Integr Neurosci. 2013;7:70. Epub 2013/10/11. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2013.00070 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3791857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huang M, Dong T, Lou X, Zhang Y, Tao T, Zhou P, et al. Peptidoglycan recognition protein MsPGRP in largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) mediates immune functions with broad nonself recognition ability. 2023;134:108614. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mushtaq Z, Kurcheti PP, Jeena K, Gireesh-Babu PJD, Immunology C. Short peptidoglycan recognition protein 5 modulates immune response to bacteria in Indian major carp, Cirrhinus mrigala. 2024;152:105104. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2023.105104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Molina B, Mastroianni J, Suarez E, Soni B, Forsberg E, Finley KJC. Treatment with bacterial biologics promotes healthy aging and traumatic brain injury responses in adult drosophila, modeling the gut–brain axis and inflammation responses. 2021;10(4):900. doi: 10.3390/cells10040900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

17 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-37049Peptidoglycan recognition protein PGRP-5 is involved in immune defense and neuro-behavioral disorders in zebrafish embryosPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liao,

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 Aug 01 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,

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

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

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

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was financially supported by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (82160048), Anhui Natural Science Foundation Project (2308085MH265), Jiangxi Natural Science Foundation Project (20202ACBL215009) and Jiangxi Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department (GJJ2201611).

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

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

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

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

6. 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.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

The article is recommended for major revision

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: Xiong et al present an interesting finding that the Peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP) PGRP-5 is involved with zebrafish inflammatory response and locomotion. In particular the authors build a case for PGRP-5 through the use of sequence analysis, tissue expression levels with additional characterization of function with bacterial challenge (Gram + & -) and embryo tracking. However, the manuscript as presented needs several additional points of clarification in order to evaluate the findings thoroughly, as this reviewer’s background is pathogenesis in mammalian systems.

Major:

1) In line 90 the authors mentioned DrPGRP5 was cloned in the present study, but information on cloning is lacking in the methods. Moreover, in Fig4 the authors are measuring the mRNA level of DrPGRP5 – is this the endogenous PGRP5 or the short fragment that was cloned in response to bacterial challenge?

2) The authors should include methods for bacterial challenge and cultivation, as only the 107 CFU/mL is not enough. As it reads, it seems bacteria were added to embryos and over a 3-day period only embryos were checked for expression. Moreover, the authors mention dead embryos and larvae were removed daily – how many embryos died? How many embryos to larva events occur? This survival data may support the author's claims.

3) The authors use PGRP5-KD in fig5 to determine mRNA levels of inflammatory genes, but there is no mention of the stimulus, or if this is baseline. In the same context, what is fig6 (in the KD fish) measuring? Did the authors test these levels during bacterial challenge for both experimental setups? In line 248, please provide the data showing knockdown and define “pre-experimental” results.

4) Several points the authors go between embryo and larvae for experiments. Clarity is needed here – particularly for the 2.4 methods, fig3 and fig6.

5) Lines 327-329 needs context – exposed to what? PRRs recognize components of microbes.

Minor:

Several sections of the manuscript need revision for the reader’s clarity such as in lines 17-19, or 69-71.

Statistics across methods and the figure legends needs to be clarified as the methods mention n=4 and SEM were used, but in in several figures it is stated biological replicates and SD. Authors should check that the correct statistical test has been employed for the data (ie: are they parametric? )

Fig1 and results: Additional information pertaining to the % homology of the PGRPs is needed. Figure legend should include information about the full protein perhaps, as only the C-terminal amidase is shown.

Fig6: has n=4 from three biological replicates stated. Does this mean 4 samples per biological for a total n=12? Please show the individual data points and clarify this figure legend.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-37049

Full Title: Peptidoglycan recognition protein PGRP-5 is involved in immune defense and neurobehavioral disorders in zebrafish embryos

Reviewer’s comments

A. Title (Line 1-2)

1. Appropriately written. Replace s with c in defence

B. Abstract –

1. Concise and reflect the content of the works done.

2. Line (27-28) – Cytokines are italicised here. It should be followed in the entire manuscript.

C. Keywords

1. Selection of keywords reflect the content completely.

D. Introduction

1. Line 50-51- Write immune response against instead of of .

2. Line 51 – Write full form of IMD

3. Line 63 - and structure also indicates. Add its before structure

4. Line 66 - challenge of pathogenic. Write due to instead of of. Add further before The

5. Line-75 - I should be small in intracellular

6. Line-81 – development and behaviour, of whom?

7. Line-83 – microbiota-brain interactions, of whom?

8. Line-85 – development and behaviour, of whom?

9. Line-85-87 – In…sentence is not complete.

10. Line 93- remove further after we

11. Line-96- replace aquatic ecosystem with fish

E. Materials and Methods

1. Line-142 – Write complete name of E. coli and M. lutues and italicize it.

2. Line-143 - 1 x 107 CFU/mL. it should be superscripted.

3. Line-162 - -actin…??

4. Line-168&181 – 500 L…??

F. Results

1. Line – 233 – write potential instead of potentially

2. Line-241- write Gram - before positive

3. Line-257 – TNF- α

4. Line-281- locomotor not loco-motor

G. Discussions

1. Written well.

H. Conclusion

1. Written well

**********

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comment_PONE-D-23-37049_31 May 24 for Author.docx

pone.0315714.s003.docx (16.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0315714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315714.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Sep 2024

Journal Requirements:

1.When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Answer: We have made modifications to the manuscript format according to the requirements of PLOS ONE, including citation of references and file naming.

2.Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage ? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience.

Answer: Thank you for your reminder. This manuscript does not have any original data that needs to be stored in a public database. We have included the original amino acid sequence for constructing the phylogenetic tree in the supplementary document.

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

Answer: Thank you for your reminder. We have revised the Funding Information section in the manuscript.

4.We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "National Natural Science Foundation of China". Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. We have deleted the funding information in the manuscript. Our amended funding statements as follows: “This research was funded by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (82160048), Anhui Natural Science Foundation Project (2308085MH265), Anhui Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department (2024AH040205), Anhui Excellent Talents Support Program for Universities (YQYB20230170), Jiangxi Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department (GJJ2201611) and PhD Initiation Project of Fuyang Normal University (KYQD20230004).” Please change the online submission form on my behalf.

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Answer: Thank you for your reminding. In our revised version, the results and supplementary documents did not contain any blot or gel images.

6.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.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted the phrase “data not shown” in our revised manuscript. Meanwhile, we have added a supplementary document in the corresponding area to support our conclusion.

7.Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the captions for my Supporting Information files at the end of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Xiong et al present an interesting finding that the Peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP) PGRP-5 is involved with zebrafish inflammatory response and locomotion. In particular the authors build a case for PGRP-5 through the use of sequence analysis, tissue expression levels with additional characterization of function with bacterial challenge (Gram + & -) and embryo tracking. However, the manuscript as presented needs several additional points of clarification in order to evaluate the findings thoroughly, as this reviewer’s background is pathogenesis in mammalian systems.

Answer: Thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript. In order to improve the whole quality of the manuscript, we have modified and polished many sections of the full text, and we have also supplemented several experiment data and corrected some mistakes in grammar on our previous draft.

Major:

1)In line 90 the authors mentioned DrPGRP5 was cloned in the present study, but information on cloning is lacking in the methods. Moreover, in Fig4 the authors are measuring the mRNA level of DrPGRP5 – is this the endogenous PGRP5 or the short fragment that was cloned in response to bacterial challenge?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions, it was indeed our mistake and lack of clarity in expression. We did not clone the DrPGRP5 gene in vitro cells, but only using specific DrPGRP5 gene primers to detect partial fragments of this gene by conducting quantitative PCR experiments. We have made modifications and improvements to this section of the manuscript. Moreover, in Fig4, the control group was the dynamic expression level of endogenous DrPGRP5 gene in zebrafish embryos at four key time points, while the treatment group was the mRNA expression level of DrPGRP5 gene in zebrafish embryos stimulated by E. coli and M. luteus bacteria, respectively. This experiment was also conducted through real-time quantitative PCR detection using specific DrPGRP5 gene primers.

2)The authors should include methods for bacterial challenge and cultivation, as only the 107 CFU/mL is not enough. As it reads, it seems bacteria were added to embryos and over a 3-day period only embryos were checked for expression. Moreover, the authors mention dead embryos and larvae were removed daily – how many embryos died? How many embryos to larva events occur? This survival data may support the author's claims.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added detailed methods for bacterial culture and zebrafish embryo stimulation in the methods section, and we have also included survival rate and hatching rate data in Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B.

3)The authors use PGRP5-KD in fig5 to determine mRNA levels of inflammatory genes, but there is no mention of the stimulus, or if this is baseline. In the same context, what is fig6 (in the KD fish) measuring? Did the authors test these levels during bacterial challenge for both experimental setups? In line 248, please provide the data showing knockdown and define “pre-experimental” results.

Answer: Thank you for your attention. Based on previous research data, we have found that the DrPGRP5 gene exhibits unique characteristics in terms of evolution and tissue differential expression. Therefore, we want to explore how the expression of relevant inflammatory cytokines changes under the condition of DrPGRP5 gene knock-down. So we did not detect the expression changes of these inflammatory genes under two bacterial stimulation conditions in Fig. 5. Similarly, in Fig. 6, we only examined the behavior and enzyme activity changes compared to normal control zebrafish embryos under DrPGRP5 gene knock-down conditions. In addition, we provided the knockdown efficiency of the PGRP5 gene in the supplementary files.

4)Several points the authors go between embryo and larvae for experiments. Clarity is needed here – particularly for the 2.4 methods, fig3 and fig6.

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We have clarified the detection time (zebrafish embryos at 72 hpf) in the 2.4 methods, fig3 and fig6, respectively.

5)Lines 327-329 needs context – exposed to what? PRRs recognize components of microbes.

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. IAB and probiotic treatments promote neuronal health and influence inflammatory pathways through PGRPs-mediated neural and immune signaling in drosophila model. We revised this information in the discussion section.

Minor:

Several sections of the manuscript need revision for the reader’s clarity such as in lines 17-19, or 69-71.

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We have made modifications to these parts in an effort to make our expression clearer.

Statistics across methods and the figure legends needs to be clarified as the methods mention n=4 and SEM were used, but in in several figures it is stated biological replicates and SD. Authors should check that the correct statistical test has been employed for the data (ie: are they parametric? )

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We check the statistical methods of all data to ensure consistency.

Fig1 and results: Additional information pertaining to the % homology of the PGRPs is needed. Figure legend should include information about the full protein perhaps, as only the C-terminal amidase is shown.

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We have added the homology percentage data of PGRPs sequences in Fig. 1B.

Fig6: has n=4 from three biological replicates stated. Does this mean 4 samples per biological for a total n=12? Please show the individual data points and clarify this figure legend.

Answer: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We have added the homology percentage data of PGRPs sequences in Fig. 1B. Regarding enzyme activity data, each sample contains 4 biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains 3 technical replicates. All data were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS software.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s comments

A. Title (Line 1-2)

1. Appropriately written. Replace s with c in defence

Answer: Thank you for good suggestion. We have revised the word “defense” to “defence” in the manuscript.

B. Abstract –

1. Concise and reflect the content of the works done.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have polished and reduced the content of the abstract section.

2.Line (27-28) – Cytokines are italicised here. It should be followed in the entire manuscript.

Answer: Thank you. Cytokines are italicised in the entire revised manuscript.

C. Keywords

1. Selection of keywords reflect the content completely.

Answer: Thanks. We have re-selected and modified the keywords to better reflect the main research content of the entire article.

D. Introduction

1. Line 50-51- Write immune response against instead of of.

Answer: We have made corresponding revisions according to your nice suggestions.

2.Line 51 – Write full form of IMD

Answer: The full name of IMD is immune deficiency (IMD).

3.Line 63 - and structure also indicates. Add its before structure

Answer: We have revised it according to your suggestions.

4.Line 66 - challenge of pathogenic. Write due to instead of of. Add further before The

Answer: We have revised it according to your suggestions.

5.Line-75 - I should be small in intracellular

Answer: We have revised it according to your suggestions.

6.Line-81 – development and behaviour, of whom?

Answer: In neurons and glial cells.

7.Line-83 – microbiota-brain interactions, of whom?

Answer: In the placenta and developing brain.

8.Line-85 – development and behaviour, of whom?

Answer: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

9.Line-85-87 – In…sentence is not complete.

Answer: We have already deleted this sentence in the revised manuscript.

10. Line 93- remove further after we

Answer: We have revised it according to your suggestions.

11.Line-96- replace aquatic ecosystem with fish

Answer: We have revised it according to your suggestions.

E. Materials and Methods

1. Line-142 – Write complete name of E. coli and M. lutues and italicize it.

Answer: Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Micrococcus luteus (M. luteus).

3.Line-143 - 1 x 107 CFU/mL. it should be superscripted.

Answer: We have already superscripted it in the revised manuscript.

4.Line-162 - -actin…??

Answer: It is β-actin, we revised it in the manuscript.

5.Line-168&181 – 500 L…??

Answer: It is 500 µl, we revised it in the manuscript.

F. Results

1. Line – 233 – write potential instead of potentially

Answer: We have made corresponding revision in the manuscript.

2.Line-241- write Gram - before positive

Answer: We have made corresponding revision in the manuscript.

3.Line-257 – TNF- α

Answer: We have made corresponding revision in the manuscript.

4.Line-281- locomotor not loco-motor

Answer: We have made corresponding revision in the manuscript.

G. Discussions

1. Written well.

Answer: Thank you for your positive feedback. We will further revise and improve the discussion section.

H. Conclusion

1. Written well

Answer: Thank you for your positive feedback. We will further revise and improve the conclusion section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

pone.0315714.s004.docx (24.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Jisheng Liu

26 Nov 2024

PONE-D-23-37049R1Peptidoglycan recognition protein PGRP-5 is involved in immune defence and neuro-behavioral disorders in zebrafish embryosPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liao,

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 Jan 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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,

Jisheng Liu, 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript has been revised accordingly. The authors have addressed all the comments from the reviewers. However, there are some details that the authors should pay attention to. Therefore, I invite the authors to revise the details before the manuscript is accepted.

1. Beside the biological replicates, the technical replicates should be mentioned in M&M and the captions, such as Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6.

2. In Fig. 3A, what does the green and pink boxes stand for? Please indicates in the text and captions. Besides, the PGRP domain should be boxed as well.

3. Please explain and discuss why AChE was up-regulated in PGRP5-KD?

[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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: I appreciate the diligence of the authors to address my points in the previous submission, and now feel these works are ready for publication. I do have a few minor comments below:

Minor:

- Fig3 B the intestine x-axis line is not straight

- Line 146, suggest to revise “in a nutshell…” vernacular to something like “Briefly,”

- Fig4 B y-axis label revise – states “Percent \\ %”

- It would be interesting to challenge PGRP-5 KD fish vs scrambled with E coli or M luteus as a definitive demonstration that loss of PGRP-5 leads to even more killing and reduced rate of hatching in fig4

- In 3.3 and throughout the manuscript be consistent with stating “Gram positive” / “Gram negative” or “Gram-positive” / “Gram-negative”

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

You have made necessary changes in revised manuscript satisfactorily which is technically sound, and data support the conclusions, data has been anaysed correctly and well written in standard English.

**********

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: Yes: RAJU BAITHA

**********

[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 31;20(1):e0315714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315714.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Nov 2024

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript has been revised accordingly. The authors have addressed all the comments from the reviewers. However, there are some details that the authors should pay attention to. Therefore, I invite the authors to revise the details before the manuscript is accepted.

1. Beside the biological replicates, the technical replicates should be mentioned in M&M and the captions, such as Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. Each value contains at least four biological replicates, and each biological replicate contains three technical replicates. We have added these information in the Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and M&M sections.

2. In Fig. 3A, what does the green and pink boxes stand for? Please indicates in the text and captions. Besides, the PGRP domain should be boxed as well.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. The green boxes represent the low complexity region, and pink boxes stand for PGRP domains that contained a conserved N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase (ami_2) region. We have added these information in the legend of Fig. 3A.

3. Please explain and discuss why AChE was up-regulated in PGRP5-KD?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. The up-regulation of Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) in PGRP5 knockdown (KD) could potentially be attributed to several factors. One possibility is that the knockdown of PGRP5 might disrupt normal cellular signaling pathways that regulate the expression of AChE. PGRP5 could be involved in a complex network of interactions and its knockdown could lead to compensatory mechanisms or imbalances in downstream signaling, resulting in the increased expression of AChE. Another consideration is that PGRP5 might directly or indirectly interact with transcription factors or regulatory elements that control the expression of the AChE gene. The absence or reduced function of PGRP5 could remove an inhibitory effect or trigger a feedback loop that promotes AChE up-regulation.

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the diligence of the authors to address my points in the previous submission, and now feel these works are ready for publication. I do have a few minor comments below:

Minor:

- Fig3 B the intestine x-axis line is not straight

Answer: Thank you for your reminding. We have revised the intestine x-axis in Fig. 3B.

- Line 146, suggest to revise “in a nutshell…” vernacular to something like “Briefly,”

Answer: Thank you for your reminding. We have made the corresponding revisions according to your suggestions.

- Fig4 B y-axis label revise – states “Percent \\ %”

Answer: Thank you for your reminding. We have made the corresponding revisions according to your suggestions.

- It would be interesting to challenge PGRP-5 KD fish vs scrambled with E coli or M luteus as a definitive demonstration that loss of PGRP-5 leads to even more killing and reduced rate of hatching in fig4

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. What we want to demonstrate in Fig. 4 is that the Dr-PGRP5 gene exhibits different expression patterns under the stimulation of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, respectively. Meanwhile, M.luteus bacteria had lower survival and hatching rates compared to E. coli bacteria on normally developing zebrafish embryos. Actually, we did not test whether PGRP5-KD fish resulted in lower survival and hatching rates compared to normal fish, which is indeed an interesting question and we will explore this issue in future studies.

- In 3.3 and throughout the manuscript be consistent with stating “Gram positive” / “Gram negative” or “Gram-positive” / “Gram-negative”

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. “Gram-positive” / “Gram-negative” were consistent throughout the entire manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

pone.0315714.s005.docx (14.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Jisheng Liu

1 Dec 2024

Peptidoglycan recognition protein PGRP-5 is involved in immune defence and neuro-behavioral disorders in zebrafish embryos

PONE-D-23-37049R2

Dear Dr. Liao,

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,

Jisheng Liu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Jisheng Liu

16 Dec 2024

PONE-D-23-37049R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liao,

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

Professor Jisheng Liu

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 File. The full-length amino acid sequences of PGRP proteins from four homologous species.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0315714.s001.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Detection of knockdown efficiency of zebrafish PGRP5 gene by real-time quantitative PCR.

    (TIF)

    pone.0315714.s002.tif (45.8KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comment_PONE-D-23-37049_31 May 24 for Author.docx

    pone.0315714.s003.docx (16.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    pone.0315714.s004.docx (24.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    pone.0315714.s005.docx (14.8KB, 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