Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 9;21(3):e0344161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344161

Reduced levels of mitochondrial ribosomal protein MRPL54 does not alter Apc related adenoma formation

Claudia N Spaan 1,2,#, Eileen Daniels 3,4,#, Wouter L Smit 1,2, Ruben J de Boer 1,2, Joana Silva 5, Jacqueline L M Vermeulen 1, S Meisner 1, Vanesa Muncan 1, Riekelt H Houtkooper 3,4,6,7, Jarom Heijmans 1,2,4,*
Editor: Irina V Lebedeva8
PMCID: PMC12970935  PMID: 41801951

Abstract

Reprogramming of energy metabolism is one of the hallmarks of cancer cells and mutations that modify wild type intestinal cells to colon carcinomas increases cellular energy expenditure. Mitochondria are the main site for ATP production in (cancer) cells and disrupting their function results in impaired tumor forming efficacy. The mitochondrial ribosomal proteins (MRPs) constitute the ribosome specifically in mitochondria, and as such are crucial for the translation process of the electron transport chain complex subunits. We hence aimed to explore the consequence of reduced MRP expression on adenomagensis and investigate this in a genetic mouse model with bodywide heterozygosity for Mrpl54. We show that Mrpl54 heterozygosity does not alter adenoma formation, intestinal proliferation or apoptosis in a heterozygous Apc model. Furthermore, diminished Mrpl54 expression did not decrease stemness or global parameters of metabolism in colorectal cancer cell lines.

Introduction

The observation by Otto Warburg that cancer cells have reprogrammed cellular metabolism dates back one century but more recently, in the seminal work of Hanahan and Weinberg on hallmarks of cancer, reprogramming of energy metabolism in cancer has been pointed out as an emergent hallmark [1,2]. In the development of colorectal cancer, mutations that result in the sequencial development of adenomas and eventually invasive adenocarcinomas influence cancer metabolism [3–7]. The fact that increased protein translation and energy expenditure occurs in cancer cells, but not in their non cancerous counterparts, indicates the presence of excess capacity in biological processes that govern translation and energy requirements which is only addressed during pathyphysiological circumstances. Moreover, reduced capacity for protein production and a reduced threshold for activation of the Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) due to intestinal epithelial heterozygosity for endoplasmic reticulum (ER) resident chaperone GRP78 exposed remarkable disparity between protection against tumorigenesis and absence of phenotypical alterations under homeostatic conditions [7,8]. These results corroborated presence of excess cellular capacity that is only addressed in specific pathological situations such as adenoma formation. This notion can lead to identification of molecular targets that may be inhibited to reduce tumorigenesis with little effects on non-cancerous cells could result in novel anticancer treatment strategies.

A crucial energy source is the generation of ATP by oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) in the mitochondria, which consists of four enzyme complexes forming the respiratory chain and complex V as the terminal ATP synthase. Most of the OXPHOS complexes are partly encoded by nuclear DNA (nDNA) and partly encoded by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and coordinated synthesis and assembly is required for optimal function. The mtDNA has a dedicated, distinct, transcription and translation machinery that is independent from equivalent processes in the nucleus and cytosol. mtDNA is translated by the mitochondrial ribosome, a protein complex that contains mitoribosomal proteins (MRPs). Thus, mtDNA and mitoribosomal proteins (MRPs) are critically important for biogenesis of the OXPHOS complexes. [9,10]. Therefore, a number of studies have focused on altering mtDNA or MRPs in cancer models [11]. Indeed, after depleting mtDNA, tumorigenic potential of cancer cells was diminished in vitro en in vivo [12–14]. In diverse cancers, such as melanoma, breast-, colorectal-, liver– and lung cancer, MRPs are upregulated and reduction of specific MRPs suppresses tumor growth [15–17].

MRPL54 is a highly conserved mitochondrial ribosomal protein that is ubiquitously expressed and is critical for mitochondrial translation and OXPHOS activity [18–20]. Previously, homozygous Mrpl54 knockout mice proved to be lethal. Under homeostatic conditions, Mrpl54 heterozygous knockout mice exhibited reduced Mrpl54 gene expression, but showed no difference in body composition, lifespan and activity compared to wildtype controls [21,22]. Though Mrpl54 heterozygosity has little influence on gross phenotypical characteristics, this may result from an abundant OXPHOS reserve capacity during homeostasis. The increased cellular growth and higher energy requirements during adenomaformation challenge the OXPHOS complex more compared to standard laboratory conditions. We propose therefore that genetically interfering with the OXPHOS complex can impact cells in a highly proliferative state. We set out to test the hypothesis that Mrpl54 heterozygosity would hamper adenomaformation.

Materials and methods

Animal experiments

This study was approved by the nationally institutional animal welfare board (Central Committee Animal Experiments) of the Netherlands. Mouse experiments were performed in the Academic Medical Center Animal Research Institute in accordance with local guidelines under protocol number ALC284. VillinCreERT2, Rosa26LacZ, Apcfl alleles were all described previously [23–27]. These mice were crossed to Mrpl54 heterozygous mice [21]. All mice had a C57BL/6 background and were between 6–8 weeks old. All experimental groups contained an equal number of male and female mice. Animals were sacrificed using the inhalant anesthetics carbon dioxide (CO2), followed by cervical dislocation.

Adenoma studies

For CreERT2 mediated recombination, mice were injected daily for 5 consecutive days with with 50 mg/kg tamoxifen (T5648, Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO 10 mg/ml in corn oil). Two hours prior to sacrifice all mice received 100 mg/kg BrdU intraperitoneally (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO 10 mg/mL in NaCl.). Mice were sacrificed 20 weeks after Cre–mediated recombination. After sacrifice, intestines were immediately taken out and rinsed in cold PBS and the small intestine was divided in a proximal-, middle- and distal part.

Adenomas were counted macroscopically in the small intestine and colon. Investigators were blinded for mouse genotype during adenoma quantification and all adenoma quantification was performed by two investigators independently. After paraffin embedding (see section below), haematoxilin and eosin sections were generated from all parts of the murine intestine (proxima, middle, distal, colon) and quantification on microscopic sections was performed by two independent investigator, blinded for the murine genotype.

Tissue preparation, immunohistochemistry and X-Gal staining

Tissue was fixed overnight in 4% buffered formaldehyde in PBS. Formaldehyde was replaced with 70% ethanol and processed according to standard protocols for paraffin embedding [28]. After paraffin embedding, 4,5 µm sections were generated using a microtome. Immunohistochemistry was performed as previously described [29]. In short, 4,5 µm sections were deparaffinized and rehydrated. Endogenous peroxidase was blocked in 0.3% H2O2 in methanol. For antigen retrieval, slides were treated at 96°C for 10 minutes in 10 mM sodium citrate buffer pH 6.0, or for 20 minutes in 10 mM Tris 1mM EDTA buffer pH 9.0 and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibody diluted in PBT (PBS with 0.1% Triton X-100 and 1% w/v BSA). Primary antibodies: anti-BrdU mouse monoclonal (Roche BMC9318) 1:500; anti-cleaved-caspase-3 (Cell Signaling 9661S) 1:400. Antibody binding was visualized with Powervision (Immunologic) and substrate development was performed using diaminobenzidine (Sigma-Aldrich D5637-10G, St Louis, MO). Hematoxylin was used as counterstain.

For assessment of Cre-mediated recombination, cells expressing the LacZ allele were visualized using X-Gal staining. To this end, freshly isolated tissue was fixed for 90 min at 4˚C in PBS containing 1% formaldehyde, 0.2% glutaraldehyde, and 0.02% NP-40. Tissue was washed in ice-cold PBS subsequently and incubated overnight in the dark using PBS containing 5 mM K3Fe(CN)6, 5 mM K4Fe(CN)6, 2 mM MgCl2, 1 mg/ml X-Gal, and 0.02% NP-40. After X-Gal staining, tissue was postfixed in 4% buffered formaldehyde in PBS and processed as previously described. Counterstaining of sections was performed with nuclear fast red.

Cell culture and transfection with siRNA

LS180 colorectal cancer cells (ATCC CL187) and HCT116 colorectal cancer cells (ATCC CCL247) were grown in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin under standard culture conditions.

Predesigned siRNA’s were ordered (siMRPL54, Silencer® select, Thermofisher Hs.356578, # 4427037; siControl, Silencer® select negative controle No1, Thermofisher, #4390843). Cells were transfected after plating in a 24wells plate using Lipofectamine® according to the manufacturer’s protocols.

RNA isolation

For gene expression experiments in cells, mRNA isolation was performed 48 hours after transfectionn using the Bioline ISOLATE II RNA Mini kit (BIO-52073, Bioline) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

cDNA synthesis, and quantitative RT-PCR

Synthesis of cDNA was performed using 1 µg of purified RNA using Revertaid reverse transcriptase according to protocol (Fermentas, Vilnius, Lithuania). Quantitative RT-PCR was performed using sensifast SYBR No-ROX Kit (GC-biotech Bio-98020) according to manufacturer’s protocol on a BioRad iCycler. v). Relative gene expression was calculated using the LinReg method. For primer sequences see Table 1.

Table 1. List of primers used for RT-qPCR.

Gene Forward primer Reverse primer
Β-ACTIN AGAGCTACGAGCTGCCTGAC AGCACTGTGTTGGCGTACAG
GAPDH CCATGTTCGTCATGGGTGTG GGTGCTAAGCAGTTGGTGGTG
MRPLl54 TGGGCGTCAACATCTACAAGG CTCCAGGGTCTTTGGGGGA
LGR5 AATCCCCTGCCCAGTCTC CCCTTGGGAATGTATGTCAGA
AXIN2 TCTGGTGCAAAGACATAGCCA AGTGTGAGGTCCACGAAAC
ASCL2 CGCCTACTCGTCGGACGACAG GCCGCTCGCTCGGCTTCCG

Enzymatic assay for glucose, L-lactate and pyruvate

Enzymatic assays for glucose and L-lactate were performed as described, using a CLARIOstar microplate reader (BMG LABTECH) [30]. Glucose was measured using a colorimetric assay with glucose oxidase. L-Lactate was measured with lactate dehydrogenase (Roche). Results were normalized to cell count.

Microarray analysis

For mRNA microarray analysis, a published dataset was used (GSE143509) and analysed using R2 software [31].

Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.1.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, www.graphpad.com). All values are depicted as the mean ± standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). In experiments comparing two groups, statistical significance was analysed using Student’s t-test. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

Results

To analyze the role of MRPL54 in colorectal tumorigenesis, we first analyzed mRNA expression of a panel of mitochondrial ribosomal proteins from mRNA microarrays. These arrays had been generated of murine intestinal epithelial organoids with mutations that are known to drive development of invasive adenocarcinomas from normal intestinal epithelium, a mutational sequence known as the adenoma to carcinoma sequence (Apc, KrasG12D, Smad4, P53, Fig 1) [31,32]. Throughout the adenoma to carcinoma sequence, we observed that a large number of these mitochondrial ribosomal proteins were differentially expressed. Focusing on Mrpl54, we observed strongly increased expression over the course of the adenoma to carcinoma sequence, most distinctly from the stage of Apc and Kras mutations. Together these analyses show that during development of colorectal neoplasias, expression of genes involved in the OXPHOS complex are strongly altered and may therefore play a role in this process.

Fig 1. Micro-array analysis of MRPs.

Fig 1

Heatmap of micro-array mRNA expression containing Mitochondrial Ribosomal Proteins (MRPs) genes in indicated mouse organoids (GSE143509).

We next analyzed whether reducing Mrpl54 would specifically inhibit adenoma formation. Cells with an Apc mutation have increased proliferation and a high energy demand, likely requiring ATP generation via the OXPHOS complex. Genetically reducing a specific mitoribosomal protein, important for the biogenesis of the OXPHOS complex, may therefore challenge the growth of highly proliferative cells To this end we crossed whole body heterozygous Mrpl54 mice with VillinCreERT2-Apc+/fl mice. The model of Mrpl54+/- mice is extensively described recently and exhibits 50% reduced expression of Mrpl54 transcript throughout different tissues [21].

In VillinCreERT2-Apc+/fl mice, treatment with tamoxifen results in heterozygous deletion of tumor suppressor gene Apc specifically from the small and large intestinal epithelium which in turn results in development of multiple intestinal adenomas several weeks later [23–27].

These VillinCreERT2-Apc+/fl-Mrpl54+/- mice, further referred to as A-Mrpl54HET were analyzed and compared to VillinCreERT2-Apc+/fl Mrpl54+/+ littermate controls (A-Mrpl54WT).

Analysis of weight of A-Mrpl54HET and A-Mrpl54WT mice did not reveal a difference between these genotypes (S1A Fig). When mice were sacrificed at the age of 6 months, a large number of intestinal adenomas had developed in the small and large intestine of both A-Mrpl54HET and A-Mrpl54WT. We confimed equal efficacy of recombination of the conditional Apc allele from the intestinal epithelium by visualization of LacZ, that was expressed in all recombined cells (Fig 2A). Macroscopic quantification of the adenoma numbers exhibited no difference between A-Mrpl54HET and A-Mrpl54WT animals (Fig 2B). Adenomas in the small intestines were categorized by size, and subdivided in microadenomas (consisting of single crypts), small adenoma (1–3 crypts) and large adenoma (>3 crypts) (Fig 2C). The distribution of microadenomas, small adenomas and large adenomas was comparable between A-Mrpl54HET and A-Mrpl54WT (Fig 2D). Microscopic quantification of the small intestine, divided in the proximal, middle and distal parts of the small intestine, showed equal distribution of adenomas between A-Mrpl54WT and A-Mrpl54HET (S1B Fig). The colon displayed no difference in adenoma formation between the two genotypes (Fig 2E).

Fig 2. Mrpl54 heterozygosity does not alter adenoma formation in ApcHET mice.

Fig 2

(A) LacZ staining on intestines of mice showing recombination after induction of Cre-mediated recombination with tamoxifen. (B) Number of intestinal adenomas, counted macroscopically (A-Mrpl54WT N = 7, A-Mrpl54HET N = 8). (C) Representative pictures of H&E staining of normal small intestine, microadenoma (single crypt), small adenoma (1-3 crypts), large adenoma (>3 crypts). (D) Quantification of small intestinal adenomas, counted microscopically after H&E staining (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). (E) Quantification of colon adenomas, counted microscopically after H&E staining (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). ns = non-significant SI = small intestine.

These results demonstrate that heterozygous deletion of Mrpl54 does not result in a difference in Apc mutated adenoma formation and that both adenoma initiation as well as adenoma growth were equal between the two groups.

We next assessed phenotypical differences in proliferation or apoptosis between the two genotypes. No differences were seen in the number of proliferating cells in the crypt of small intestines of A-Mrpl54WT mice and A-Mrpl54HET mice (Fig 3A-B). Moreover, cleaved caspase-3, as a marker of apoptosis, was not different between the small intestines of the A-Mrpl54HET and A-Mrpl54WT mice (Fig 3A,C). In conclusion, in accordance with results on adenoma numbers and growth in A-Mrpl54WT and A-Mrpl54HET mice, we found no differences in proliferation or apoptosis.

Fig 3. Microscopic analysis of proliferation and apoptosis.

Fig 3

(A) Representative BrdU and caspase staining of indicated genotypes. (B) Quantification of mean BrdU + ve cells per crypt (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). (C) Quantification of % Caspase+ve cells per crypt (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). ns = non-significant.

Previously, in healthy mice under homeostatic conditions, genetic manipulation of Mrpl54 expression did not result in compelling metabolic changes [21]. We showed that in a hyperproliferative context, using a heterozygous Apc mutation, heterozygous Mrpl54 expression did not influence adenoma formation. To study reduced levels of Mrpl54 on malignantly transformed colorectal cells, we used two human colorectal cancer cell lines, HCT116 and LS180, and tranfected these cells with small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting MRPL54. This resulted in cells with ≥85% reduction of MRPL54 mRNA (S2A Fig). In concordance with the adenoma study, no difference in stem cell marker expression was found between colorectal cancer cells with siControl or siMRPL54 (S2B Fig). Subsequently, we evaluated glucose consumption and lactate production in cells exhibiting either normal or diminished MRPL54 expression. Downregulation of MRPL54 mRNA in colorectal cancer cells did not affect these basic metabolic assays.

Discussion

Previous work has shown that the mitochondrial ribosomal protein 54 (MRPL54) is critical for mitochondrial energy metabolism, though Mrpl54 heterozygous knockout mice have no difference in body composition or metabolism compared to wild type mice during homeostasis [20,21]. Because cancer cells require higher levels of energy, which is a mitochondrial tenet, we hypothesized that Mrpl54 heterozygosity would hamper proliferation of intestinal adenoma cells. We find no evidence for the hypothesis that reduced expression of Mrpl54, either through genetic heterozygosity in mice or by the use of siRNA in colorectal cancer cells, influences adenoma formation or induces significant metabolic alterations in hyperproliferative models.

Our experiments demonstrate that Apc-Mrpl54 (A-Mrpl54) heterozygous intestines exhibit no significant differences in adenoma initiation or growth. Moreover, aspects of cellular functioning such as proliferation or apoptosis areunaltered in A-Mrpl54HET cells compared to A-Mrpl54WT cells. The used Apc mouse model harbors a heterozygous mutation in tumor suppressor gene, though the murine organoid micro-array data showed expression of Mrpl54 in the context of multiple intestinal carcinoma mutations [31]. However, analysis of micro-array data sets of human colorectal cancer that are publically available, showed no relation between MRPL54 expression and colorectal cancer. These results are consistent with findings in the human protein atlas that show no correlation between MRPL54 expression and prognosis in colorectal cancer. These findings correlate with our findings that Mrpl54 heterozygosity does not influence murine adenomagenesis. We observe an important discrepancy between the observational micro-array data that show correlation between progression of tumor mutations and expression of Mrpl54 on the one hand whereas reduction of Mrpl54 did not yield reduced tumorigenesis in the murine model. Potentially this stems from compensation of Mrpl54 levels upon heterozygous reduction or due to redundancy with other Mrpls. In addition, redundancy may have explained lack of phenotypical differences in colorectal cancer lines.

The Mrpl54 heterozygous knockout mice is extensively described by Reid et al. and showed a bodywide reduction of Mrpl54 gene expression by 50%. Unfortunately, experiments to confirm decreased protein levels of MRPL54 were unsuccessful by the combined efforts of both research groups using both western blotting and mass spectrometry. The observation that pups homozygous for the Mrpl54 mutation did not survive, is in clear agreement with a dysfunctional Mrpl54 allele.

Overall, our results indicate that reduced Mrpl54 mRNA expression does not lead to changes in intestinal adenoma formation or global cellular metabolism.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Mrpl54 and Apc heterozygosity do not affect incremental body weight.

(A) Weight curves of indicated genotypes (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). (B) Quantification of small intestinal adenomas, counted microscopically after H&E staining, subdived by localisation (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). ns = non-significant.

(TIF)

pone.0344161.s001.tif (568.7KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Diminished Mrpl54 expression does not alter stemness or metabolism in colorectal cancer cells.

(TIF)

pone.0344161.s002.tif (656.5KB, tif)
S1 Data. Rawdata.

(XLSX)

pone.0344161.s003.xlsx (53.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a grant of the Dutch cancer foundation (KWF/Alpe 11053/2017-1) and by a grant of the Netherlands organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Veni 91615032). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hanahan D. Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12(1):31–46. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E. The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol. 1927;8(6):519–30. doi: 10.1085/jgp.8.6.519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yun J, Rago C, Cheong I, Pagliarini R, Angenendt P, Rajagopalan H, et al. Glucose deprivation contributes to the development of KRAS pathway mutations in tumor cells. Science. 2009;325(5947):1555–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1174229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X, de Reyniès A, Schlicker A, Soneson C, et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med. 2015;21(11):1350–6. doi: 10.1038/nm.3967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Racker E, Resnick RJ, Feldman R. Glycolysis and methylaminoisobutyrate uptake in rat-1 cells transfected with ras or myc oncogenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985;82(11):3535–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.11.3535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ying H, Kimmelman AC, Lyssiotis CA, Hua S, Chu GC, Fletcher-Sananikone E, et al. Oncogenic Kras maintains pancreatic tumors through regulation of anabolic glucose metabolism. Cell. 2012;149(3):656–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Spaan CN, de Boer RJ, Smit WL, van der Meer JH, van Roest M, Vermeulen JL, et al. Grp78 is required for intestinal Kras-dependent glycolysis proliferation and adenomagenesis. Life Sci Alliance. 2023;6(11):e202301912. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202301912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.van Lidth de Jeude JF, Spaan CN, Meijer BJ, Smit WL, Soeratram TTD, Wielenga MCB, et al. Heterozygosity of Chaperone Grp78 Reduces Intestinal Stem Cell Regeneration Potential and Protects against Adenoma Formation. Cancer Res. 2018;78(21):6098–106. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-3600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Osellame LD, Blacker TS, Duchen MR. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of mitochondrial function. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;26(6):711–23. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2012.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bogenhagen DF, Ostermeyer-Fay AG, Haley JD, Garcia-Diaz M. Kinetics and mechanism of mammalian mitochondrial ribosome assembly. Cell Rep. 2018;22(7):1935–44. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.01.066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zong WX, Rabinowitz JD, White E. Mitochondria and cancer. Mol Cell. 2016;61(5):667–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cavalli LR, Varella-Garcia M, Liang BC. Diminished tumorigenic phenotype after depletion of mitochondrial DNA. Cell Growth Differ. 1997;8(11):1189–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morais R, Zinkewich-Péotti K, Parent M, Wang H, Babai F, Zollinger M. Tumor-forming ability in athymic nude mice of human cell lines devoid of mitochondrial DNA. Cancer Res. 1994;54(14):3889–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tan AS, Baty JW, Dong L-F, Bezawork-Geleta A, Endaya B, Goodwin J, et al. Mitochondrial genome acquisition restores respiratory function and tumorigenic potential of cancer cells without mitochondrial DNA. Cell Metab. 2015;21(1):81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lin X, Guo L, Lin X, Wang Y, Zhang G. Expression and prognosis analysis of mitochondrial ribosomal protein family in breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):10658. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14724-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim H-J, Maiti P, Barrientos A. Mitochondrial ribosomes in cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2017;47:67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.04.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhao C, Chen L, Jin Z, Liu H, Ma C, Zhou H, et al. Knockdown of MRPL35 promotes cell apoptosis and inhibits cell proliferation in non-small-cell lung cancer. BMC Pulm Med. 2023;23(1):507. doi: 10.1186/s12890-023-02677-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Diaconu M, Kothe U, Schlünzen F, Fischer N, Harms JM, Tonevitsky AG, et al. Structural basis for the function of the ribosomal L7/12 stalk in factor binding and GTPase activation. Cell. 2005;121(7):991–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aibara S, Singh V, Modelska A, Amunts A. Structural basis of mitochondrial translation. Elife. 2020;9:e58362. doi: 10.7554/eLife.58362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Arroyo JD, Jourdain AA, Calvo SE, Ballarano CA, Doench JG, Root DE, et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR death screen identifies genes essential for oxidative phosphorylation. Cell Metab. 2016;24(6):875–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.08.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reid K, Daniels EG, Vasam G, Kamble R, Janssens GE, Hu IM, et al. Reducing mitochondrial ribosomal gene expression does not alter metabolic health or lifespan in mice. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):8391. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35196-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Houtkooper RH, Mouchiroud L, Ryu D, Moullan N, Katsyuba E, Knott G, et al. Mitonuclear protein imbalance as a conserved longevity mechanism. Nature. 2013;497(7450):451–7. doi: 10.1038/nature12188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shibata H, Toyama K, Shioya H, Ito M, Hirota M, Hasegawa S, et al. Rapid colorectal adenoma formation initiated by conditional targeting of the Apc gene. Science. 1997;278(5335):120–3. doi: 10.1126/science.278.5335.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Soriano P. Generalized lacZ expression with the ROSA26 Cre reporter strain. Nat Genet. 1999;21(1):70–1. doi: 10.1038/5007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.el Marjou F, Janssen K-P, Chang BH-J, Li M, Hindie V, Chan L, et al. Tissue-specific and inducible Cre-mediated recombination in the gut epithelium. Genesis. 2004;39(3):186–93. doi: 10.1002/gene.20042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sansom OJ, Reed KR, Hayes AJ, Ireland H, Brinkmann H, Newton IP, et al. Loss of Apc in vivo immediately perturbs Wnt signaling, differentiation, and migration. Genes Dev. 2004;18(12):1385–90. doi: 10.1101/gad.287404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Madisen L, Zwingman TA, Sunkin SM, Oh SW, Zariwala HA, Gu H, et al. A robust and high-throughput Cre reporting and characterization system for the whole mouse brain. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13(1):133–40. doi: 10.1038/nn.2467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Heijmans J, Muncan V, Jacobs RJ, de Jonge-Muller ESM, Graven L, Biemond I, et al. Correction: Intestinal tumorigenesis is not affected by progesterone signaling in rodent models. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):10.1371/annotation/b60d4ec5-4c6f-43ab-9f63-322e3cd59636. doi: 10.1371/annotation/b60d4ec5-4c6f-43ab-9f63-322e3cd59636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Heijmans J, Muncan V, Jacobs RJ, de Jonge-Muller ESM, Graven L, Biemond I, et al. Intestinal tumorigenesis is not affected by progesterone signaling in rodent models. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chang J-C, Go S, Gilglioni EH, Duijst S, Panneman DM, Rodenburg RJ, et al. Soluble adenylyl cyclase regulates the cytosolic NADH/NAD+ redox state and the bioenergetic switch between glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2021;1862(4):148367. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2020.148367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Smit WL, Spaan CN, Johannes de Boer R, Ramesh P, Martins Garcia T, Meijer BJ, et al. Driver mutations of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence govern the intestinal epithelial global translational capacity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(41):25560–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912772117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 1990;61(5):759–67. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90186-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Irina Lebedeva

7 May 2025

Dear Dr. Heijmans,

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 set to investigate the plausible role of the mitochondrial ribosomal protein MRPL54 in colorectal tumorigenesis. Using micro-arrays of intestinal organoids with multiple oncogenic mutations, the authors identified upregulation of MRPL54 and other MRPs proteins and used previously established (by their group) Mrpl54 heterozygous mouse model of intestinal carcinoma (Apc-mutant). No detectable effect of MRPL54 heterozygosity was observed compared to the parental mouse model of intestinal carcinoma.

The study is based solely on in vivo data and lacks mechanical insight. A few experiments need to be performed to make the story complete.

Reduced MRPL54 protein expression or function in the model has to be confirmed.

A role of MPRL54 protein in tumorigenesis had been established using limited datasets (microarray and gross adenoma counts). No analysis of patient-derived CRC data for MRPL54 expression or prognostic relevance had been accomplished.

A few in vitro functional assays in CRC cell lines (e.g., siRNA knockdown, metabolic flux analysis, ROS measurement) would help to confirm the rationale for the study.

Furthermore, functional redundancy among multiple MRPs is not addressed. This is particularly important for metabolically flexible colorectal cancers that use both glycolysis and OXPHOS as energy sources.

Minor comments:

The manuscript lacks clarity in both writing and data interpretation. For example, the abstract does not clearly reflect the study rationale.

Discussion needs to be edited.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 21 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.

  • 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,

Irina V. Lebedeva, 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Apart from few gramatical errors, the manuscript is scientifically well written. The methods section and results section is well detailed appropriate for the conducted study. The first paragraph of discussion reads more like results section and need to be edited.

Reviewer #2: The authors investigate the potential role of the mitochondrial ribosomal protein MRPL54 in colorectal tumorigenesis. Citing increased MRPL54 expression in colorectal cancer and the known function of mitochondrial ribosomal proteins (MRPs) in metabolic regulation, they hypothesize that reduced expression of Mrpl54 (via heterozygosity) would suppress adenoma formation in a genetically engineered mouse model with Apc mutations. However, they report that Mrpl54 heterozygosity has no detectable effect on adenoma formation or progression, and thus conclude that MRPL54 is not essential for Apc-driven colorectal tumor development.

Major Comments

1. Lack of Mechanistic Depth and Novel Insight

While MRPL54 has been identified in transcriptomic datasets as upregulated in various cancers, the manuscript does not offer new mechanistic insight into its role or lack thereof in colorectal cancer. The negative finding (no phenotype in heterozygous mice) is not inherently unpublishable, but it must be contextualized with mechanistic rigor, which is absent here.

2. Insufficient Justification of Experimental Strategy

The central hypothesis—that MRPL54 is essential for adenoma formation is not adequately supported or tested:

Heterozygosity may not be sufficient to significantly impair mitochondrial translation.

There is no confirmation of reduced MRPL54 protein expression or function in the model.

Functional redundancy among MRPs (of which there are ~82) is not addressed.

3. Overly Simplistic Assumption Regarding Metabolism and Tumorigenesis

The authors propose that reducing a single MRP should alter tumorigenesis, but colorectal cancers are metabolically flexible, using both glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). It is therefore not surprising that reducing one MRP does not disrupt tumor initiation. This limitation weakens the conceptual novelty of the work.

4. Incomplete Exploration of MRPL54’s Role

The study relies heavily on:

A single in vivo model (Apc-mutant mice)

Limited datasets (microarray and gross adenoma counts)

No in vitro functional assays (e.g., siRNA knockdown, metabolic flux analysis, ROS measurement)

No analysis of patient-derived CRC data for MRPL54 expression or prognostic relevance.

As such, the manuscript does not sufficiently explore whether MRPL54 has any functional role in tumor metabolism, survival, or progression.

5. Presentation Issues

The manuscript lacks clarity in both writing and data interpretation. Several sections are grammatically inconsistent or incomplete.

To strengthen future studies, the authors could:

Confirm MRPL54 knockdown at the protein and functional level in their model.

Perform functional assays in CRC cell lines (e.g., siRNA/CRISPR knockdown with proliferation, OXPHOS, and ROS readouts).

Analyze clinical datasets (e.g., TCGA) to correlate MRPL54 expression with patient survival and tumor stage.

Explore compensatory responses by other MRPs or mitochondrial stress response pathways.

Investigate metabolic consequences of MRPL54 loss using Seahorse or mass spectrometry–based metabolomics.

Reviewer #3: This study investigated whether reduced levels of mitochondrial ribosomal protein MRPL54 affect the tumorigenic characteristics of colorectal cancer in mice. MRPL54 was chosen as a target protein because its expression levels correlate with the progression and proliferation stages of this type of cancer, as shown by micro-array mRNA expression results. The authors aimed to test whether reducing MRPL54 levels would inhibit adenoma formation due to its importance in the biogenesis of OXPHOS proteins. Results from the study reveal that deletion of MRPL54 does not alter intestinal adenoma formation in mice. Both WT and KO animals had similar body weight and characteristics at 6 months of age, before euthanasia. Similar numbers of adenomas were recorded in both groups of animals.

Overall, this is a concise and clear study. The conclusions are well supported by the results, and data presentations are clear. However, several typos throughout the manuscript need to be corrected before publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Silpa Gampala

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 9;21(3):e0344161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344161.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Jan 2026

1. The study is based solely on in vivo data and lacks mechanical insight. A few experiments need to be performed to make the story complete.

Reduced MRPL54 protein expression or function in the model has to be confirmed.

This research continued the work of Reid and Daniels, using the Mrpl54 bodywide heterozygous mouse model described in Reid et al, 2023. In that study they showed 50% reduction of Mrpl54 gene expression in multiple organs in MRPL54 heterozygous (genotyped) mice. The observation that pups homozygous for the Mrpl54 mutation did not survive as reflected by the Mendelian ratio, is in agreement with the dysfunctional Mrpl54 allele.

Tissue of heterozygous and wildtype Mrpl54 mice was used to perform western blots to measure protein expression. Unfortunately, despite using multiple antibodies, these were technically unsuccessful because of nonspecific binding. Our co-authors also tried mass spectrometry, but were not able to obtain a high enough signal.

In our manuscript, we included explanation of these results and clarified the missing data of protein expression.

2. A role of MPRL54 protein in tumorigenesis had been established using limited datasets (microarray and gross adenoma counts). No analysis of patient-derived CRC data for MRPL54 expression or prognostic relevance had been accomplished.

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion to investigate multiple publicly available human colorectal cancer (CRC) datasets. We have analyzed these datasets for Mrpl54 expression and found no correlation within the human CRC data. Additionally, we observed no association between MRPL54 and colorectal cancer survival in the Human Protein Atlas. These differences between the organoid and human datasets can be attributed to the inherent complexity of the models used. However, we believe these findings are consistent with the results from our murine experiment. This point has been addressed in our discussion. Due to limitations in word count and figures we chose not to add results of CRC dataset analysis to the result section, but this could be added if the reviewer deems this preferrable.

3. A few in vitro functional assays in CRC cell lines (e.g., siRNA knockdown, metabolic flux analysis, ROS measurement) would help to confirm the rationale for the study.

We have added a supplementary figure (2), including experiments with two different human colorectal cancer cell lines transfected with highly specific small interfering RNA targeting MRPL54 as well as a control. In these cells, we demonstrate that although MRPL54 RNA expression is reduced, this does not impact the expression of stem cell markers nor affect metabolic assays as glucose consumption and lactate production.

4. Furthermore, functional redundancy among multiple MRPs is not addressed. This is particularly important for metabolically flexible colorectal cancers that use both glycolysis and OXPHOS as energy sources.

We agree with the reviewer and have now addressed this in our discussion.

5. Minor comments:

The manuscript lacks clarity in both writing and data interpretation. For example, the abstract does not clearly reflect the study rationale.

Discussion needs to be edited.

To address this comment we have made textual changes and we have asked colleagues that are native English speakers to give comments on our writing. Textual changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

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

We have addressed these style requirements.

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.

We have addressed this.

Reviewer 1

1. The first paragraph of discussion reads more like results section and need to be edited.

We have revised the discussion and incorporated feedback provided by the editor and reviewers. We feel the revised version of the manuscript has a more comprehensive discussion part compared to the original manuscript.

Reviewer 2

1. Lack of Mechanistic Depth and Novel Insight.

While MRPL54 has been identified in transcriptomic datasets as upregulated in various cancers, the manuscript does not offer new mechanistic insight into its role or lack thereof in colorectal cancer. The negative finding (no phenotype in heterozygous mice) is not inherently unpublishable, but it must be contextualized with mechanistic rigor, which is absent here.

We have expanded our discussion and include finding on Mrpl54 expression in human datasets, as well as new experiments involving a more profound knockdown of Mrpl54 in colorectal cancer cells. We have addressed the fenomenon of redundancy in the discussion.

2. Insufficient Justification of Experimental Strategy

The central hypothesis—that MRPL54 is essential for adenoma formation is not adequately supported or tested:

Heterozygosity may not be sufficient to significantly impair mitochondrial translation.

There is no confirmation of reduced MRPL54 protein expression or function in the model.

Functional redundancy among MRPs (of which there are ~82) is not addressed.

We agree with the reviewers comments, which have also been addressed by the editor, and we have include redundancy in our revised manuscript. As previousily mentioned, we have added experiments with siRNA’s in cell lines to achieve a more robust knockdown have a more profound knockdown. Furthermore, we emphasize in the manuscript previous experiments with the same Mrpl54 mouse model (Reid et al.), its findings and earlier efforts to confirm decreased MRPL54 protein expression.

3. Overly Simplistic Assumption Regarding Metabolism and Tumorigenesis

The authors propose that reducing a single MRP should alter tumorigenesis, but colorectal cancers are metabolically flexible, using both glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). It is therefore not surprising that reducing one MRP does not disrupt tumor initiation. This limitation weakens the conceptual novelty of the work.

4. Incomplete Exploration of MRPL54’s Role

The study relies heavily on:

A single in vivo model (Apc-mutant mice)

Limited datasets (microarray and gross adenoma counts)

No in vitro functional assays (e.g., siRNA knockdown, metabolic flux analysis, ROS measurement)

No analysis of patient-derived CRC data for MRPL54 expression or prognostic relevance.

As such, the manuscript does not sufficiently explore whether MRPL54 has any functional role in tumor metabolism, survival, or progression.

We have addressed these comments in our manuscript and have written a more detailed explanation of our revisions in the previous comments of the editor and reviewers.

5. Presentation Issues

The manuscript lacks clarity in both writing and data interpretation. Several sections are grammatically inconsistent or incomplete.

To address this comment we have made textual changes and we have asked colleagues that are native English speakers to give comments on our writing. Textual changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 3

1. Overall, this is a concise and clear study. The conclusions are well supported by the results, and data presentations are clear. However, several typos throughout the manuscript need to be corrected before publication.

We have adressed this issue, and textual changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: respons to reviewers letter.docx

pone.0344161.s005.docx (19.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Irina Lebedeva

18 Feb 2026

Reduced levels of mitochondrial ribosomal protein MRPL54 does not alter Apc related adenoma formation

PONE-D-25-10633R1

Dear Dr. Heijmans,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Irina V. Lebedeva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the reviewer comments, and I recommend acceptance of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: all queries answered, authors have corrections. Abstract seems reduced but reads all right. Figures can be refined for the publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Silpa Gampala

Reviewer #2: Yes: Narendra Sankpal

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Irina Lebedeva

PONE-D-25-10633R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Heijmans,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Irina V. Lebedeva

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Mrpl54 and Apc heterozygosity do not affect incremental body weight.

    (A) Weight curves of indicated genotypes (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). (B) Quantification of small intestinal adenomas, counted microscopically after H&E staining, subdived by localisation (A-Mrpl54WT N = 10, A-Mrpl54HET N = 11). ns = non-significant.

    (TIF)

    pone.0344161.s001.tif (568.7KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Diminished Mrpl54 expression does not alter stemness or metabolism in colorectal cancer cells.

    (TIF)

    pone.0344161.s002.tif (656.5KB, tif)
    S1 Data. Rawdata.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0344161.s003.xlsx (53.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: respons to reviewers letter.docx

    pone.0344161.s005.docx (19.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES