Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 3;21(4):e0344682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344682

New insights into the plasma and urinary metabolomic signatures of spontaneously hypertensive rats

Celia Rodríguez-Pérez 1,2,3,☯, Alejandra Vázquez-Aguilar 2,4,☯, Oscar Daniel Rangel Huerta 5,6,*, Estefanía Sánchez-Rodríguez 2,3,4,7, Ángel Gil 2,3,4,7, Caridad Díaz 8, Félix Vargas 9, María D Mesa 2,3,4,10
Editor: Rami Salim Najjar11
PMCID: PMC13048474  PMID: 41931577

Abstract

Background

Hypertension is a major risk factor associated with cardiovascular diseases and one of the leading causes of premature death. Metabolomics is a useful tool for studying in vivo metabolic profiles to better understand the pathogenesis of diseases such as hypertension. This work aimed to explore the plasma and urinary non-targeted metabolic profile of 16-week-old spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) to identify new metabolomic profiles associated with hypertensive phenotypical characteristics.

Methods

Plasma and 24-hours urine samples were collected from 10 SHR and 10 age-matched normotensive Wistar-Kyoto 16-week-old male rats. Plasma and urinary metabolic profiles were investigated using high-performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time of flight coupled to mass spectroscopy followed by multivariate statistical analysis. The mummichog pathway enrichment analysis was used to integrate metabolomics data into biological contexts.

Results

A total of 16 differential metabolites were found in plasma and 13 differential metabolites in urine from SHR compared to normotensive rats. Differences in some microbiota-derived metabolites suggest changes in the gut microbiota associated with hypertension in our experimental model. The mummichog algorithm has recognized that hypertensive metabolism is associated with the altered metabolism of steroid hormones, bile acid, and purines.

Conclusions

This work highlights the importance of metabolomics as a tool for the identification of biomarkers related to hypertension and its consequences in SHR. The findings suggest that alterations in the metabolism of steroid hormones, bile acids, and purines, as well as metabolites derived from the intestinal microbiota are associated with the presence of hypertension. More research is needed to further understand their role during hypertension.

Introduction

Arterial hypertension is a complex multifactorial vascular pathology caused by the interactions between environmental and polygenic factors. It is associated with other adverse cardiovascular complications, including myocardial infarction, stroke, kidney disease, and global mortality, and has been reported as one of the leading causes of premature death, and the world's most prevalent cardiovascular disorder, affecting 1.28 billion adults aged 30–79 years worldwide [1]. However, despite the availability of several preventive and therapeutic approaches, arterial hypertension continues to be an unresolved risk factor for disease burden worldwide [2]. Therefore, understanding new mechanisms related to the pathogenesis of hypertension and the onset of its complications may help identify alternative preventive and therapeutic tools.

Among different preclinical hypertensive animal models, spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) are the most widely used genetic models of hypertension for the study of primary or essential hypertension owing to their similarities to human hypertension [3,4]. The systolic blood pressure (SBP) of SHR reaches 180–200 mm Hg after 4 weeks of growth, while their breeding brother Wistar-Kyoto rats (WKY) remain normotensive. The SHR model has been used to identify hypertension-related genes, evaluate targeted organ complications, and screen of potential pharmacological drugs; indeed, they are expected to provide insight into pathological and therapeutic mechanisms for the regulation of blood pressure. Interestingly, hypertension has also been linked to immune disorders and dysbiosis [5], but its molecular mechanisms have not been fully elucidated and require further investigation [6].

Metabolomics is an emerging discipline that characterizes the small molecules (< 2000 Da) present in a biological sample that are closely related to an organism’s phenotype, providing wide information about biological systems and metabolism. However, it requires the use of robust bioinformatics techniques and statistical strategies to mine large amounts of data to extract relevant biological information, as well as other novel tools, such as mummichog, oriented to predict metabolic patterns that may be associated with a disease, rather than the individual identification of metabolites [7].

The present study aimed to compare in vivo plasma and urine metabolic differences between hypertensive 16-wks age SHR and normotensive healthy WKY rats, using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry non-targeted metabolomic strategies, to identify possible metabolic pathways that may be altered in the presence of hypertension, and could be related to hypertension development or to its pathological consequences.

Materials and methods

Animals and study design

A total of 20 (n = 10 SHR and n = 10 Wistar-Kyoto (WKY)). Animals were purchased at 8 weeks of age from Janvier Labs (CEDEX, France). All the rats had ad libitum access to food and water. The animals were fed a standard maintenance diet (Panlab) containing barley, wheat, maize, soybean meal, wheat bran, hydrolyzed fish proteins, dicalcium phosphate, a pre-mixture of minerals, calcium carbonate, a pre-mixture of vitamins, 68.9% carbohydrates (fiber 3.9%), 16.1% proteins, and 3.1% fat, during 8 weeks of follow up, and were euthanized at the age of 16 weeks. No differences in food or water intake were observed between the two groups. Animal experiment was performed in accordance with the guidelines set by the European Community Council Directives for the Ethical Care of Animals (86/609/EEC) and approved by the Ethics Committee of Laboratory Animals of the University of Granada (Spain, permit number 18/07/2017/099). This study was conducted according to the ARRIVE guidelines.

SBP was monitored to evaluate the state and evolution of the disease. SBP was measured by plethysmography in conscious rats (LE 5001-Pressure Meter, Letica SA, Barcelona, Spain). Animals were placed in individual restrainers that allow immobilization without the use of anesthesia and after habituation to this practice during several days prior to the measurement. At least seven determinations were made at every session, and the mean of the lowest three values within a range of 5 mmHg was set as the final SBP value. The rats were introduced into metabolic cages (Panlab, Barcelon, Spain) for 24-h urine collection. Food and water intake were monitored daily by weighing the remaining food or by measuring the remaining volume of water, respectively, allowing the calculation of daily food and water consumption. The present study was conducted in accordance with the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. All efforts were made to minimize animal suffering through constant clinical monitoring and environmental enrichment. Chemical restraint was achieved via intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration of Equitensin (2.5 mL/kg). Once a surgical plane of anesthesia was confirmed, blood samples for plasma variable determination were collected via abdominal aortic puncture using a beveled needle for fractional extraction. Finally, rats were euthanized by exsanguination while under deep anesthesia. Blood was centrifuged at 1750 × g for 10 min at 4°C. Aliquots of plasma were frozen immediately at −80°C until metabolomic analysis. In addition, after euthanasia, necropsy was performed and the heart, kidneys, liver, and tibia were collected and their absolute weights recorded to evaluate animal development and organ-specific involvement.

Metabolite extraction

Plasma and urine samples were thawed on ice and kept at 4°C during the entire extraction process and pretreated as described by Liu et al. with some modifications [8]. Briefly, 100 μl of plasma samples were deproteinized with 200 μl of a precipitation mixture containing acetonitrile, methanol, and acetone (8:1:1 v/v), vortexed, and placed at −20°C for 30 min to facilitate protein precipitation. The samples were centrifuged at 14800 rpm for 10 min at 4°C, and the supernatants were evaporated in an Eppendorf® Concentrator Plus evaporator centrifuge for 2 h. Dried samples were reconstituted in 100 μl of 0.1% formic acid in water, vortexed for 20 s, and incubated in an ice bath for 10 min. Subsequently, the samples were centrifuged at 14800 rpm for 10 min at 4°C, and 40 μl of the supernatant was transferred to a high-performance liquid Chromatography (HPLC) vial with 250 μl inserts. Five microliters of internal standard (IS) consisting of a mixture of roxithromycin 3 ppm, tryptophan-D5 5 ppm, hydroxydiclofenac 5 ppm, warfarin 3 ppm, ibuprofen 5 ppm, and bisphenol 3 ppm, were added prior the extraction [9]. The IS allowed the monitoring of instrument performance and aided chromatographic alignment. The prepared samples were stored at −80°C until their analysis.

In the case of urine, after measuring osmolarity (Gonotec Osmomat 030 D Osmometer) and adjusting for differences in hydration status among animals, all samples were diluted to 200 ± 20 mOsm/kg using Milli-Q water [10]. The samples were then centrifuged at 14800 rpm for 10 min at 4°C, 40 μl of the supernatant was transferred to an HPLC vial, and 5 µL of the abovementioned IS was added. The prepared samples were stored at −80 °C until analysis.

Quality control (QC) samples from plasma and urine were prepared by pooling equal volumes (20 μl) of all studied samples. Blanks were prepared using water.

HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS analysis

Samples were analyzed using an Agilent Series 1290 High Performance Chromatography (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) coupled to an AB SCIEX TripleTOF 5600 quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer (qTOF-MS), using a Waters Atlantis T3 C18 chromatographic column (2.1 mm x 150 mm, 3 µm, Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA), maintained at 30°C in the oven. The mobile phases used were 0.1% formic acid in a mixture of water (90:10) (A) and 0.1% formic acid in MeCN: water (90:10) (B). The column was eluted with the following gradient: 0 to 0.5 min, 0% eluent B, 0.5 to 11 min, 100% eluent B, which was maintained until 15.60 min and 0% of eluent B and 15.60–20 min 0% eluent B at a constant flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. The injection volume was 5 µl.

Triple TOF 5600 operating in positive- and negative-ion modes was employed for metabolite detection using a mass range of 50–1250 Da. The Triple TOF used a Duo Spray source with separate electrospray ionization (ESI) and atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization probes. The ESI parameters were as follows: positive mode, capillary voltage of 5000 V, nebulizer gas pressure of 50 psi, drying gas pressure of 50 psi, temperature of 500°C, and focusing potential of 100 V. Negative mode: capillary voltage −4500 V, nebulizer gas pressure, 50 psi; drying gas pressure, 50 psi; temperature, 500 °C; focusing potential, 100 V. The eight most intense ions in each cycle were fragmented.

To avoid possible bias the sample injection sequence was randomized, and QC samples were injected at the start of the analysis and every five samples to stabilize the instrument conditions, monitor the system performance and adjust the signal intensity drift within and between the batches.

Data acquisition and analysis

The MarkerView software (version 1.2.1, AB SCIEX, Concord, ON) was employed for data set creation with the following extraction parameters: retention time (RT) 1.20–15.00 min; offset subtraction 10 scans; Subtraction Mult. Factor 1.3, noise floor 50 counts per second (cps), minimum spectral peak width 0.02 Da; minimum peak width RT (4 scans); RT tolerance (0.12 min); mass tolerance (10 ppm); required number of samples (6), and maximum number of peaks at 5000. After aligning the data, anomalous results were filtered, and a raw data matrix was obtained.

Data preprocessing

From the raw data matrix, another matrix was extracted with RT, the mass-charge ratio (m/z), and the areas of metabolic characteristics detected. Alternative non-parametric measures of the relative standard deviation and the D-ratio were calculated with a cut-off point of 0.2 and 0.4, respectively. For missing values, imputation was performed using the random forest algorithm. All calculations were performed using the Notame package in R (v0.0.900) [11]. Subsequently, the data were evaluated to identify technical drift, which was corrected by modeling using a spline-cubic regression based on the QC samples and then corrected for the abundance of all samples by reversing the modeling effect of the drifts. This process was developed independently for each feature.

Multivariate and univariate statistical analyses

Multivariate statistical analyses were performed using SIMCA-P (V16; Sartorius Stedim Biotech, Umeå, Sweden) following the workflow described by Rangel-Huerta et al. [12]. Datasets were scaled by Pareto scaling. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to assess the quality of the metabolomic data on a QC basis to discard potential outliers, identify clustering patterns, and visualize the total variation of the metabolite profiles. Orthogonal Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) was used to identify metabolite patterns and specific features that could discriminate between groups. Seven-round cross-validation and 100 permutations were applied to this model, and subsequently, cross-validation analysis of variance (CV-ANOVA) was performed to assess the reliability of the models. Statistical significance was tested at a p-value ≤ 0.05. Additionally, R2X and Q2 were evaluated to assess robustness, considering that values close to one reflect a reliable model. Variable selection of the most relevant features was performed using an S-plot, considering p > 0.05, p(corr) > 0.5, and an adjusted p-value from a t-test (p < 0.05) was considered significant.

Pathway analysis and metabolite identification

The MS Peaks to Pathways module from MetaboAnalyst was employed to predict the pathway activity from untargeted mass spectral data was employed [13]. To this end, p-values and t-scores were determined for all metabolites in both the plasma and urine samples of the SHR and WKY groups. The analysis was performed in mixed mode (positive and negative) with the following parameters: 1) instrument mass precision of 10 ppm, 2) retention time (RT) in minutes, 3) p-value, 4) positive/negative analytical mode, and 5) Mummichog algorithm with a cut-off value of p ≤ 0.05 and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). To minimize false positives, pathways with an overlap size smaller than three were excluded from the analysis. R. norvegicus was selected from the KEGG pathway map for analysis. Pathways with a combined p-value (Mummichog and GSEA) ≤ 0.1 were considered significant.

Subsequently, KEGG GENOME (<https://www.genome.jp/kegg/kegg2.html>) was accessed using the codes of the compounds previously identified in MetaboAnalyst by applying a filter of sets of metabolites associated with the route, and the chemical compounds were annotated. Molecular annotation of the relevant compounds obtained in the multivariate analysis was carried out in SIRIUS 6.3.3 [14] and public databases using MS-DIAL software [15] or mzmine 4.8.5 [16]. The identity of the metabolites of interest was confirmed by considering the mass accuracy and true isotopic pattern in both the MS and MS/MS spectra provided by qTOF-MS.

Results

Animal description

The SBP, heart weight, and left ventricular weight were higher in SHR vs WKY rats, as well as water intake and diuresis, and heart rate tended to be higher (p = 0.054) (Table 1). The 24-h food intake was similar in SHR, as well as tibia length and kidney weight, while the body and liver weights were lower in SHR than in WKY rats (Table 1).

Table 1. Food and water intakes, body weight, diuresis, SBP and heart rate, and the tibia length, kidney weight, liver weight, heart weight, and the left ventricular weight, of the 16 weeks-old SHR and control Wistar-Kyoto rats.

SHR Wistar
Mean ± SEM Mean ± SEM P value
Food intake (g/d) 18.8 ± 1.2 18.1 ± 1.0 0.333
Body weight (g) 403.4 ± 9.7 444.9 ± 4.0 <0.010
Water intake (ml/d) 29.4 ± 2.6 21.4 ± 2.8 0.025
Diuresis (ml/d) 11.1 ± 0.8 6.1 ± 0.3 <0.001
SBP (mmHg) 197 ± 4 146 ± 3 <0.001
Heart rate (bpm) 349 ± 4 337 ± 6 0.054
Tibia length (mm) 49.9 ± 0.2 49.8 ± 0.3 0,404
Kidney weight (g) 1.25 ± 0.04 1.30 ± 0.02 0.157
Liver weight (g) 13.7 ± 0.6 15.0 ± 0.3 0.034
Heart weight (g) 1.33 ± 0.03 1.05 ± 0.01 <0.001
Left ventricular weight (g) 1.12 ± 0.02 0.86 ± 0.01 <0.001

Data are presented as mean ± SEM. P value indicates differences between groups. Student T-test was used to compare normal distribution variables. Bpm, beats per minute; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SEM, standard error of the mean; SHR, spontaneously hypertensive rats; WKY, Wistar Kyoto healthy rats.

LC-qTOF-MS untargeted metabolomics analysis

After pre-processing, quality assessment, data filtering, and clustering, a dataset containing 195 features in the positive mode and 174 in the negative mode for plasma and 162 features in the positive mode and 239 in the negative mode for urine was used for further statistical analysis.

An unsupervised multivariate statistical approach was used to compare the metabolomic differences between the SHR and WKY rats. The PCA score plots of plasma and urine (Fig 1A and 1B, respectively) indicated a good separation between the SHR and WKY animal models. The score plot for the first two principal components did not reveal any outliers.

Fig 1. PCA scores plot from LC-qTOF-MS data for the plasma (A) and urine (B) of SHR and WKY animal models.

Fig 1

Separation along the Y-axis represents variation between animal models. LC-qTOF-MS, Liquid Chromatography coupled to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer. PCA, principal component analysis; SHR, spontaneously hypertensive rats; WKY, Wistar Kyoto healthy rats.

Supervised multivariate analysis with OPLS-DA indicated a strong separation between the two groups (Scores plots are included as S1 File). One hundred permutation tests were conducted to evaluate the statistical robustness of plasma and urine OPLS-DA models. Good discrimination was observed between the two groups with values obtained for the plasma model: R2X (0.504), R2Ycum (0.954), Q2cum (0.874), and CV-ANOVA of 9.38E-06, and for the urine model: R2X (0.572), R2Ycum (0.977), Q2cum (0.837), and CV-ANOVA of 0.00253, thus indicating that the models were reliable and provided excellent prediction ability (Permutations plots are included as in S1 File). Additionally, the S-plot derived from the OPLS-DA models depicts a scatter plot that combines the modeled covariance (X-axis) and modeled correlation (Y-axis) from OPLS-DA, allowing the identification of interesting variables. Fig 2A and 2B show plasma and urine S-plots, respectively. Variables showing p[1] > 0.05 and p(corr) > 0.5 values were considered the most relevant metabolites for the differentiation between samples.

Fig 2. S-plot derived from the OPLS-DA model indicating plasma (A) and urine (B) biomarkers increased in WKY (upper right) and SHR (lower left).

Fig 2

Only variables with p > 0.05 and p(corr) > 0.5 were considered significant and presented in the plot. OPLS-DA, orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis; SHR, spontaneously hypertensive rats; WKY, Wistar Kyoto healthy rats.

Specific observations were made on the differential metabolites identified in the SHR compared to those in WKY rats. Of the 59 and 111 differential metabolites in plasma and urine, respectively, 16 and 13 were annotated in plasma and urine, respectively. These metabolites are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, indicating their RT, observed m/z, suggested ion, fragments from MS/MS experiments, probability, p(corr) value from S-plots, annotation, and family class. Spectral matching plots are included in S1 File.

Table 2. Plasma identified discriminant metabolites between SHR and WKY rats.

RT (min) Observed m/z Suggested ion Fragments Probability* p(corr) Direction Suggested annotation1 Family class
Negative ionization mode
4.83 283.083 [M – H]– 75.0077, 113.0226, 85.0293, 57.0337 100% 0.67 ↑ in SHR p-Cresol glucuronide Organic acids and derivatives
6.54 187.007 [M – H]– 107.0500 100% 0.06 ↑ in SHR p-Cresol sulfate Organic acids and derivatives
8.75 407.280 [M – H]– 389.2711, 345.2808 100% 0.80 ↑ in SHR Cholic acid Steroids and derivatives
10.26 538.313 [M + CH2O2 - H]– 478.2946, 253.2185 98% 0.75 ↑ in SHR LPC (16:1) Glycerophospholipids
10.69 524.278 [M – H] – 327.2322, 283.2428, 214.0489 93% 0.61 ↑ in SHR LPE (22:6) Glycerophospholipids
11.04 552.331 [M + CH2O2 - H]– 492.3098, 267.2335 99% 0.70 ↑ in SHR LPC (17:1) Glycerophospholipids
11.32 590.349 [M + CH2O2 - H]– 530.3276, 305.2507 90% 0.60 ↑ in SHR LPC (20:3) Glycerophospholipids
Positive ionization mode
8.77 426.321 [M + H3N + H]+ 355.2643, 373.2751 100% 0.82 ↑ in SHR Cholic acid Steroids and derivatives
9.83 468.309 [M + H]+ 184.0743, 450.2996, 104.1072 100% 0.64 ↑ in SHR LPC (14:0) Glycerophospholipids
10.04 494.324 [M + H]+ 184.0743 91% 0.78 ↑ in SHR LPE (16:1) Glycerophospholipids
10.06 542.326 [M + H]+ 184.0736, 524.3126, 104.1066 96% 0.60 ↑ in SHR LPC (20:5) Glycerophospholipids
10.26 494.323 [M + H]+ 476.3156, 184.0746, 104.1080 99% 0.74 ↑ in SHR LPC(16:1) Glycerophospholipids
11.04 508.342 [M + H]+ 184.0729, 490.3279 98% 0.72 ↑ in SHR LPC(17:1) Glycerophospholipids
11.53 546.354 [M + H]+ 184.0746, 528.3466, 104.1076 94% 0.63 ↑ in SHR LPC (20:3) Glycerophospholipids
11.72 480.309 [M + H]+ 339.2902, 462.2994, 100% 0.67 ↑ in SHR LPE (18:1) Glycerophospholipids
12.03 572.372 [M + H]+ 184.0738, 554.3624, 104.1072 92% 0.65 ↑ in SHR LPC (22:4) Glycerophospholipids

LPC, lysophosphatidylcholines; LPE, Lysophosphatidylethanolamine; m/z mass to charge ratio; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; RT retention time. *Corresponds to class assignment. Only those compounds that had MS/MS information have been included.

1All the annotations included are Level 2 according to the Metabolomics Standards Initiative

Table 3. Urine identified discriminant metabolites between SHR and WKY rats.

RT (min) Observed m/z Suggested ion Fragments Probability* p(corr) Direction Suggested annotation1 Family class
Negative ionization mode
1.43 243.062 [M – H]– 183.0410, 124.0259 98% −0.66 ↑ in Control Pseudouridine Nucleoside and nucleotide analogues
1.47 167.0211 [M – H]– 124.0148 99% −0.79 ↑ in Control Uric acid Organoheterocyclic compounds
1.65 191.0198 [M – H]– 173.0090, 103.0397 94% −0.52 ↑ in Control Citric acid Organic acids and derivatives
2.58 357.0839 [M – H]– 339.0720, 181.0502, 175.0250, 137.0602, 113.0237 100% 0.65 ↑ in SHR DHPPA (A-D-glucuronide) Organic oxygen compounds
3.55 326.0894 [M – H]– 175.0250, 150.0560, 108.0447, 113.0235 100% 0.50 ↑ in SHR Unknown Organic oxygen compounds
4.36 178.0518 [M – H]– 160.0394, 148.0406, 134.0613, 77.0393 100% 0.76 ↑ in SHR Hippuric acid Benzenoids
4.78 193.0513 [M – H]– 178.0280, 149.0610, 134.0376 96% 0.76 ↑ in SHR Ferulic acid Phenylpropanoids and polyketides
4.78 273.0091 [M – H]– 193.0507, 178.0275, 149.0608, 134.0371 97% 0.80 ↑ in SHR Ferulic acid-4-O-Sulfate Phenylpropanoids and polyketides
4.86 188.9870 [M – H]– 109.0292 99% −0.51 ↑ in Control Resorcinol monosulfate Organic acids and derivatives
4.89 283.0840 [M – H]– 107.0498, 175.0253, 157.0141, 113.0244, 85.0288 100% 0.70 ↑ in SHR p-Cresol glucuronide Organic oxygen compounds
5.18 231.0797 [M – H]– 74.0243, 156.0457, 128.0501 100% 0.67 ↑ in SHR Indole-3-acetyl-glycine Organic acids and derivatives
5.20 171.1036 [M – H]– 127.1124, 11.0804 100% −0.78 ↑ in Control 8-oxononanoate Organic acids and derivatives
5.70 297.0994 [M – H]– 121.0653, 175.0254, 113.0242, 85.0287 96% 0.56 4-Ethylphenol glucuronide Organic oxygen compounds
Positive ionization mode
4.66 180.065 [M + H]+ 105.0327, 77.0377 100% 0.70 ↑ in SHR Hippuric acid Benzenoids

DHPPA Dihydroxyphenylpropionic acid; m/z mass to charge ratio; RT retention time; TCA, tricarboxylic acids. *Corresponds to class assignment. Only those compounds that had MS/MS information have been included.

1All the annotations included are Level 2 according to the Metabolomics Standards Initiative

In plasma, two p-cresol derivatives, two adducts of cholic acid, and twelve glycerophospholipids, including nine phosphatidylcholines and three phosphatidylethanolamines, were significantly different in SHR compared to WKY, while in urine, 13 compounds were identified: one nucleoside, (pseudouridine); one organoheterocyclic compound (uric acid), four organic acids and derivatives, four organic oxygen compounds, one benzenoid, and two phenylpropanoids and polyketides.

Finally, the results of the pathway enrichment analysis of plasma and urinary metabolites significantly associated with SHR are shown in Fig 3A and 3B. These analyses show significant or borderline significant enrichment of several pathways related to hypertension in plasma, namely steroid hormone biosynthesis (combined p value = 0.0049), primary bile acid biosynthesis (combined p value = 0.063), and arachidonic acid metabolism (combined p value = 0.084) for plasma and purine metabolism in urine (combined p value = 0.0071).

Fig 3. Mummichog pathway enrichment analysis of plasma (A) and urine (B) metabolites.

Fig 3

Discussion

This study deepens the understanding of plasma and urine metabolic differences between 16-week-old hypertensive SHR and aged-matched normotensive WKR rats using LC-qTOF-MS non-targeted metabolomics approaches. Sixteen plasma and 13 urine metabolites were semiquantitatively found to be different after deconvolution and were tentatively annotated as a specific compound or as a chemical class. In addition, mummichog pathway enrichment analysis has been employed to integrate metabolomic data into biological contexts [17]. The mummichog algorithm recognizes specific metabolic pathways that act differentially in SHR and normotensive Wistar rats, mainly steroid hormones, from plasma and urine metabolites, and purine metabolism, from urine metabolites, in accordance with the individual compound annotation. In addition, gut microbiota and primary liver bile acid metabolism were altered in hypertensive rats.

The mummichog algorithm predicts the functional activities of metabolites and enables metabolic pathway-level analyses by searching for chemical identities, without the need to identify individual compounds. Therefore, we use this approach to contextualize the observed changes, which are initially ‘clouded’ by the presence of other, more abundant metabolites, such as LPCs, identified in the multivariate analysis. In sterol hormone biosynthesis pathway, mummichog pathway analysis identified several plasma metabolites, indicating that this metabolic pathway is affected in SHR. Specific types of hypertension caused by different forms of inherited mineralocorticoid pathway defects have been described [18,19]. In addition, a previous study reported that serum steroid hormone, progesterone, corticosterone, and cortisol concentrations differed significantly between SHR older than 10 weeks and their age-matched WKY rats, suggesting a role for progesterone in the development of hypertension [20], independent of other sex hormones [21]. This metabolic alteration may be implicated in stress-derived hypertension complications [22]. Therefore, preventive hypertension follow-up should be considered in patients with complications in steroid hormones biosynthesis to control the development of this disease and its complications.

Mummichog pathway analysis revealed altered purine metabolism in SHR, including increased urinary levels of uric acid, allantoic acid, and (S)-allantoin. Uric acid is the final oxidation product of purine metabolism in humans; however, in most mammals, such as rats, the hepatic uricase oxidizes uric acid to allantoin, which is subsequently excreted in the urine. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a significant association between hyperuricemia and hypertension [23]. The amount of urate in the blood depends on various lifestyle factors but is primarily determined by genetic factors that regulate the level of endogenous urate biosynthesis and the rate of uric acid excretion. Although the underlying molecular mechanisms are not yet fully understood, it seems that a reduction in endothelial nitric oxide production and stimulation of the vascular renin-angiotensin system, which increases angiotensin II production and subsequently vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and oxidative stress, may mediate the hypertensive effects of uric acid [24]. The present data confirm the alteration in the purine metabolism during hypertension, and recommend preventive hypertension monitoring strategies in people with increased uric acid levels.

In the present study, an elevation of citrate was detected in urine samples but not in plasma, suggesting that increased excretion may be a consequence of altered renal metabolism instead rather than systemic metabolism. Aconitase catalyzes the conversion of citrate to isocitrate and is inhibited by uric acid; therefore, the elevation of uric acid observed in SHR might be responsible for, or at least contribute to, the accumulation of citric acid in renal cells, which flows out of the mitochondria to the cytosol and is then excreted in the urine. In contrast, other studies have reported lower excretion of citric acid in urine from 11–20 weeks old SHR compared with age-matched WKY rats [25–27]. Therefore, a conclusion regarding citric acid metabolism in SHR cannot be drawn, and further investigation are needed to determine its relationship with hypertension.

Higher amounts of urine pseudouridine were found in the SHRs compared to WKY. Pseudouridine is the most widely distributed post-transcriptionally modified nucleotide formed by pseudouridine synthases in RNA which involved in epigenetic regulation of gene expression [28], including mitochondrial gene expression [29]. The knowledge of the role of mitochondria in the regulation of the smooth muscle phenotype and differentiation is increasing [30], and pseudouridine has been proposed as a potential biomarker of cardiac dysfunction [29,31,32]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no evidence has connected the epigenetic mechanism of pseudouridine with the pathogenesis of hypertension, and future studies are needed in this field.

Accumulating evidence suggests a key role for the gut microbiota in essential and experimental hypertension in animals and human [33–36]. Hypertensive animals and patients have decreased microbial richness, diversity, and evenness, and an increased Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio [37]. It has been demonstrated that hypertension contributes to unhealthy shifts of the gut microbiota [38]. The protective effects of different antihypertensive peptides have been attributed, at least in part, to their ability to modulate gut microbiota dysbiosis [39,40]. In SHR, differences in gut microbial composition have been reported compared with WKY rats, and blood pressure was regulated in SHR following cross fecal transplantation from WKY, while normotensive animals became hypertensive when receiving fecal transplantation from SHR animals [41]. Similarly, our results show differences in dietary-derived gut microbial metabolites, namely hippuric acid and diverse sulfated and glucuronidated products, between hypertensive and normotensive rats, which are not due to differences in the type and amount of diet since all animals ate the same.

Cholic acid is a discriminant metabolite that is lower in the plasma of SHR than that in WKY rats. In addition, mummichog algorithms have recognized the biosynthesis of primary bile acids as a metabolic pathway affected by SHR, including four taurine-derived salts. Other authors have suggested a protective effect of taurine-conjugated bile acids against the development of hypertension and have reported that bile acid conjugation was inversely associated with SBP. They described a distinct clustering of taurine-conjugated bile acids that was less abundant in genetically hypertensive Dahl rats than in normotensive animals, independent of salt consumption. Furthermore, the accumulation of microbiota-derived taurine-conjugated bile acids was associated with lower blood pressure, as well as with specific microbiota taxa [42]. Regarding tyrosine metabolism, p-cresol conjugates were lower in hypertensive SHR than in WKY rats, specifically plasma levels of p-cresol sulfate and glucuronide and urinary p-cresol glucuronide. In addition, a hypotensive effect of taurine in SHR, associated with an increase in p-cresol derivatives, has been observed, and may be mediated through the modulation of intestinal microbiota metabolism [25]. We also observed reduced levels of urinary hippuric acid, another gut microbiota-derived metabolite [43], in agreement with data described by Akira et al.[44] using an NMR-based metabonomic approach. Although one limitation of the present study is that gut microbiota composition was not analyzed, our findings suggest that gut microbiota dysbiosis is associated with hypertension, and further identify that derived primary liver bile acid metabolism is affected during hypertension. However, further studies are required to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

Although other authors have reported changes in the metabolic profiles associated with hypertension in animal models and humans [31], the relationship with glycerophospholipids remains controversial and appears to depends on the specific lipid class [6]. In 2022, Liu et al. identified eight blood pressure-related plasma phospholipids (six phosphatidylethanolamines and two phosphatidylcholines) with predictive value for hypertension risk [45], whereas other diacyl-phosphatidylcholines (C38:4 and C38:3) were associated with enhanced hypertension complications [46]. Onuh and Allani [6] reported that higher levels of different acyl-alkyl-phosphatidylcholines (C42:4 and C44:3) were associated with lower fatal hypertension in humans, possibly because of the protective antioxidant and inflammatory activities of these metabolites. Here, we identified lower plasma levels of some lysoglycerophospholipids in hypertensive rats than in normotensive rats. Decreased levels of lysophospatidylcholines have been observed in several inflammatory-based diseases, including pulmonary arterial hypertension, and are associated with increased mortality risk [47]. However, Jiang et al.[48] proposed lysophospatidylcholines as a biomarker of hypertension, suggesting that LDL oxidation may promote their generation, thereby interfering with nitric oxide production and contributing to hypertension. Therefore, further investigations in humans with hypertension are required to confirm certain assumptions related to glycerophospholipid metabolism.

Conclusion

The investigation of metabolites associated with hypertension and their consequences is of great interest for elucidating the underlying molecular mechanisms and assessing the risk of pathological consequences. Our research suggests an association between gut microbiota-derived metabolites, bile acids, steroid hormones, and purine metabolism with hypertension, which may represent either risk factors or consequences of the disease. Therefore, more investigations are required to clarify their roles.

Supporting information

S1 File. Scores plot and permutation test plots from OPLS-DA models in urine and plasma.

Spectral comparison between measured MS/MS of the most discriminant metabolites in samples and match in libraries.

(DOCX)

pone.0344682.s001.docx (551.8KB, docx)

Data Availability

All processed data from the metabolomics datasets is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15628770.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by Programa Operativo FEDER 2014-2020/Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Economía y Conocimiento/ Proyecto (B-AGR-257-UGR18); and by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain and the Junta and Andalucía, through the FEDER INNTERCONECTA Program of the Center for Industrial Technological Development (CDTI) -“CARDIOLIVE StudyProject No. ITC-20151142 (EXP 00083147), co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), and SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS DE MONTEFRÍO S. Coop. RICORS funded by the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan 2017-2020, ISCIII, and by the European Union – NextGeneration EU, ref. RD21/0012/0008, and RICORS funded by the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan 2021-2024, ISCIII, and by the European Union – NextGeneration EU, ref. RD24/0013/0007. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Hypertension. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension. Accessed 2023 October 1.
  • 2.Carey RM, Moran AE, Whelton PK. Treatment of Hypertension: A Review. JAMA. 2022;328(18):1849–61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.19590 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Folkow B. Physiological aspects of primary hypertension. Physiol Rev. 1982;62(2):347–504. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1982.62.2.347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jama HA, Muralitharan RR, Xu C, O’Donnell JA, Bertagnolli M, Broughton BRS, et al. Rodent models of hypertension. Br J Pharmacol. 2022;179(5):918–37. doi: 10.1111/bph.15650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sharma A, Kapur S, Kancharla P, Yang T. Sex differences in gut microbiota, hypertension, and cardiovascular risk. Eur J Pharmacol. 2025;987:177183. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2024.177183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Onuh JO, Aliani M. Metabolomics profiling in hypertension and blood pressure regulation: a review. Clin Hypertens. 2020;26(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40885-020-00157-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li S, Park Y, Duraisingham S, Strobel FH, Khan N, Soltow QA, et al. Predicting network activity from high throughput metabolomics. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(7):e1003123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu H, Garrett TJ, Tayyari F, Gu L. Profiling the metabolome changes caused by cranberry procyanidins in plasma of female rats using 1 H NMR and UHPLC‐Q‐Orbitrap‐HRMS global metabolomics approaches. Molecular Nutrition Food Research. 2015;59:2107–18. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201500236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.González-Olmedo C, García-Verdejo FJ, Reguera-Teba A, Rosa-Garrido C, López-López JA, Díaz-Beltrán L, et al. Metabolomics signature as a survival predictor in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. Clin Transl Med. 2024;14(1):e1541. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.1541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ulaszewska MM, Weinert CH, Trimigno A, Portmann R, Andres Lacueva C, Badertscher R, et al. Nutrimetabolomics: An Integrative Action for Metabolomic Analyses in Human Nutritional Studies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2019;63(1):e1800384. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201800384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Klåvus A, Kokla M, Noerman S, Koistinen VM, Tuomainen M, Zarei I, et al. “notame”: Workflow for Non-Targeted LC-MS Metabolic Profiling. Metabolites. 2020;10(4):135. doi: 10.3390/metabo10040135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rangel-Huerta OD, Uhlig S, Ivanova L, Dang TT, Rode TM, Noriega Fernández E, et al. Metabolomics workflow for quality control of differently-processed pre-cooked chicken fillets. Food Chem. 2022;370:131006. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chong J, Soufan O, Li C, Caraus I, Li S, Bourque G, et al. MetaboAnalyst 4.0: towards more transparent and integrative metabolomics analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W486–94. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dührkop K, Nothias L-F, Fleischauer M, Reher R, Ludwig M, Hoffmann MA, et al. Systematic classification of unknown metabolites using high-resolution fragmentation mass spectra. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39(4):462–71. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0740-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsugawa H, Cajka T, Kind T, Ma Y, Higgins B, Ikeda K, et al. MS-DIAL: data-independent MS/MS deconvolution for comprehensive metabolome analysis. Nat Methods. 2015;12(6):523–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schmid R, Heuckeroth S, Korf A, Smirnov A, Myers O, Dyrlund TS, et al. Integrative analysis of multimodal mass spectrometry data in MZmine 3. Nat Biotechnol. 2023;41(4):447–9. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01690-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lu Y, Pang Z, Xia J. Comprehensive investigation of pathway enrichment methods for functional interpretation of LC-MS global metabolomics data. Brief Bioinform. 2023;24(1):bbac553. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbac553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hassan-Smith Z, Stewart PM. Inherited forms of mineralocorticoid hypertension. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2011;18(3):177–85. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e3283469444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zennaro M-C, Boulkroun S, Fernandes-Rosa F. Inherited forms of mineralocorticoid hypertension. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;29(4):633–45. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2015.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kozłowska A, Wojtacha P, Równiak M, Kolenkiewicz M, Tsai M-L. Differences in serum steroid hormones concentrations in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats (SHR) - an animal model of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Physiol Res. 2019;68(1):25–36. doi: 10.33549/physiolres.933907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reckelhoff JF. Sex Differences in Regulation of Blood Pressure. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1065:139–51. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77932-4_9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chen S, Hu J, Lu D-C, Liu H-Y, Wei S-S. Metabolomic characteristics of spontaneously hypertensive rats under chronic stress and the treatment effect of Danzhi Xiaoyao Powder, a traditional Chinese medicine formula. J Integr Med. 2022;20(1):73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.joim.2021.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kuwabara M, Fukuuchi T, Aoki Y, Mizuta E, Ouchi M, Kurajoh M, et al. Exploring the Multifaceted Nexus of Uric Acid and Health: A Review of Recent Studies on Diverse Diseases. Biomolecules. 2023;13(10):1519. doi: 10.3390/biom13101519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cicero AFG, Salvi P, D’Addato S, Rosticci M, Borghi C, Brisighella Heart Study group. Association between serum uric acid, hypertension, vascular stiffness and subclinical atherosclerosis: data from the Brisighella Heart Study. J Hypertens. 2014;32(1):57–64. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328365b916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Akira K, Hichiya H, Morita M, Shimizu A, Mitome H. Metabonomic study on the biochemical response of spontaneously hypertensive rats to chronic taurine supplementation using (1)H NMR spectroscopic urinalysis. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2013;85:155–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2013.07.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Akira K, Masu S, Imachi M, Mitome H, Hashimoto M, Hashimoto T. 1H NMR-based metabonomic analysis of urine from young spontaneously hypertensive rats. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008;46(3):550–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2007.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fujiwara M, Arifuku K, Ando I, Nemoto T. Pattern recognition analysis for classification of hypertensive model rats and diurnal variation using 1H-NMR spectroscopy of urine. Anal Sci. 2005;21(11):1259–62. doi: 10.2116/analsci.21.1259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang C, Hou X, Guan Q, Zhou H, Zhou L, Liu L, et al. RNA modification in cardiovascular disease: implications for therapeutic interventions. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023;8(1):412. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01638-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wu Y, Zhan S, Xu Y, Gao X. RNA modifications in cardiovascular diseases, the potential therapeutic targets. Life Sci. 2021;278:119565. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pearce WJ. Mitochondrial influences on smooth muscle phenotype. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2024;326(2):C442–8. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00354.2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ajoolabady A, Pratico D, Dunn WB, Lip GYH, Ren J. Metabolomics: Implication in cardiovascular research and diseases. Obes Rev. 2024;25(12):e13825. doi: 10.1111/obr.13825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dunn WB, Broadhurst DI, Deepak SM, Buch MH, McDowell G, Spasic I, et al. Serum metabolomics reveals many novel metabolic markers of heart failure, including pseudouridine and 2-oxoglutarate. Metabolomics. 2007;3(4):413–26. doi: 10.1007/s11306-007-0063-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abboud FM, Cicha MZ, Ericsson A, Chapleau MW, Singh MV. Altering Early Life Gut Microbiota Has Long-Term Effect on Immune System and Hypertension in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Front Physiol. 2021;12:752924. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.752924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chen Z, Qi L, Wang J, Nie K, Peng X, Chen L, et al. Research trends and hotpots on the relationship between high salt and hypertension: A bibliometric and visualized analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(41):e35492. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiao Y, Li W, Zhang Q, Jiang Q. Gut microbiota and hypertension: a bibliometric analysis of recent research (2014-2023). Front Nutr. 2023;10:1253803. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1253803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Muralitharan RR, Jama HA, Xie L, Peh A, Snelson M, Marques FZ. Microbial Peer Pressure: The Role of the Gut Microbiota in Hypertension and Its Complications. Hypertension. 2020;76(6):1674–87. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yang T, Santisteban MM, Rodriguez V, Li E, Ahmari N, Carvajal JM. Gut dysbiosis is linked to hypertension. Hypertension. 2015;65:1331–40. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vemuri R, Ruggiero A, Whitfield JM, Dugan GO, Cline JM, Block MR, et al. Hypertension promotes microbial translocation and dysbiotic shifts in the fecal microbiome of nonhuman primates. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2022;322(3):H474–85. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00530.2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huan P, Sun L, Chen S, Zhong Y, Zhuang Y. A peptide from Boletus griseus-Hypomyces chrysospermus protects against hypertension and associated cardiac and renal damage through modulating RAAS and intestinal microbiota. J Food Sci. 2025;90(1):e17617. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.17617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Li J, Wei W, Ma X, Ji J, Ling X, Xu Z, et al. Antihypertensive effects of rice peptides involve intestinal microbiome alterations and intestinal inflammation alleviation in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Food Funct. 2025;16(5):1731–59. doi: 10.1039/d4fo04251d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Xu X, Jin H, Li X, Yan C, Zhang Q, Yu X, et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Regulates Blood Pressure by Altering Gut Microbiota Composition and Intestinal Mucosal Barrier Function in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2025;17(6):4066–79. doi: 10.1007/s12602-024-10344-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chakraborty S, Lulla A, Cheng X, Yeo J-Y, Mandal J, Yang T, et al. Conjugated bile acids are nutritionally re-programmable antihypertensive metabolites. J Hypertens. 2023;41(6):979–94. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000003423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Goodwin BL, Ruthven CR, Sandler M. Gut flora and the origin of some urinary aromatic phenolic compounds. Biochem Pharmacol. 1994;47(12):2294–7. doi: 10.1016/0006-2952(94)90268-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Akira K, Masu S, Imachi M, Mitome H, Hashimoto T. A metabonomic study of biochemical changes characteristic of genetically hypertensive rats based on (1)H NMR spectroscopic urinalysis. Hypertens Res. 2012;35(4):404–12. doi: 10.1038/hr.2011.182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Liu J, de Vries PS, Del Greco M F, Johansson Å, Schraut KE, Hayward C, et al. A multi-omics study of circulating phospholipid markers of blood pressure. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):574. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04446-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dietrich S, Floegel A, Weikert C, Prehn C, Adamski J, Pischon T, et al. Identification of Serum Metabolites Associated With Incident Hypertension in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam Study. Hypertension. 2016;68(2):471–7. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Knuplez E, Marsche G. An Updated Review of Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Plasma Lysophosphatidylcholines in the Vascular System. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(12):4501. doi: 10.3390/ijms21124501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jiang H, Nie L, Li Y, Xie J. Application of ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry to metabonomic study on spontaneously hypertensive rats and intervention effects of Ping Gan prescription. J Sep Sci. 2012;35(4):483–9. doi: 10.1002/jssc.201100769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rami Najjar

15 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Rangel Huerta,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Rami Salim Najjar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

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

3. We 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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

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. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is inadequately prepared, with serious inconsistencies between the cited figures in the main text, their captions, and the corresponding content of figures. Notably, the figures presented do not align with or support the results. Even after the authors reload the figures, the study demonstrates limited novelty and insufficient scholarly contribution. Furthermore, the experimental results show minimal divergence from those reported in previous research. Given these concerns, publication of this work in the journal is not recommended.

Reviewer #2: This study focuses on non-targeted metabolomic differences in plasma and urine between 16-week-old spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and age-matched normotensive Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats, representing a research direction of some value. However, the manuscript exhibits several critical flaws that preclude its publication.

1.Figures 1, 2, and 3 are completely irrelevant to the article, and crucial representative figures are missing.

2.Low Confidence in Differential Metabolite Identification: Only 16 plasma and 13 urinary differential metabolites were annotated. This represents an extremely low proportion of the total differential features screened (59 in plasma and 111 in urine). The failure to identify a substantial number of potential key metabolites undermines the completeness of the study.

3.Superficial and Disconnected Results Analysis: The interpretation of the biological significance of the differential metabolites remains superficial. There is a lack of in-depth analysis linking the findings to the pathophysiological mechanisms of hypertension. For instance, while differences in gut microbiota-derived metabolites are mentioned, the discussion fails to explore the specific mechanisms linking these metabolites to blood pressure regulation.

4.The Discussion largely merely repeats the Results section and does not adequately contrast the findings of this study with previous research, discussing both consistencies and discrepancies with the existing literature.

Reviewer #3: Reviewer’s Comments

Journal: PLOS One

Article: New insights into the plasma and urinary metabolomic signatures of spontaneously

hypertensive rats

Authors: Huerta et al.

Overview

This work aimed to explore the plasma and urinary non-targeted metabolic profile of 16-week-old spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) to identify new metabolomic profiles associated with hypertensive phenotypical characteristics. This study is very important to create better understanding of the pathogenesis of diseases like hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases and their complications. Additionally, it will also identify biomarkers for these conditions as well as associated metabolic mechanisms and pathways by which they modulate these conditions. The study therefore, hoped to offer alternative approaches for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The concept was well thought out and the various analyses were clearly designed to address the objectives of the study. The results obtained and reasons adduced for the reported effects and conclusions drawn are succinct to support the mechanisms. However, there were so many flaws in the study in its current form that should be resolved to make it publishable.

Major comments

1. The authors did not state the age at which the animals were purchased? Were they purchased at 5 weeks of age and kept until 16 weeks of age before termination and sample collection? Or, were they purchased at 16 weeks which was the time of termination and sample collection?

2. How long was the “SBP was monitored to evaluate the state of the disease?”

3. Was SBP measurement done in conscious or unconscious animals? If in conscious state, what measures were taken to restrain the animals so that BP readings are not affected by their unrestrained movements? If in unconscious state, what was the procedure for rendering the animals unconscious? The method was not detailed enough to give the reader a clearer picture for replication.

4. How ideal is the Mummichog software for biomarker identification since it only identifies significantly enriched metabolic pathways to create hypotheses by bypassing the need to fully identify every single metabolite? Without fully identifying individual metabolites in the system, it will be difficult to have a clear picture of metabolites that may be significantly changing and could be considered biomarkers for the disease or condition.

5. For the plasma and urine metabolomics samples preparation, were internal standards used, and if so, what was the internal standard and at what concentration/sample?

6. In the results section (3.1), the authors discussed the heart weight, left ventricular weight, water intake, diuresis, and heart rates and other organ weights. These were not discussed in the methodology section previously to give an idea of what was done in the various methods, especially with regards to organ collection.

7. Page 11, last paragraph, “The supervised multivariate analysis OPLS-DA indicated a strong separation between the two groups (data not shown).” Why would the data for such an important information not be shown to give readers an idea of the separation between the 2 groups?

8. Page 24, Table 1; why the middle line between heart rate and tibia length?

9. Page 25, Table 2; the authors need to create a column to shown which of the metabolites were either upregulated or down-regulated.

10. Page 26, Table 3; the authors need to create a column to shown which of the metabolites were either upregulated or down-regulated.

11. I am not sure if figure 1 was for this particular study, as it resembles a clinical study more than the animal study.

12. The figures are not properly aligned with the titles. Check that they represent what they claimed to be.

13. Notable pathways and mechanisms for hypertension especially oxidative stress and inflammation were not reported by this study, suggesting a limitation in the Mummichog software used and therefore, the need for more high throughput software to validate the outcomes.

Minor comments

1. There are some typographical errors throughout the texts that needs revisions. Since they manuscript lacked line numbers, it was difficult outlining specific errors.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: John OnuhJohn Onuh

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments_PONE-D-25-40750.docx

pone.0344682.s002.docx (16.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Apr 3;21(4):e0344682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344682.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Jan 2026

Reviewer’s Comments

Journal: PLOS One

Article: New insights into the plasma and urinary metabolomic signatures of spontaneously

hypertensive rats

Authors: Huerta et al.

Overview

This work aimed to explore the plasma and urinary non-targeted metabolic profile of 16-week-old spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) to identify new metabolomic profiles associated with hypertensive phenotypical characteristics. This study is very important to create better understanding of the pathogenesis of diseases like hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases and their complications. Additionally, it will also identify biomarkers for these conditions as well as associated metabolic mechanisms and pathways by which they modulate these conditions. The study therefore, hoped to offer alternative approaches for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The concept was well thought out and the various analyses were clearly designed to address the objectives of the study. The results obtained and reasons adduced for the reported effects and conclusions drawn are succinct to support the mechanisms. However, there were so many flaws in the study in its current form that should be resolved to make it publishable.

Major comments

1. The authors did not state the age at which the animals were purchased? Were they purchased at 5 weeks of age and kept until 16 weeks of age before termination and sample collection? Or, were they purchased at 16 weeks which was the time of termination and sample collection?

R: Thank you for your comments. Rats were purchased at 8 weeks of age and kept until 16 weeks of age before termination and sample collection. We have clarified this issue in Page 6, line 64.

2. How long was the “SBP was monitored to evaluate the state of the disease?”

R: Thank you for your comments, SBP was monitored to check the evolution of the disease. We have clarified this issue in Page 7, line 78-84.

3. Was SBP measurement done in conscious or unconscious animals? If in conscious state, what measures were taken to restrain the animals so that BP readings are not affected by their unrestrained movements? If in unconscious state, what was the procedure for rendering the animals unconscious? The method was not detailed enough to give the reader a clearer picture for replication.

R: Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) are measured in conscious rats using a non-invasive tail-cuff plethysmography system (LE 5001 Pressure Meter, Letica SA, Barcelona, Spain). Animals are first habituated to the procedure on several days prior to the experiment to minimize stress-related artifacts. On the day of measurement, rats are placed in individual restrainers that allow immobilization without the use of anesthesia. The tail is gently extended through the rear opening of the restrainer. This information has been included in Page 7, line 78-84.

4. How ideal is the Mummichog software for biomarker identification since it only identifies significantly enriched metabolic pathways to create hypotheses by bypassing the need to fully identify every single metabolite? Without fully identifying individual metabolites in the system, it will be difficult to have a clear picture of metabolites that may be significantly changing and could be considered biomarkers for the disease or condition.

R: The results of mummichog are very relevant to provide an insight into the pathways that might be altered. We used this approach for double crossing with the univariate/multivariate analysis. As we had some potential annotations but we were not able to run MS/MS experiments to confirm the identity, we used the combined information to increase the confidence in our annotations.

5. For the plasma and urine metabolomics samples preparation, were internal standards used, and if so, what was the internal standard and at what concentration/sample?

R: This information was included in page 8 as follows: “Five microliters of internal standard (IS) consisting of a mixture of roxithromycin 3 ppm, tryptophan-D5 5 ppm, hydroxydiclofenac 5 ppm, warfarin 3 ppm, ibuprofen 5 ppm, and bisphenol 3 ppm , were added prior the extraction”.

6. In the results section (3.1), the authors discussed the heart weight, left ventricular weight, water intake, diuresis, and heart rates and other organ weights. These were not discussed in the methodology section previously to give an idea of what was done in the various methods, especially with regards to organ collection.

R: Methodology details has been included:

“Food and water intake were monitored daily by weighing the remaining food or by measuring the remaining volume of water, respectively, allowing the calculation of daily food and water consumption.” (in page 7, lines 85-88).

“In addition, after euthanasia, necropsy was performed and the heart, kidneys, liver, and tibia were collected and their absolute weights recorded to evaluate animal development and organ-specific involvement.” (in page 7, lines 90-93).

7. Page 11, last paragraph, “The supervised multivariate analysis OPLS-DA indicated a strong separation between the two groups (data not shown).” Why would the data for such an important information not be shown to give readers an idea of the separation between the 2 groups?

R: In this context, the plots are omitted, but the model's quality metrics are included. We chose not to present the scores plot because we consider the metrics to be more meaningful; these models often overfit, even with random data, making the plots less informative than the metrics themselves. The phrase has been rewritten (L198)

8. Page 24, Table 1; why the middle line between heart rate and tibia length?

R: Thank you for the comment. This was an error that has been eliminated.

9. Page 25, Table 2; the authors need to create a column to shown which of the metabolites were either upregulated or down-regulated.

R: The column is now included to facilitate the interpretation of the results.

10. Page 26, Table 3; the authors need to create a column to shown which of the metabolites were either upregulated or down-regulated.

R: The column is now included to facilitate the interpretation of the results.

11. I am not sure if figure 1 was for this particular study, as it resembles a clinical study more than the animal study.

R: The correct figure is now attached.

12. The figures are not properly aligned with the titles. Check that they represent what they claimed to be.

R: The correct figure is now attached.

13. Notable pathways and mechanisms for hypertension especially oxidative stress and inflammation were not reported by this study, suggesting a limitation in the Mummichog software used and therefore, the need for more high throughput software to validate the outcomes.

R: The use of Mummichog in our study is based on its ability to infer metabolic pathway enrichment directly from global metabolomics data without requiring prior identification of all metabolites, which is particularly suitable for exploratory analyses based on high-resolution LC-MS. The absence of pathways classically associated with hypertension, such as oxidative stress or inflammation, does not necessarily imply that these biological processes are not involved, but may reflect inherent limitations in the coverage of metabolites in reference databases, the representation of these pathways, and the statistical criteria for enrichment. In this context, pathways with a small number of annotated metabolites or insufficiently represented m/z signals may not reach statistical significance, even when the underlying processes are biologically active. Therefore, this limitation is not unique to Mummichog, but common to enrichment-based pathway analysis approaches in untargeted metabolomics studies. We agree with the reviewer that the application of complementary tools and more in-depth approaches, including methods based on identified metabolites and cross-validation with alternative software, could strengthen the biological interpretation and will be considered in future studies.

Minor comments

1. There are some typographical errors throughout the texts that needs revisions. Since they manuscript lacked line numbers, it was difficult outlining specific errors.

R: The manuscript has been carefully revised, and several corrections were made across it.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments_PONE-D-25-40750_final.docx

pone.0344682.s004.docx (20.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Rami Najjar

5 Feb 2026

Dear Dr. Rangel Huerta,

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 Mar 22 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Rami Salim Najjar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Major Concerns

Unjustified Internal Standard (IS) Selection (Page 8, line 101; Response to Comment 5):

The IS mixture used is atypical for a non-targeted metabolomics study of endogenous metabolites. Its composition (mainly pharmaceuticals with only one stable isotope-labeled standard) has poor physicochemical resemblance to the key metabolite classes identified (e.g., bile acids, glycerophospholipids). The authors must provide a detailed justification in the Methods or Discussion for this specific choice, explaining how each component monitors technical variance relevant to their analyte panel. Furthermore, they should critically evaluate and cite the age and context of any literature that employs a similar IS protocol, acknowledging this as a potential limitation for quantitative rigor if modern best practices were not followed.

Insufficient Metabolite Identification Confidence:

There is a contradiction between the response (stating MS/MS was not run for confirmation) and the data presented in Tables 2 & 3 (listing "Fragments"). The confidence level for all metabolite annotations must be explicitly stated (e.g., following Metabolomics Standards Initiative guidelines). Supporting MS/MS spectra for key annotated metabolites should be provided in the supplementary information.

Deficient Data Presentation and Visualization:

OPLS-DA Plots: The decision to omit score plots is unacceptable. Visual assessment of group separation is essential. The OPLS-DA score plots and corresponding permutation test plots for both plasma and urine models must be provided (Main or Supplementary Figures).

S-Plots (Figure 2): The most discriminating metabolites (variables) should be clearly labeled in the S-plots to align with the data in Tables 2 & 3, enhancing reader interpretation.

PCA Plot (Figure 1A): The presented plasma PCA plot shows incomplete separation between groups. This should be acknowledged and discussed in the context of the model's performance and the stronger separation suggested by the OPLS-DA parameters.

Tables 2 & 3: These tables appear truncated or misformatted in the manuscript file. They must be checked and presented completely and clearly.

Specific Editorial and Technical Corrections

Reference Callouts: Several references are listed in the text (e.g., 1, 2, 3) but are not properly cited with superscript numbers in the relevant sentences. All in-text citations must be correctly placed.

Formatting Consistency: The manuscript exhibits inconsistent paragraph indentation. Formatting must be unified according to the journal's style guide.

Text Errors: Please remove the extra space in line 102.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all my previous concerns and the manuscript is now in a better shape to be accepted for publication. I therefore, have no concern anymore regarding the quality of the manuscript in its present form.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. John O. OnuhDr. John O. Onuh

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 3;21(4):e0344682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344682.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Feb 2026

Reviewer #2: Major Concerns

Unjustified Internal Standard (IS) Selection (Page 8, line 101; Response to Comment 5):

The IS mixture used is atypical for a non-targeted metabolomics study of endogenous metabolites. Its composition (mainly pharmaceuticals with only one stable isotope-labeled standard) has poor physicochemical resemblance to the key metabolite classes identified (e.g., bile acids, glycerophospholipids). The authors must provide a detailed justification in the Methods or Discussion for this specific choice, explaining how each component monitors technical variance relevant to their analyte panel. Furthermore, they should critically evaluate and cite the age and context of any literature that employs a similar IS protocol, acknowledging this as a potential limitation for quantitative rigor if modern best practices were not followed.

R: Thank you for the observation. We included internal standards (IS) to monitor instrument stability and to normalize sample-to-sample variation, not for quantitative purposes. To avoid interference with sample signals, we specifically selected IS compounds whose chromatographic peaks do not overlap with signals observed in our samples. This rationale has been validated in our prior studies, where the chosen IS performed as intended without overlapping sample features and without compromising data integrity. Reference 9 has been included in page 8.

Insufficient Metabolite Identification Confidence:

There is a contradiction between the response (stating MS/MS was not run for confirmation) and the data presented in Tables 2 & 3 (listing "Fragments"). The confidence level for all metabolite annotations must be explicitly stated (e.g., following Metabolomics Standards Initiative guidelines). Supporting MS/MS spectra for key annotated metabolites should be provided in the supplementary information.

R: Unfortunately, the response was not correctly formulated. We did not run MS/MS of chemical standards to validate the MS/MS from our analysis. Spectral Data is now attached as Supplemental material and level of confidence is included in the tables.

Deficient Data Presentation and Visualization:

OPLS-DA Plots: The decision to omit score plots is unacceptable. Visual assessment of group separation is essential. The OPLS-DA score plots and corresponding permutation test plots for both plasma and urine models must be provided (Main or Supplementary Figures).

In this context, the plots were omitted, but the model's quality metrics are included. We chose not to present the scores plot because we consider the metrics to be more meaningful; these models often overfit, even with random data, making the plots less informative than the metrics themselves. However, as suggested by the reviewer, the phrase has been rewritten (L198) and the plots are included as supplemental material.

S-Plots (Figure 2): The most discriminating metabolites (variables) should be clearly labeled in the S-plots to align with the data in Tables 2 & 3, enhancing reader interpretation.

R: The information has been attached.

PCA Plot (Figure 1A): The presented plasma PCA plot shows incomplete separation between groups. This should be acknowledged and discussed in the context of the model's performance and the stronger separation suggested by the OPLS-DA parameters.

R: PCA is a non-supervised analysis where no label is assigned to the samples, therefore is a valid approach to explore if clustering is present through an unbiased technique. The separation between groups is clear and complete although there is variation within the groups. The OPLS-DA analysis as a supervised approach is characterized by isolation of any orthogonal variation. In this case, this within group variation is properly handed by the modeling and therefore the group variation is maximized.

Tables 2 & 3: These tables appear truncated or misformatted in the manuscript file. They must be checked and presented completely and clearly.

R: Tables are now adjusted to a proper format

Specific Editorial and Technical Corrections

Reference Callouts: Several references are listed in the text (e.g., 1, 2, 3) but are not properly cited with superscript numbers in the relevant sentences. All in-text citations must be correctly placed.

R: The references have been checked and modified accordingly.

Formatting Consistency: The manuscript exhibits inconsistent paragraph indentation. Formatting must be unified according to the journal's style guide. Text Errors: Please remove the extra space in line 102.

R: The formatting has been checked and changed accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers_response_final.pdf

pone.0344682.s005.pdf (65.3KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Rami Najjar

25 Feb 2026

New insights into the plasma and urinary metabolomic signatures of spontaneously hypertensive rats

PONE-D-25-40750R2

Dear Dr. Rangel Huerta,

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  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,

Rami Salim Najjar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Rami Najjar

PONE-D-25-40750R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Rangel Huerta,

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. Rami Salim Najjar

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. Scores plot and permutation test plots from OPLS-DA models in urine and plasma.

    Spectral comparison between measured MS/MS of the most discriminant metabolites in samples and match in libraries.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344682.s001.docx (551.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comments_PONE-D-25-40750.docx

    pone.0344682.s002.docx (16.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comments_PONE-D-25-40750_final.docx

    pone.0344682.s004.docx (20.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers_response_final.pdf

    pone.0344682.s005.pdf (65.3KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All processed data from the metabolomics datasets is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15628770.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES