Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Mar 16;15(3):e0229797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229797

Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome

Michelle C Coleman 1,, Canaan Whitfield-Cargile 1,‡,*, Noah D Cohen 1, Jennifer L Goldsby 2, Laurie Davidson 2, Ana M Chamoun-Emanuelli 1, Ivan Ivanov 3, Susan Eades 1, Nancy Ing 4, Robert S Chapkin 2
Editor: Sripathi M Sureban5
PMCID: PMC7075554  PMID: 32176710

Abstract

Evaluating the health and function of the gastrointestinal tract can be challenging in all species, but is especially difficult in horses due to their size and length of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Isolation of mRNA of cells exfoliated from the GI mucosa into feces (i.e., the exfoliome) offers a novel means of non-invasively examining the gene expression profile of the GI mucosa. This approach has been utilized in people with colorectal cancer. Moreover, we have utilized this approach in a murine model of GI inflammation and demonstrated that the exfoliome reflects the tissue transcriptome. The ability of the equine exfoliome to provide non-invasive information regarding the health and function of the GI tract is not known. The objective of this study was to characterize the gene expression profile found in exfoliated intestinal epithelial cells from normal horses and compare the exfoliome data with the tissue mucosal transcriptome. Mucosal samples were collected from standardized locations along the GI tract (i.e. ileum, cecum, right dorsal colon, and rectum) from four healthy horses immediately following euthanasia. Voided feces were also collected. RNA isolation, library preparation, and RNA sequencing was performed on fecal and intestinal mucosal samples. Comparison of gene expression profiles from the tissue and exfoliome revealed correlation of gene expression. Moreover, the exfoliome contained reads representing the diverse array of cell types found in the GI mucosa suggesting the equine exfoliome serves as a non-invasive means of examining the global gene expression pattern of the equine GI tract.

Introduction

Gastrointestinal (GI) disease is of considerable importance to horses and the horse industry, second only to old age as a cause of death [1]. Two decades ago, the cost of colic to the equine industry was $115 million annually, and with continued growth of the equine industry and increasing costs of health care, the staggering financial burden continues to grow [2]. Despite vast research efforts aimed at identifying preventative and treatment strategies for equine GI diseases, they remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the horse. The cause of colic in the horse varies considerably, including simple obstructive lesions, strangulating obstructive lesions, and inflammatory conditions. The pathophysiology of these conditions is often poorly understood, resulting in a decreased ability to manage and prevent disease.

An important limitation to understanding the pathogenesis of GI disease and assessing GI health is the lack of non-invasive tools to assess cellular and molecular GI function. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are frequently utilized in assessing the GI tract in human and small animal medicine, but animal size precludes use of these imaging modalities in horses. Abdominal ultrasonography is widely utilized to examine the equine GI tract and has greatly advanced our ability to accurately diagnose intestinal diseases. Sonographic assessment of the GI tract is limited by the acoustics of the gas-filled intestine [3]. Importantly, irrespective of species, imaging alone does not provide information regarding function of the GI tract at the cellular or molecular level. Currently, intestinal mucosal biopsy is the only available means to provide mechanistic and functional data, but several practical limitations to this approach exist. Endoscopic biopsies can only be obtained from the stomach, duodenum, or rectum. While these biopsies can have diagnostic utility, they do not provide a global view of the GI tract [4]. Samples from other anatomic sites can be acquired via surgical biopsies obtained through traditional open surgical or laparoscopic approaches. Surgical biopsies, however, have several disadvantages including surgical complications, limited ability to biopsy several anatomic locations, and most importantly, the inability to easily obtain longitudinal (sequential) data from individuals regarding intestinal function and health for the purpose of monitoring response to therapy.

Non-invasive coprological assays have been used commonly in people and other animals to diagnose GI disease [57]. For example, fecal calprotectin is used to diagnose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory disease (NSAID) enteropathy in people and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in dogs [5, 8]. Similar markers of intestinal disease have not been well-studied or validated in horses. Importantly, these are merely markers of inflammation which do not provide mechanistic insight into the cause of the inflammation which would better direct therapeutic interventions. Thus, great clinical and investigative needs exist for the development of non-invasive methods to characterize the health and function of the GI tract to more effectively identify, study, and manage equine intestinal disorders.

A potential strategy to address this limitation is the use of exfoliated intestinal epithelial cells found in feces. Approximately 1/3 of human colonic epithelial cells (up to 1010 cells in an adult) are exfoliated and shed in the feces daily [9]. A technique to isolate and sequence the mRNA (host transcriptome) from exfoliated intestinal epithelial cells, termed the exfoliome, has been validated in the context of colorectal cancer and neonatal GI development in humans [1014]. This technique has been utilized in a murine model of NSAID enteropathy, validating its ability to classify animals with GI inflammation [15]. This methodology provides a global view of GI health by assessing the mucosal transcriptome of host cells exfoliated into the GI lumen from the mucosa. To the authors’ knowledge, comprehensive evaluation of the transcriptome of the equine GI tract has not been performed. Thus, the objectives of this study were to characterize the gene expression profile found in exfoliated intestinal epithelial cells from normal horses and to compare these data with the tissue mucosal transcriptome from specific locations along the equine GI tract.

Materials and methods

Sample population and sample collection

Horses donated to Texas A&M College of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences for euthanasia for reasons unrelated to GI disease were included in this study. All horses were administered xylazine (AnaSed®; 1.1 mg/kg I.V.) and ketamine (Ketaset®; 2.2 mg/kg I.V.) prior to euthanasia with potassium chloride (960 mEq I.V.). Feces were collected via rectal palpation immediately following euthanasia, homogenized in RNA Shield® (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA), and stored at -80°C until processed. A ventral midline incision was performed in routine fashion to gain access to the abdomen. The GI tract was exteriorized and within 10 minutes of euthanasia mucosal samples (1 cm x 1 cm) were collected from the ileum, cecum, right dorsal colon, and rectum. RNA isolation, library preparation, and RNA sequencing were performed similarly for fecal and intestinal mucosal samples. This study was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC 2016–0301).

RNA isolation and sequencing from exfoliated cells

PolyA+ RNA was isolated from fecal samples as previously described [10, 11, 14]. Briefly, RNA was extracted using a commercially available kit (Active Motif, Carslbad, CA), quantified (Nanodrop spectrophotometer; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), and quality assessed (Bioanalyzer 2100; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). Each sample was processed with the NuGen Ovation 3’-DGE kit (San Carlos, CA) to convert RNA into cDNA. Following cDNA fragment repair and purification, Illumina adaptors were ligated onto fragment ends and amplified to create the final library. Libraries were quantified using the NEBNext Library Quant kit for Illumina (NEB, Ipswich, MA) and run on an Agilent DNA High Sensitivity Chip to confirm sizing and the exclusion of adapter dimers.

RNA isolation from tissue

RNA was extracted from the mucosa of the ileum, cecum, right dorsal colon, and rectum using an E.Z.N.A.® Total RNA kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA) following the manufacturer’s protocol, including on-column DNase treatment. RNA quality was determined using the Nano6000 chip on a Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies). Sequencing libraries were made using 250 ng of RNA and the TruSeq RNA Sample Preparation kit (Illumina) following the manufacturer’s protocol.

Data analysis

The datasets utilized for the current study are available via the NCBI bioproject (accession number PRJNA575706) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/. Sequencing data were multiplexed and assessed for quality using FastQC. Reads were aligned using Spliced Transcripts Alignment to a reference software with default parameters and referenced against the genome of the horse (EquCab 3.0) [16]. Differentially expressed genes were determined using EdgeR base on the matrix of gene counts [17]. Gene pathway intersections and involvement were analyzed using QIAGEN’s Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA, QIAGEN, Redwood City, CA) by uploading gene lists with fold-change and false discovery rate p-values. Statistical analysis was performed using R (v. 3.5.3) statistical software with a level of P < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Sample population

Four horses were included in the study including 3 geldings and 1 mare, with a mean age of 12 years (range, 4 to 25 years). There were 3 Quarter Horses and 1 Warmblood included. Reasons for euthanasia included cervical vertebral osteomyelitis (n = 1), equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (n = 1), ocular squamous cell carcinoma (n = 1), and chronic navicular degeneration (n = 1).

RNA quality from exfoliome versus tissue

RNA quantity and quality were assessed via bioanalyzer for both tissue and feces. The mean RNA integrity number (RIN) from tissue was 8.9 (range, 7.5 to 10) and the mean RIN from fecal samples was 6.2 (range, 5.5 to 6.9). Representative bioanalyzer trace and virtual gel from RNA isolated from equine feces showing expected peaks of 18S and 28S components of the eukaryotic ribosome are shown in S1 Fig. Sequencing quality was assessed by Fastqc as previously described [15, 18]. Representative traces of per base sequence quality demonstrate excellent quality of tissue reads and high quality of exfoliomic reads, albeit more variable and of slightly poorer quality than tissue reads (Fig 1). As has been shown previously, the number of mapped reads was much smaller from the exfoliome than from the tissue [14, 15]. Analysis of the RNA-Seq analysis revealed that there was a greater loss of reads from the exfoliome as compared with the tissue samples (Table 1). Despite loss of reads, there were similar number of genes represented by each of the sample types including the exfoliome (Table 1). The total counts per sample and log(2) counts per gene are shown (S2 Fig).

Fig 1. Sequencing quality of equine exfoliome and mucosal tissue are of excellent quality.

Fig 1

FastQC box plots of quality scores per read position of RNA-Seq data. Y-axis: Phred quality scores 0–40 colored based upon quality of the scores (green = excellent quality (30–40), yellow = acceptable quality (20–30) and red = poor quality 0–20). The yellow area in the box represents the inter-quartile range from the 25th to the 75th percentile. The error bars include the 10th and the 90th percentiles. The red lines inside the box plot are the median value of phred scores for the nucleotide range, and the blue curve represents the mean value. A) Representative fastqc plot from tissue showing quality score per base of fastq sequences. B) Representative fastqc plot from equine exfoliome showing quality score per base of fastq sequences.

Table 1. Beginning and ending read-counts per sample type at major steps along the analytical RNA-Seq data pipeline.

Ileum Cecum Right Dorsal Colon Rectum Exfoliome
Reads from Sequencing 26,016,938 (± 5,502,844) 25,498,238 (± 3,930,189) 23,449,515 (± 5,862,203) 24,205,484 (±4,240,166) 50,336,373 (± 6,269,249)
Aligned Reads 21,693,764 (± 4,464,834) 20,976,235 (± 2,670,830) 19,745,684 (± 3,426,658) 20,857,709 (± 3,760,132) 15,057,949 (± 2,253,748)
No Feature 6,437,635 (± 1,362,314) 5,855,954 (± 744,532) 5,967,331 (± 1,921,276) 4,998,710 (± 338,597) 14,758,447 (± 2,215,476)
Number of Reads Mapped per Sample 15,682,057 (± 3,285,220) 1,512,028 (± 2,481,271) 12,803,690 (± 3,448,381) 15,433,069 (± 3,405,894) 299,502 (± 96,415)
Number of Genes Identified 16,757 (± 135) 16,793 (± 152) 16,403 (±472) 16,098 (± 600) 14,472 (± 2,391)

Data represent average per-sample type (± standard deviation).

Comparison of tissue and exfoliomic data

Genes present in fewer than 2 samples or represented fewer than 10 times across all samples were removed. The intersection of genes represented in the exfoliome and genes represented in each of the tissue samples were calculated (Fig 2). These data indicate that greater than 94% of the genes present in any tissue sample were also represented in the exfoliome. Next, pathways represented by genes present only in the tissue samples and not present in the exfoliome were examined by uploading these genes into Qiagen® IPA software. The pathways represented by these genes are depicted in Table 2.

Fig 2. The equine exfoliome overlaps with the GI mucosal transcriptome from all anatomic sites examined.

Fig 2

Venn diagram depicting the intersection of the exfoliome with the mucosal transcriptome from mucosal biopsies obtained from the ileum, cecum, rectum, and right dorsal colon (RD).

Table 2. Top canonical pathways enriched by genes found in tissue samples but not found in the equine exfoliome.

Canonical Pathway -log(p-value) of overlap
Oxidative Phosphorylation 7.04
Mitochondrial Dysfunction 5.70
Granulocyte Adhesion and Diapedesis 5.43
Regulation of IL-17 by Macrophages 5.27
Role of Cytokines in Communication Between Immune Cells 5.01
Atherosclerosis Signaling 4.81
Agranulocyte Adhesion and Diapedesis 4.70
LXR/RXR Activation 4.65
Role of Hypercytokinemia in Pathogenesis 4.43
Eicosanoid Signaling 4.05
Communication Between Innate and Adaptive Immunity 3.35
Role of IL-17A in Inflammation 3.30
CCR3 Signaling in Eosinophils 3.24

The–log(p-value) of the overlap represents the p-value of the overlap between the inputted gene list and the canonical pathway that is represented.

Interestingly 105 genes were present in the exfoliome, but not identified in any tissue samples (Fig 2). This gene list was analyzed with Qiagen IPA software to identify which pathways were present in the exfoliome but not the tissue samples. The top pathways identified are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Canonical pathways enriched by genes found in the equine exfoliome but not found in tissue samples.

Canonical Pathway -log(p-value) of overlap
Transcriptional Regulatory Network in Embryonic Stem Cells 4.91
Gustation Pathway 2.11
Glutamate Receptor Signaling 2.00
GABA Receptor Signaling 1.59
G-Protein Coupled Receptor Signaling 1.42

The–log(p-value) of the overlap represents the p-value of the overlap between the inputted gene list and the canonical pathway that is represented.

To further compare the gene expression profiles between the tissue and exfoliome, a principal component analysis (PCA) plot was constructed (Fig 3A). This revealed a visual clustering of exfoliome samples together suggesting a similar gene expression profile of the exfoliome from the four normal horses examined in this study. This PCA also revealed that the tissue samples clustered together and were separated from the exfoliomic samples. To evaluate correlation between the exfoliome and tissue samples, data were normalized with EdgeR calcnormfactors using trimmed mean of M-values(TMM). Scatter plots of log(2)-transformed normalized count data between the exfoliome and each tissue source are shown (Fig 3B). There was a strong and significant correlation of all tissues (Spearman’s correlation coefficient; ρ > 0.8 and P < 0.0001) and, although of lesser magnitude, significant correlation between the exfoliome and each tissue source (Spearman’s correlation coefficient; ρ > 0.15 and P < 0.0001) (Table 4).

Fig 3. The equine exfoliome gene expression signature is similar among healthy horses and correlates with the tissue transcriptome.

Fig 3

A) Principal component analysis (PCA) plot showing visual clustering of exfoliome samples suggesting a similar gene expression profile among exfoliome samples from normal horses but distinct from the tissue transcriptome. Samples are identified by sample number (i.e., H2, H4, H5, H6) and sample source (i.e. EX = exfoliome, I = ileum, RD = right dorsal colon, C = cecum, RT = rectum). B) Pairwise log(2) scatter plots between each tissue source and the exfoliome showing strong and significant correlation among tissue sites and, to a lesser extent, between tissue sites and the exfoliome.

Table 4. Pairwise spearman correlations.

Source Exfoliome Ileum Cecum Right Dorsal Colon Rectum
Exfoliome 0.166 0.186 0.155 0.157
Ileum 0.166 0.89 0.88 0.95
Cecum 0.186 0.89 0.98 0.87
Right Dorsal Colon 0.155 0.88 0.98 0.86
Rectum 0.157 0.95 0.87 0.86

Values represent ρ statistic. All correlations were positive and significant (P < 0.0001) although the magnitude of correlation was smaller between the exfoliome and tissues than between the various tissue sites.

Cell types and anatomic locations represented in the equine exfoliome

It has been previously demonstrated in mice, that the exfoliome gene expression signature arises from multiple anatomic locations and represents a global representation of the GI mucosal transcriptome [15]. In order to determine the source of this signature in horses we extracted the counts of genes previously identified and expressed predominantly in specific anatomic locations (i.e., stomach, small intestine, and colon). Interestingly, we found that the exfoliome contained reads from all major anatomic locations (Fig 4A). As expected, genes representing the colon and small intestine were heavily represented in the transcriptomes arising from those locations with some overlap. Similarly, in addition to anatomic origin, we also assessed the cell types represented in the exfoliome. Clearly, the intestinal epithelium is comprised of many cell types including absorptive cells (enterocytes and colonocytes depending on anatomic location), intestinal stem cells, goblet cells, Paneth cells (SI), among others as well as a host of infiltrating immune cells depending on depth of the sample (i.e., lamina propria) and disease state of the GI tract (e.g., inflammation vs. homeostasis). In order to determine the cell types present in these data, we reviewed the literature for marker genes expressed either solely by a specific cell type or at least highly enriched in a specific cell type [1932]. In particular, we extracted the numbers of reads in each sample for the following cell types: intestinal stem cells, absorptive cells, transit amplifying cells, Paneth cells, tuft cells, goblet cells, macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and smooth muscle cells. Interestingly, all cell types were present in all datasets as identified by the presence of at least 2 marker genes per cell type (Fig 4B). These data suggest that the equine exfoliome represents gene expression signatures from the diverse array of cell types expected to be found in the intestinal mucosa.

Fig 4. The equine exfoliome represents all major anatomic locations and cell types found in the equine mucosa.

Fig 4

A) Heatmap depicting frequency of observed counts of genes reported to be predominantly expressed in specific anatomic locations across all samples. B) Heatmap depicting frequency of observed counts of genes reported to be predominantly expressed in specific cell types across all samples. Samples are identified by sample number (i.e., H2, H4, H5, H6) and sample source (i.e. EX = exfoliome, I = ileum, RD = right dorsal colon, C = cecum, RT = rectum).

Discussion

Despite the presence of degradative host and microbial enzymes in the GI lumen, we were able to, for the first time, extract mRNA from exfoliated intestinal epithelial cells that were voided in equine feces. Further, we have demonstrated that the transcriptome of exfoliated cells in horses 1) represents a similar gene expression profile as the GI tissue transcriptome and 2) represents the multiple anatomic regions of the equine GI tract and all major cell types found in the GI mucosa of healthy horses. Given the limitations of assessing the equine GI tract due to the immense size of horses, this non-invasive approach holds great promise for both research and clinical use.

Exfoliomics has been used in both people and mice to study GI health, response to disease, and effects of therapeutics [10, 11, 14, 15, 33]. There are major physiologic differences between horses and these other species that may have precluded successful use of the approach. For example, the length of the equine GI tract is over 100 feet and GI transit time is up to 48 h in healthy horses [34]. This is vastly different from humans and mice where the GI tract is much shorter and transit time is faster.[35] Degradation of RNA likely occurs when the duration of time between cells exfoliating and voiding of feces is increased. Protection of nucleic acids through proper sample handling is also critical to prevent RNA degradation. While RNA isolated from exfoliated cells was indeed of lower quality as compared with tissue data, the quality was acceptable and resulted in excellent sequence mapping as compared to human subjects [14].

Our protocol selects for eukaryotic RNA by utilizing oligo dt primers that bind to the polyA tail of eukaryotic transcripts. In people and mice, this approach primarily selects for host mRNA. The microbiota of horses, however, contains vast numbers of eukaryotic organisms. Specifically, as hind-gut fermenters, fermentation in horses is carried out by a host of microorganisms including protozoa in the cecum [3639]. These protozoa are just one of many eukaryotic organisms found in the equine GI tract. Other types include helminths and fungal organisms, both of which may have been present in high numbers in the horses examined in this study. These large numbers of eukaryotic organisms may have explained why only 300,000 to 400,000 reads mapped to the equine genome from a starting number of nearly 50,000,000 reads per sample despite selectively isolating eukaryotic mRNA.

Despite the relatively few number of reads that mapped to the equine genome relative to the tissue samples, this initial evaluation of the equine exfoliome holds promise. Over 94% of the genes present across all tissue samples were present in the equine exfoliome. There were 624 genes present in 2 or more tissue samples and not present in the exfoliome. Interestingly, 10 of the 13 networks enriched by these genes (Table 2) were from inflammatory and immune signaling pathways. Tissue samples were derived from intestinal mucosa obtained via biopsy. The immune cell-rich lamina propria lies just beneath the mucosa and these genes may have been expressed in cells inadvertently obtained from the deeper layers of the intestinal wall. These same cells and genes were unlikely to be expressed in cells exfoliated into the lumen of the GI tract in these healthy horses with no evidence or history of GI disease. Only 105 genes were found in the exfoliome and not in the tissues. Most likely, these genes originated from cells entering the GI lumen and passing into voided stool with intact RNA. Examples of such cells could be derived from the respiratory tract or oral cavity. Only 5 canonical pathways were significantly enriched by these transcripts. Interestingly, the gustation pathway associated with taste was the second most enriched pathway suggesting that indeed these transcripts may have originated from tongue cells that were exfoliated, swallowed, and passed though the GI tract.

Several important limitations of the study should be considered. First, only four horses were included in the study. In addition, there was a great deal of variation in the horses’ age (4 to 25 years) and other factors, which may have contributed to some of the variation observed in the exfoliomic signature. Despite this small sample size, we were able to demonstrate that the exfoliated cell transcriptome reflects the tissue-level transcriptome. Another limitation is that these horses had no overt evidence or known history of GI disease, however, it is possible that subclinical or unknown GI disease existed. Importantly, we do not know how concurrent GI disease could affect this technique. Gastrointestinal disease frequently results in inflammation and increased GI transit time. It is unknown if these factors could affect the quality of RNA isolated from exfoliated cells and/or alter biological interpretation as gene expression from these cells could be altered during passage though the GI tract. An important future step will be to examine the equine exfoliome in the context of both health and disease in order to determine if this approach can be used to discriminate healthy from diseased animals and if this approach can be used to gain temporal insight into the pathophysiology of equine GI diseases. There were unexpected gene expression signatures observed at various tissue sites (e.g. Paneth cell markers observed in large intestinal biopsies) and the exact reasons for this unexpected finding are unknown. One possible explanation is that we extrapolated from human and murine data by using genes thought to be predominantly expressed by specific cell types and anatomic locations. However, these same genes may not be specific for locations or cell types in horses. Finally, we compared the exfoliome to the tissue transcriptome at only four anatomic sites. Future work to compare the exfoliome with tissue transcriptome of other sites and especially more proximal sites is important as many diseases specifically affect these locations. Despite these limitations, this is the first work to compare the tissue transcriptome and exfoliome in horses.

Conclusions

In summary, we have demonstrated that the exfoliated cell global transcriptome closely mirrors the transcriptome of the mucosa of the ileum, right dorsal colon, cecum, and rectum of horses. While the use of exfoliated cells has been validated in other species [1214], this is the first description of the equine exfoliome and its correlation to the tissue-level transcriptome. Application of this non-invasive technique in early identification or monitoring of GI disease in the horse holds promise, but requires further investigation prior to clinical implementation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Representative bioanalyzer trace and virtual gel from RNA isolated from equine feces showing expected peaks of 18S and 28S components of the eukaryotic ribosome.

(TIF)

S2 Fig

A) Bar plots of total counts per sample from both tissue and feces. B) Boxplots of log2 of gene counts per sample from both tissue and feces. Samples are identified by sample number (i.e., H2, H4, H5, H6) and sample source (i.e. EX = exfoliome, I = ileum, RD = right dorsal colon, C = cecum, RT = rectum).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Texas A&M Institute for Genome Sciences and Society (TIGSS) for providing computational resources and systems administration support for the TIGSS HPC Cluster.

Data Availability

The data utilized in this study are available via the NCBI bioproject (accession number PRJNA575706) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject.

Funding Statement

This project was funded by the Triad for Transformation Program at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX (MC, NI, SE)

References

  • 1.National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) part I: baseline reference of 1998 equine health and management, N280.898. [Internet]. United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Traub-Dargatz JL, Kopral CA, Seitzinger AH, Garber LP, Forde K, White NA. Estimate of the national incidence of and operation-level risk factors for colic among horses in the United States, spring 1998 to spring 1999. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;219(1):67–71. 10.2460/javma.2001.219.67 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tomizawa M, Shinozaki F, Hasegawa R, Shirai Y, Motoyoshi Y, Sugiyama T, et al. Abdominal ultrasonography for patients with abdominal pain as a first-line diagnostic imaging modality. Exp Ther Med. 2017;13(5):1932–6. 10.3892/etm.2017.4209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stewart HL, Engiles JB, Stefanovski D, Southwood L. Clinical and intestinal histologic features of horses treated for recurrent colic: 66 cases (2006–2015). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018;252(10):1279–88. 10.2460/javma.252.10.1279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tibble JA, Sigthorsson G, Foster R, Scott D, Fagerhol MK, Roseth A, et al. High prevalence of NSAID enteropathy as shown by a simple faecal test. Gut. 1999;45(3):362–6. 10.1136/gut.45.3.362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Heilmann RM, Grellet A, Allenspach K, Lecoindre P, Day MJ, Priestnall SL, et al. Association between fecal S100A12 concentration and histologic, endoscopic, and clinical disease severity in dogs with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2014;158(3–4):156–66. 10.1016/j.vetimm.2014.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grellet A, Heilmann RM, Lecoindre P, Feugier A, Day MJ, Peeters D, et al. Fecal calprotectin concentrations in adult dogs with chronic diarrhea. Am J Vet Res. 2013;74(5):706–11. 10.2460/ajvr.74.5.706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Otoni CC, Heilmann RM, Garcia-Sancho M, Sainz A, Ackermann MR, Suchodolski JS, et al. Serologic and fecal markers to predict response to induction therapy in dogs with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2018;32(3):999–1008. 10.1111/jvim.15123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Potten CS, Schofield R, Lajtha LG. A comparison of cell replacement in bone marrow, testis and three regions of surface epithelium. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1979;560(2):281–99. 10.1016/0304-419x(79)90022-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chapkin RS, Zhao C, Ivanov I, Davidson LA, Goldsby JS, Lupton JR, et al. Noninvasive stool-based detection of infant gastrointestinal development using gene expression profiles from exfoliated epithelial cells. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2010;298(5):G582–9. 10.1152/ajpgi.00004.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Davidson LA, Lupton JR, Miskovsky E, Fields AP, Chapkin RS. Quantification of human intestinal gene expression profiles using exfoliated colonocytes: a pilot study. Biomarkers. 2003;8(1):51–61. 10.1080/1354750021000042268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chapkin RS, Clark AE, Davidson LA, Schroeder F, Zoran DL, Lupton JR. Dietary fiber differentially alters cellular fatty acid-binding protein expression in exfoliated colonocytes during tumor development. Nutr Cancer. 1998;32(2):107–12. 10.1080/01635589809514727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schwartz S, Friedberg I, Ivanov IV, Davidson LA, Goldsby JS, Dahl DB, et al. A metagenomic study of diet-dependent interaction between gut microbiota and host in infants reveals differences in immune response. Genome Biol. 2012;13(4):r32 10.1186/gb-2012-13-4-r32 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lampe JW, Kim E, Levy L, Davidson LA, Goldsby JS, Miles FL, et al. Colonic mucosal and exfoliome transcriptomic profiling and fecal microbiome response to a flaxseed lignan extract intervention in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110(2):377–90. 10.1093/ajcn/nqy325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Whitfield-Cargile CM, Cohen ND, He K, Ivanov I, Goldsby JS, Chamoun-Emanuelli A, et al. The non-invasive exfoliated transcriptome (exfoliome) reflects the tissue-level transcriptome in a mouse model of NSAID enteropathy. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):14687 10.1038/s41598-017-13999-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(1):139–40. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010.
  • 19.Palmer C, Diehn M, Alizadeh AA, Brown PO. Cell-type specific gene expression profiles of leukocytes in human peripheral blood. BMC Genomics. 2006;7(1):115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Munoz J, Stange DE, Schepers AG, van de Wetering M, Koo BK, Itzkovitz S, et al. The Lgr5 intestinal stem cell signature: robust expression of proposed quiescent '+4' cell markers. Embo j. 2012;31(14):3079–91. 10.1038/emboj.2012.166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li N, Yousefi M, Nakauka-Ddamba A, Jain R, Tobias J, Epstein J A, et al. Single-Cell Analysis of Proxy Reporter Allele-Marked Epithelial Cells Establishes Intestinal Stem Cell Hierarchy. Stem Cell Reports. 2014;3(5):876–91. 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.09.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fevr T, Robine S, Louvard D, Huelsken J. Wnt/beta-catenin is essential for intestinal homeostasis and maintenance of intestinal stem cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(21):7551–9. 10.1128/MCB.01034-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Grun D, Lyubimova A, Kester L, Wiebrands K, Basak O, Sasaki N, et al. Single-cell messenger RNA sequencing reveals rare intestinal cell types. Nature. 2015;525(7568):251–5. 10.1038/nature14966 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rothenberg ME, Nusse Y, Kalisky T, Lee JJ, Dalerba P, Scheeren F, et al. Identification of a cKit(+) colonic crypt base secretory cell that supports Lgr5(+) stem cells in mice. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(5):1195–205.e6. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dalerba P, Kalisky T, Sahoo D, Rajendran PS, Rothenberg ME, Leyrat AA, et al. Single-cell dissection of transcriptional heterogeneity in human colon tumors. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(12):1120–7. 10.1038/nbt.2038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Trzpis M, McLaughlin PMJ, de Leij L, Harmsen MC. Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule: More than a Carcinoma Marker and Adhesion Molecule. Am J Pathol. 2007;171(2):386–95. 10.2353/ajpath.2007.070152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.el Marjou F, Janssen KP, Chang BH, Li M, Hindie V, Chan L, et al. Tissue-specific and inducible Cre-mediated recombination in the gut epithelium. Genesis. 2004;39(3):186–93. 10.1002/gene.20042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chi J-T, Rodriguez EH, Wang Z, Nuyten DSA, Mukherjee S, de Rijn Mv, et al. Gene Expression Programs of Human Smooth Muscle Cells: Tissue-Specific Differentiation and Prognostic Significance in Breast Cancers. PLOS Genetics. 2007;3(9):e164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mariadason JM, Nicholas C, L’Italien KE, Zhuang M, Smartt HJM, Heerdt BG, et al. Gene expression profiling of intestinal epithelial cell maturation along the crypt-villus axis. Gastroenterology. 2005;128(4):1081–8. 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.01.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Georgijevic S, Subramanian Y, Rollins EL, Starovic-Subota O, Tang AC, Childs SJ. Spatiotemporal expression of smooth muscle markers in developing zebrafish gut. Dev Dyn. 2007;236(6):1623–32. 10.1002/dvdy.21165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Khazen W, M'Bika J-P, Tomkiewicz C, Benelli C, Chany C, Achour A, et al. Expression of macrophage-selective markers in human and rodent adipocytes. FEBS Letters. 2005;579(25):5631–4. 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.09.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gonzalez LM, Kinnin LA, Blikslager AT. Characterization of discrete equine intestinal epithelial cell lineages. Am J Vet Res. 2015;76(4):358–66. 10.2460/ajvr.76.4.358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Knight JM, Davidson LA, Herman D, Martin CR, Goldsby JS, Ivanov IV, et al. Non-invasive analysis of intestinal development in preterm and term infants using RNA-Sequencing. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5453 10.1038/srep05453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stokes AM, Lavie NL, Keowen ML, Gaschen L, Gaschen FP, Barthel D, et al. Evaluation of a wireless ambulatory capsule (SmartPill(R)) to measure gastrointestinal tract pH, luminal pressure and temperature, and transit time in ponies. Equine Vet J. 2012;44(4):482–6. 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00533.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Padmanabhan P, Grosse J, Asad ABMA, Radda GK, Golay X. Gastrointestinal transit measurements in mice with 99mTc-DTPA-labeled activated charcoal using NanoSPECT-CT. EJNMMI Research. 2013;3(1):60 10.1186/2191-219X-3-60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Argenzio RA, Southworth M, Stevens CE. Sites of organic acid production and absorption in the equine gastrointestinal tract. Am J Physiol. 1974;226(5):1043–50. 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Glinsky MJ, Smith RM, Spires HR, Davis CL. Measurement of volatile fatty acid production rates in the cecum of the pony. J Anim Sci. 1976;42(6):1465–70. 10.2527/jas1976.4261465x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Julliand V, Grimm P. HORSE SPECIES SYMPOSIUM: The microbiome of the horse hindgut: History and current knowledge. J Anim Sci. 2016;94(6):2262–74. 10.2527/jas.2015-0198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Moore BE, Dehority BA. Effects of diet and hindgut defaunation on diet digestibility and microbial concentrations in the cecum and colon of the horse. J Anim Sci. 1993;71(12):3350–8. 10.2527/1993.71123350x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sripathi M Sureban

4 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-27855

Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Whitfield-Cargile,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The authors have provided some valuable RNA seq data obtained using exfoliate and GI mucosal samples from healthy horses. They have compared these RNA seq and report a relatively strong correlation between them. The authors try to establish a non-invaisive methodology to obtain global gene expression pattern unique to GI tract. As suggested by reviewers 2 and 3, the correlation does not appear to be strong. This is a well-written manuscript and I would suggest the authors to respond to reviewers comments to increase the impact of the manuscript.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sripathi M Sureban, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

3.  We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This study provides a very logical and detailed evaluation of how the exfoliome relates to the transcriptome. I have no substantial edits or comments to revise the paper and I am in support of its publication.

1. Line 38: Typo “healthy” horses.

2. Line 109: Typo “Irvine,” CA.

Reviewer #2: Overall this reviewer believes that this is a well written manuscript on a timely and interesting topic. However, there appears to be confusion as to the most recently accepted terminology for epithelial cell identity, particularly within the crypt base. A point by point review can be found below.

Abstract

Line 37-39: Please revise sentence. As written is appears that feces was directly collected from all sites in addition to mucosal samples. Line 38 misspelling ‘four healthy’ not ‘health’ horses.

Introduction

Line 63-64: Vague statement, I would recommend just stating what the main limitation(s) of ultrasound in the horse are. This is not an equine journal and it cannot be assumed that the average reader would know.

Lines 67-77: I found these lines implicit not explicitly written. Furthermore, if a sentence starts with ‘first’ then a following sentence should start with ‘second’. It is not obvious why endoscopic biopsies are inferior to “other” types of biopsies. This is inferred in the following sentences and this reviewer agrees with this statement however I am not sure the average reader would know the difference. I believe that this entire section should be re-written to make the description of limitations of each biopsy technique more clear and more concise.

Line 82-84: It is not clear what the author means by ‘mechanistic’? Identifying intestinal inflammation can be of diagnostic value and important for direct clinical interventions particularly because current clinical therapies for intestinal disease are limited. However, I would agree that diagnosing dysfunction more specifically may help direct future therapies.

Line 94-95: “global” is used twice in this sentence, please consider using another term

Line 96: The word transcriptome should be changed to exfoliome or mucosal transcriptome? Or both?

Line 98: The term exfoliome should be defined within the manuscript earlier and then used throughout the introduction.

Results

Table 1: I don’t believe the abbreviation for right dorsal colon (RDC) is stated within the text prior to use within the table. Please be consistent throughout using either RD or RDC for right dorsal colon. Rectal should be changed to Rectum.

Table 4: Exfoliome doesn’t appear to be very well correlated with mucosa from any section of the intestine although I appreciate that the values are positive? This is, however, stated very strongly throughout the manuscript.

Line 245-247: Stem cells, goblet cells and Paneth cells are all examples of intestinal epithelial cells, along with enterocytes, enteroendocrine and tuft cells. This sentence is written as if the author is not aware of all of the cell types that make up the intestinal epithelium? Please clarify.

Line 246: How is the author defining ‘crypt cells’? Do they mean transit amplifying cells? The crypt arguably consists of stem, Paneth/Paneth-like cells, goblet cells, and transit amplifying cells (small intestine versus colon).

Line 251: Should reference Gonzalez et al AJVR, particularly because this manuscript specifically identifies biomarkers in equine GI derived tissues.

Line 252: See above. Not sure what the author is meaning to represent with IECs? Furthermore, intestinal epithelial stem cells are commonly called crypt based columnar stem cells. Again, not sure what cell types the authors are trying to distinguish. Please clarify, as written there appears to be confusion as to all of the cell types and the nomenclature used for the types of intestinal epithelial cell types.

Line 265: Be consistent through manuscript. RD or RDC to represent the right dorsal colon.

Discussion:

There is a general lack of discussion on the pathways listed in Table 2. There doesn’t appear to be a point in listing the specific Canonical pathways. Although the reviewer finds these pathways to be interesting there is no discussion as to the significance of these findings.

The authors have failed to fully describe other limitations of this technique. Many times in disease GI motility is decreased or absent. How would this could further delay/impact the quality of RNA collected? Does the author propose a way to distinguish different segments of the bowel? It is unfortunate that the authors only chose to sample from the ileum as opposed to other segments of the small intestine such as the duodenum and jejunum where many inflammatory forms of enteritis arise. Similar comment with regard to the different segments of the colon.

Figure 1 Legend: Please better define what the yellow squares with associated error bars represent?

Supplemental Figure 2 Legend: Please include what the labeling on the x axis represents. Every figure and figure legend should stand alone and be defined.

Figure 4: Grouping of cells types is confusing on right side of figure. Normally the acronym CBC is used for crypt based columnar stem cells. If the author is generally grouping all crypt based columnar cells (not just stem cells) those would include intestinal stem cells, Paneth cells and transit amplifying cells (if small intestine). I would argue that hallmark biomarkers for crypt based columnar stem cells include Lgr5, Ascl2, Olfm4 to name a few (but these are the major ones). There is overlap between biomarker expression throughout the crypt and between active and reserve (quiescent) stem cells. Please review the literature for the most recent accepted nomenclature for the cells comprising the intestinal epithelial crypt.

With regard to the data represented in Fig 4B, there appears to be low expression of Paneth cell markers in the small intestinal samples and higher expression in the right dorsal colon and even the rectum in one horse? This is strange considering Paneth cells aren’t thought to exist in the colon? A comment on this is recommended.

Reviewer #3: The study is the first to compare the tissue and exfoliome transcriptomes in horses. The paper flows quite nicely, using appropriate lab techniques and statistical methods for data analysis. Conclusions are supported by their data.

Major comments:

1. Small sample size (n=4) and heterogeneous study subjects. Although all called "healthy" horses, they differ in terms of age and reasons for euthanasia. With such a small sample size, it is difficult to generalize the study findings to healthy horses at large.

2. The Spearman correlation coefficients between exfoliome and each tissue source range from 0.155 to 0.186. These are only considered week associations, albeit statistical significance. Also, the corresponding scatter plots did not show a clear positive correlation. Therefore, potential clinical usage of exfoliome is not very convincing. It would have been a much stronger study if the authors included both healthy and GI diseased horses and demonstrated difference between the groups using exfoliome.

Minor comments:

1. All the figures are of low resolution and very hard to see.

2. line 38: change 'health' to 'healthy'

3. line 214: define 'TMM'

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 16;15(3):e0229797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229797.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jan 2020

January 8, 2020

Editorial Board of PlosOne

Subject: Manuscript entitled, “Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome” (PONE-D-19-27855)

Dear Members of the Editorial and Review Board:

Thank you sincerely for your careful, thorough and thoughtful review of the manuscript. We have carefully considered and responded to each of the recommendations. It is our opinion that through this review process the clarity and quality of the manuscript has substantially improved. Each comment posed by the reviewers had been addressed below with corresponding changes and improvements to the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

This study provides a very logical and detailed evaluation of how the exfoliome relates to the transcriptome. I have no substantial edits or comments to revise the paper and I am in support of its publication.

Line 38: Typo “healthy” horses.

Authors’ Response: Corrected. Thank you

Line 109: Typo “Irvine,” CA.

Authors’ Response: Corrected. Thank you

Reviewer #2:

Overall this reviewer believes that this is a well written manuscript on a timely and interesting topic. However, there appears to be confusion as to the most recently accepted terminology for epithelial cell identity, particularly within the crypt base. A point by point review can be found below.

Abstract

Line 37-39: Please revise sentence. As written is appears that feces was directly collected from all sites in addition to mucosal samples. Line 38 misspelling ‘four healthy’ not ‘health’ horses.

Authors’ Response: The structure and grammar of the sentence was improved.

Introduction

Line 63-64: Vague statement, I would recommend just stating what the main limitation(s) of ultrasound in the horse are. This is not an equine journal and it cannot be assumed that the average reader would know.

Authors’ Response: This sentence was re-worded as requested

Lines 67-77: I found these lines implicit not explicitly written. Furthermore, if a sentence starts with ‘first’ then a following sentence should start with ‘second’. It is not obvious why endoscopic biopsies are inferior to “other” types of biopsies. This is inferred in the following sentences and this reviewer agrees with this statement however I am not sure the average reader would know the difference. I believe that this entire section should be re-written to make the description of limitations of each biopsy technique more clear and more concise.

Authors’ Response: This section was clarified.

Line 82-84: It is not clear what the author means by ‘mechanistic’? Identifying intestinal inflammation can be of diagnostic value and important for direct clinical interventions particularly because current clinical therapies for intestinal disease are limited. However, I would agree that diagnosing dysfunction more specifically may help direct future therapies.

Authors’ Response: “Mechanistic” in this sentence refers to the mechanism by which inflammation occurred. This has been reworded for clarification.

Line 94-95: “global” is used twice in this sentence, please consider using another term

Authors’ Response: Corrected

Line 96: The word transcriptome should be changed to exfoliome or mucosal transcriptome? Or both?

Authors’ Response: Corrected

Line 98: The term exfoliome should be defined within the manuscript earlier and then used throughout the introduction.

Authors’ Response: We have defined exfoliome at the first introduction of the concept of utilizing the transcriptome of exfoliated cells.

Results

Table 1: I don’t believe the abbreviation for right dorsal colon (RDC) is stated within the text prior to use within the table. Please be consistent throughout using either RD or RDC for right dorsal colon. Rectal should be changed to Rectum.

Authors’ Response: Corrected

Table 4: Exfoliome doesn’t appear to be very well correlated with mucosa from any section of the intestine although I appreciate that the values are positive? This is, however, stated very strongly throughout the manuscript.

Authors’ Response: This has been modified as requested. In all locations where the degree of correlation between tissue and exfoliome is stated we make it clear that this correlation was positive and significant but to a lesser extent than the correlation between tissue sites. This includes Figure 3 and Table 4 legends as well as the body of the manuscript.

Line 245-247: Stem cells, goblet cells and Paneth cells are all examples of intestinal epithelial cells, along with enterocytes, enteroendocrine and tuft cells. This sentence is written as if the author is not aware of all of the cell types that make up the intestinal epithelium? Please clarify.

Authors’ Response: Corrected

Line 246: How is the author defining ‘crypt cells’? Do they mean transit amplifying cells? The crypt arguably consists of stem, Paneth/Paneth-like cells, goblet cells, and transit amplifying cells (small intestine versus colon).

Authors’ Response: We apologize for this poorly worded sentence and mistakenly included ‘crypt cells’. This sentence has been revised to reflect the fact that the intestinal mucosa houses a diverse array of cell types.

Line 251: Should reference Gonzalez et al AJVR, particularly because this manuscript specifically identifies biomarkers in equine GI derived tissues.

Authors’ Response: The reference was added. Thank you for this suggestion.

Line 252: See above. Not sure what the author is meaning to represent with IECs? Furthermore, intestinal epithelial stem cells are commonly called crypt based columnar stem cells. Again, not sure what cell types the authors are trying to distinguish. Please clarify, as written there appears to be confusion as to all of the cell types and the nomenclature used for the types of intestinal epithelial cell types.

Authors’ Response: We were attempting to distinguish expression patterns of genes in LGR5+ cells along the crypt as has been described previously (“The Lgr5 intestinal stem cell signature: robustexpression of proposed quiescent ‘+4’ cell markers” Munoz et. al 2012) and to distinguish CBC cells from the proposed quiescent +4 cell population that is purported to replenish CBC cells in response to injury. We agree, however, that we did a poor job of clarifying these cell types. Moreover, we recognize that this is a controversial topic and beyond the scope of this manuscript. Therefore, we have revised the text and figures to simply represent intestinal stem cell markers without attempting to identify subtypes which is controversial in any species and unstudied in the horse.

Line 265: Be consistent through manuscript. RD or RDC to represent the right dorsal colon.

Authors’ Response: We have removed RDC throughout the manuscript and figures and right dorsal colon is now consistently represented as RD.

Discussion:

There is a general lack of discussion on the pathways listed in Table 2. There doesn’t appear to be a point in listing the specific Canonical pathways. Although the reviewer finds these pathways to be interesting there is no discussion as to the significance of these findings.

Authors’ Response: The pathways identified in table 2 are discussed in lines 312-319 of the discussion. We have edited this section to make it more clear that this paragraph refers to table 2.

The authors have failed to fully describe other limitations of this technique. Many times in disease GI motility is decreased or absent. How would this could further delay/impact the quality of RNA collected? Does the author propose a way to distinguish different segments of the bowel? It is unfortunate that the authors only chose to sample from the ileum as opposed to other segments of the small intestine such as the duodenum and jejunum where many inflammatory forms of enteritis arise. Similar comment with regard to the different segments of the colon.

Authors’ Response: We agree that there are many limitations to this technique. We agree that GI disease may affect the quality and biological interpretation of exfoliomics and this has been added to the discussion as requested. This approach provides a global view of mucosal genes expression as stated and, currently, distinguishing different segments of the bowel is not possible. We agree that sampling and sequencing more anatomic locations would improve this manuscript but that was beyond the scope of the current work. Future work will aim to address these limitations and this has been added to the discussion.

Figure 1 Legend: Please better define what the yellow squares with associated error bars represent?

Authors’ Response: The fastqc plots have been defined as requested.

Supplemental Figure 2 Legend: Please include what the labeling on the x axis represents. Every figure and figure legend should stand alone and be defined.

Authors’ Response: The legend has been corrected.

Figure 4: Grouping of cells types is confusing on right side of figure. Normally the acronym CBC is used for crypt based columnar stem cells. If the author is generally grouping all crypt based columnar cells (not just stem cells) those would include intestinal stem cells, Paneth cells and transit amplifying cells (if small intestine). I would argue that hallmark biomarkers for crypt based columnar stem cells include Lgr5, Ascl2, Olfm4 to name a few (but these are the major ones). There is overlap between biomarker expression throughout the crypt and between active and reserve (quiescent) stem cells. Please review the literature for the most recent accepted nomenclature for the cells comprising the intestinal epithelial crypt.

Authors’ Response: As stated above, we agree that this area is controversial and our goal of attempting to distinguish expression patterns of genes in LGR5+ cells along the crypt and to distinguish CBC cells from the proposed quiescent +4 cell population is beyond the scope of this manuscript. Therefore, we have revised the text and figures to simply represent intestinal stem cell markers without attempting to identify subtypes which is controversial in any species and unstudied in the horse.

With regard to the data represented in Fig 4B, there appears to be low expression of Paneth cell markers in the small intestinal samples and higher expression in the right dorsal colon and even the rectum in one horse? This is strange considering Paneth cells aren’t thought to exist in the colon? A comment on this is recommended.

Authors’ Response: A comment on this has been added in the discussion as requested. While the exact reasons for the unexpected expression of purported marker genes (e.g. Paneth cell markers in the large intestine) is unknown, one possible reason is that many of these markers are not only expressed by the cell type to which they are reported to be predominantly expressed by. For example, lysozyme is widely accepted to be a marker for Paneth cells yet this enzyme is also expressed in neutrophils and macrophages. Similarly, the specificity for many of these markers is not known in the horse and perhaps other cell types may express these markers thereby explaining differences in observed expression along the anatomic sites examined compared with expected expression in these locations.

Reviewer #3:

The study is the first to compare the tissue and exfoliome transcriptomes in horses. The paper flows quite nicely, using appropriate lab techniques and statistical methods for data analysis. Conclusions are supported by their data.

Major comments:

Small sample size (n=4) and heterogeneous study subjects. Although all called "healthy" horses, they differ in terms of age and reasons for euthanasia. With such a small sample size, it is difficult to generalize the study findings to healthy horses at large.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate your comments and suggestions, and agree that our sample size is small and study population is diverse. However, this is a proof-of-principle study to demonstrate the possible utility of a novel technique. Results of this study should not be extroplolated to other populations (i.e. diseased horses). Further studies with better defined populations is warranted. The discussion section has been improved to reflect this concern.

The Spearman correlation coefficients between exfoliome and each tissue source range from 0.155 to 0.186. These are only considered week associations, albeit statistical significance. Also, the corresponding scatter plots did not show a clear positive correlation. Therefore, potential clinical usage of exfoliome is not very convincing. It would have been a much stronger study if the authors included both healthy and GI diseased horses and demonstrated difference between the groups using exfoliome.

Authors’ Response: As stated above, the next step will be to explore the utility of this technique in horses with well-defined GI disease. Clarification of the correlation of exfoliome and each tissue source has been added to the text.

Minor comments

All the figures are of low resolution and very hard to see.

Authors’ Response: We apologize for this and agree that figures are difficult to see on the proof. It is our understanding that this is due to low quality images being included in the proof as a default of the manuscript submission software. The actual figures are > 300 dpi and pass the manuscript submissions software quality check.

Line 38: change 'health' to 'healthy'

Authors’ Response: Corrected

Line 214: define 'TMM'

Authors’ Response: Corrected

We again thank you for the time and effort dedicated to this review process. We hope you agree that the clarity and quality of the manuscript has substantially improved.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Sripathi M Sureban

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-27855R1

Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Whitfield-Cargile,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: This is a very good study and the revised manuscript is significantly better than the previous versions. Please address the minor concerns raised by the review #2.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sripathi M Sureban, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Overall, this is a significantly improved manuscript. The authors have addressed almost all of this reviewer's concerns.

A few points that need to be addressed.

Abstract:

Line 41: There was a coorelation, questionable if this could be stated as 'strong', please revise.

Intro: Overall, a much nicer read!

Results:

Line 223: This statement is what is mis-represented in the abstract. As written, “There was a strong and significant coorelation of all tissues…an, although of lesser magnitude, significant correlation between the exfoliome and each tissue source”.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 16;15(3):e0229797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229797.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Feb 2020

February 12th, 2020

Editorial Board of PlosOne

Subject: Manuscript entitled, “Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome” (PONE-D-19-27855R1)

Dear Members of the Editorial and Review Board:

Thank you for your careful, thorough and thoughtful review of the manuscript. We have carefully considered and responded to each of the recommendations. Each comment posed by the reviewers had been addressed below with corresponding changes and improvements to the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

No response

Reviewer #2:

Overall, this is a significantly improved manuscript. The authors have addressed almost all of this reviewer's concerns.

A few points that need to be addressed.

Abstract:

Line 41: There was a coorelation, questionable if this could be stated as 'strong', please revise.

Authors’ Response: This was revised as requested. We apologize for missing this over statement in the initial revision.

Results:

Line 223: This statement is what is mis-represented in the abstract. As written, “There was a strong and significant coorelation of all tissues…an, although of lesser magnitude, significant correlation between the exfoliome and each tissue source”.

Authors’ Response: This was revised in the abstract as requested.

Reviewer #3:

No response

We again thank you for the time and effort dedicated to this review process. We hope you agree that the clarity and quality of the manuscript has substantially improved. For any questions or concerns regarding this submission, please contact me by telephone at my office (979-845-3541) or by email (cwhitfield@cvm.tamu.edu). Thank you for your consideration.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2-12-20.docx

Decision Letter 2

Sripathi M Sureban

14 Feb 2020

Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome

PONE-D-19-27855R2

Dear Dr. Whitfield-Cargile,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Sripathi M Sureban, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Sripathi M Sureban

3 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-27855R2

Non-invasive evaluation of the equine gastrointestinal mucosal transcriptome

Dear Dr. Whitfield-Cargile:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sripathi M Sureban

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Representative bioanalyzer trace and virtual gel from RNA isolated from equine feces showing expected peaks of 18S and 28S components of the eukaryotic ribosome.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig

    A) Bar plots of total counts per sample from both tissue and feces. B) Boxplots of log2 of gene counts per sample from both tissue and feces. Samples are identified by sample number (i.e., H2, H4, H5, H6) and sample source (i.e. EX = exfoliome, I = ileum, RD = right dorsal colon, C = cecum, RT = rectum).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2-12-20.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data utilized in this study are available via the NCBI bioproject (accession number PRJNA575706) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES