Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jul 20;15(7):e0236133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236133

Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Rachel Arakawa 1, Gerardo Febres 1, Bin Cheng 2, Abraham Krikhely 3, Marc Bessler 3, Judith Korner 1,¤,*
Editor: François Blachier4
PMCID: PMC7371190  PMID: 32687546

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has surpassed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as the most prevalent bariatric procedure worldwide. While RYGB and SG demonstrate equivalent short-term weight loss, long-term weight loss tends to be greater after RYGB. Differences in the effect of these procedures on gastrointestinal hormones that regulate energy homeostasis are felt to partially underlie differences in outcomes. The objective of this study was to prospectively quantify blood levels of gut hormones of energy and glucose homeostasis at one year follow up to delineate possible reasons for greater efficacy of RYGB over SG in achieving weight loss.

Methods

Patients undergoing SG (n = 19) and RYGB (n = 40) were studied before surgery and at 2,12, 26, and 52 weeks postoperatively. Blood samples drawn in the fasted state and after a liquid mixed meal were assayed at baseline, 26, and 52 weeks for peptide YY (PYY), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), ghrelin, insulin, glucose, and leptin. Fasting and postprandial appetitive sensations were assessed by visual analog scale.

Results

At 1 year there was greater weight loss in RYGB compared with SG patients (30% vs 27%; P = 0.03). Area under the curve (AUC) after the mixed meal for PYY was greater in RYGB patients (P<0.001). RYGB patients had significant increases in GLP-1 AUC compared to baseline (P = 0.002). Ghrelin levels decreased only after SG compared to baseline (P<0.001) but were not significantly different from RYGB. There was a trend toward decreased sweet cravings in RYGB patients (P = 0.056).

Conclusions

Differences in gastrointestinal hormones that regulate energy and glucose homeostasis are a possible mechanism for greater efficacy of RYGB compared to SG.

Introduction

Obesity is a major health problem with increasing prevalence and is associated with increased mortality [13]. Bariatric surgery produces greater weight loss, improvement in comorbidities, and survival compared to non-surgical treatment for obesity [46]. There has been a 20-fold increase in procedures performed annually over the past 20 years in the United States. In the past decade, there has been a rapid shift in procedure type performed. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) predominated until the late-2000s, then was surpassed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG), now the most commonly performed procedure in the US and worldwide [7, 8]. While prior trials were not powered to compare groups [9, 10], long-term data comparing the efficacy of the surgeries has emerged favoring RYGB. A 65,000-patient retrospective multicenter cohort demonstrated 6.7% greater total weight loss after RYGB compared to SG at 5 year follow up [11]. In a longitudinal study, mean weight loss at 7 years follow up was significantly higher in RYGB (30.4%) vs SG (23.6%) [12]. A meta-analysis of over 5000 patients showed superior weight loss after RYGB with a mean difference of 17% at greater than 5 years follow up [13]. Additionally, RYGB has been shown to be superior to SG in achievement of type 2 diabetes remission. In a single center triple-blind randomized trial, diabetes remission was achieved in 75% of RYGB vs. 48% of SG subjects at 1 year [14]. In a 9700-patient retrospective multicenter cohort the diabetes remission rate was approximately 10% higher in patients who had RYGB compared to SG and they experienced significantly lower relapse rates at 5 years after surgery [15]. Several prior trials also showed more favorable remission rates after RYGB compared to SG [4, 9, 10].

Changes in gut hormones of energy and glucose homeostasis following these procedures are felt to partially underlie differences in outcomes [1619]. A variety of hormones secreted from the gastrointestinal tract communicate with peripheral tissues and the central nervous system to regulate glucose homeostasis and energy balance. The gut hormones of interest in this report are peptide YY (PYY), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and ghrelin. PYY and GLP-1 are secreted by distal intestinal L cells to decrease appetite, increase satiety, and slow gut motility. [20]. Additionally, PYY improves insulin sensitivity [21, 22] and GLP-1 functions as an incretin to potentiate glucose-stimulated insulin release. Ghrelin is an appetite stimulating neuropeptide secreted by the gastric fundus and proximal small intestine to increase food intake, gut motility, and decrease insulin secretion [23, 24]. Ghrelin levels increase during fasting, are suppressed following meal intake, and increase in response to diet-induced weight loss or adjustable gastric banding [2527].

The objective of this study was to quantify blood levels of GI tract hormones at one year follow up to delineate possible reasons for greater efficacy of RYGB over SG in achieving weight loss and metabolic improvements.

Materials and methods

Protocol

We certify that all applicable institution and government regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers was obeyed during this study. The study was approved by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Patients were recruited if they were above the age of 21, scheduled to undergo either RYGB or SG, and did not use weight loss medications within 90 days prior to enrollment. This cohort consists of 59 subjects, recruited from April 2003 to September 2017, who underwent either RYGB (n = 40) or SG (n = 19) and had 1 year of follow up data. Sample size was based on prior and ongoing work comparing RYGB and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in which differences in gut hormone levels were observed in cross-sectional and prospective studies [2729].

The choice of bariatric procedure was based on patient and surgeon preference. RYGB entailed creation of a 15-30ml gastric pouch (divided from the proximal lesser curvature of the stomach and excluded the fundus) and anastomosed to a Roux limb of jejunum created by division of the jejunum 50-100cm distal to the ligament of Treitz and anastomosing the afferent biliopancreatic limb of the jejunum 100-150cm distally. Division of the vagus nerve and its branches was avoided. SG was performed with a 40Fr bougie as a template aligned along the lesser curvature. Gastric transection was performed beginning 5cm proximal to the pylorus and extended to the Angle of His.

Participants were seen at baseline, 2, 12, 26, and 52 weeks for measurement of body weight and waist circumference. At baseline, week 26, and week 52 blood was drawn in a fasted state followed by consumption of a liquid test meal over a 15 minute period (Optifast, Novartis, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 474 ml, 320 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 35% protein, 15% fat). Venous blood was then drawn at 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes from the end of the meal. After centrifugation at 4ºC, both serum and plasma were stored at -80ºC. Subjects completed a validated visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire [30, 31] in the fasted state and at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after the test-meal. The VAS consisted of 100-mm lines with words anchored at each end describing extreme sensations of hunger, satiety, sweet cravings, and nausea or abdominal comfort. Subjects were asked to make a vertical mark across the line corresponding to their feelings. Quantification was performed by measuring the distance from the left end of the line to the mark.

Hormone assays

Total PYY was measured by ELISA (Millipore, MO, USA) with a sensitivity of 10pg/ml. Total GLP-1 was measured by RIA (Millipore, MO, USA) after alcohol extraction according to manufacturer’s protocol with a sensitivity of 3pM and recovery in each assay tested by parallel extraction of standards. Leptin was measured with a human RIA kit (LINCO Research, Inc, St. Charles, MO) using a 125I-iodinated human leptin tracer. Total plasma immunoreactive ghrelin was measured by a RIA kit (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Belmont, CA) using 125I-iodinated ghrelin tracer and a rabbit polyclonal antibody against full-length, octanolyated human ghrelin that recognizes the acyl and des-acyl forms of the hormone, with the lower limit of detection of 20 pg/ml. Plasma glucose was measured by the hexokinase method. Plasma insulin was measured with the Immulite Analyzer (Diagnostic Products Corp., Los Angeles, CA) with the lower limit of detection of 2ulU/ml. An aliquot from a pool of plasma was included in each assay to ensure that there was no change over time. All samples were assayed in duplicate.

Statistical analysis

Statistical model estimated means and standard errors are presented.

Linear mixed effects models were used to analyze the outcome variables. Specifically, the main predictors were procedure (RYGB versus SG), time (in week, treated as categorical for possible exploration of nonlinear temporal trend), and their interactions. Random intercept effects were included in the model to account for between-subject variation and within-subject correlation, which was equivalent to a compound symmetric covariance structure. No other covariance structures were explored due to limited sample size. The estimated mean and standard error at each time point was reported from the model fit and compared using a Wald test. A significant interaction effect was considered as a confirmation of procedure effect. The linear mixed model was chosen to assess the procedure effect for multiple reasons. First, compared with generalized estimating equation, another main approach to modeling longitudinal data, the mixed model is a conditional model and hence is able to capture the subject specific features, which matches with the purpose of clinical trials. Second, the mixed model is a likelihood-based model, and hence would remain appropriate even if there are missing data. In fact, it is theoretically shown that using all available data (i.e., even those subjects with partial data) the mixed model would yield correct parameter estimations under the missing at random (MAR) assumption, one which was deemed reasonable in practice and its violation could not be confirmed in such a small sample size. A P < .05 was considered statistically significant. SAS version 9.4 was used in the analysis. Total area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule from 0–120 min, with the exception of GLP-1, which was calculated from 0–60 min. Insulin resistance was calculated using the homeostatic model of assessment (HOMA-IR) [32]. The Pearson correlation analysis was used for HOMA-IR and percentage weight loss.

Results

Study subjects

There were 59 subjects enrolled consisting of 63% Hispanic, 37% non-Hispanic, 22% African American, and 78% Caucasian adults; 40 subjects underwent RYGB (8M/32F) and 19 underwent SG (4M/15F).

Baseline characteristics were similar for age (RYGB 43.6± 1.6 years; SG 44.5 ± 1.8 years P = 0.34) and BMI (RYGB 46.4 ± 5.5 kg/m2; SG 45.6 ± 8 kg/m2 P = 0.32). Baseline characteristics and anthropometric data are presented in Table 1. While weight was similar at baseline (RYGB 123.6 ± 19.2 kg; SG 124 ± 26.9 kg P = 0.47), there was a significantly higher percentage weight loss after RYGB compared to SG (30.3% vs 27.0%, P = 0.03) at 52 weeks (Fig 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants.

Sleeve Gastrectomy (n = 19) Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (n = 40)
Age--yr
    Mean 44.5 ± 1.8 43.6 ± 1.6
    Range 27–57 22–64
Sex
    Female—no. (%) 15 (78.9) 32 (80.0)
    Male—no. (%) 4 (21.1) 8 (20.0)
Race
    White—no. (%) 12 (63.2) 34 (85.0)
    Black—no. (%) 7 (36.8) 6 (15.0)
Ethnicity
    Hispanic—no. (%) 12 (63.2) 25 (62.5)
    Non-Hispanic—no. (%) 7 (36.8) 15 (37.5)
Weight/BMI
    Weight (kg) 124.0 ± 4.4 123.6 ± 3.0
    Waist (cm) 124.4 ± 3.0 125.2 ± 2.0
    BMI (kg/ m2) 45.6 ± 1.4 46.4 ± 0.9

Results are presented as mean ± SEM unless indicated otherwise.

Fig 1. BMI and percentage weight loss (%WL) after SG and RYGB.

Fig 1

Values are reported as mean ± SEM. *P <0.05 between group difference.

Hormone and glucose levels

Values of blood hormone levels are presented in Table 2 and Fig 2. Fasting levels of PYY and GLP-1 did not change after RYGB or SG. Postprandial PYY increased significantly after RYGB at 52 weeks, with AUC levels approximately two-fold greater than baseline. Postprandial PYY increased to a lesser degree after SG and AUC levels were significantly lower compared with RYGB. While PYY AUC increased after SG compared to baseline at 26 weeks, significance was not maintained at 52 weeks. GLP-1 levels increased in both groups. Similar to PYY, GLP-1 AUC following SG was significantly higher than baseline at 26 weeks, but was not maintained at 52 weeks. GLP-1 AUC increased significantly after RYGB from baseline at 26 weeks and persisted at 52 weeks. At baseline, ghrelin levels were greater in the SG group compared with RYGB. However, ghrelin levels drastically decreased after SG such that levels became significantly lower post-surgery compared with baseline and compared with the same time-points post-RYGB. In contrast, there was no significant change in ghrelin levels from baseline after RYGB. Data were further analyzed as percent change in AUC from baseline: at 26 weeks percent change was -46.6% for SG and 11.3% for RYGB (P <0.01); and at 52 weeks percent change was -45.2% for SG and 13.7% for RYGB (P <0.01). Leptin levels decreased significantly in both groups and were consistently lower at baseline and post-surgery in the RYGB group.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics and changes over time in body weight, glucose and plasma hormone levels after SG and RYGB.

Sleeve Gastrectomy Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass
Week 0 Week 26 Week 52 Week 0 Week 26 Week 52
Wt/BMI
Wt (kg) 124.0 ± 4.4 96.8 ± 4.4*** 90.4 ± 4.4*** 123.6 ± 3.0 92.9 ± 3.1*** 85.8 ± 3.1***
Waist (cm) 124.4± 3.0 102.1 ± 3.0*** 97.5 ± 3.0*** 125.2 ± 2.0 104.9 ± 2.0*** 98.3 ± 2.0***
BMI (kg/m2) 45.6 ± 1.4 35.4 ± 1.4*** 33.3 ± 1.4*** 46.4 ± 0.9 34.9 ± 0.9*** 32.3 ± 0.9***
WL (%) n/a 21.9 ± 1.3*** 27.0 ± 1.3*** n/a 24.6 ± 1.0*** 30.3 ± 1.0***O
Glucose(mg/dl)
Fasting 102.4 ± 5.4 81.7 ± 5.4*** 81.0 ± 5.6*** 112.3 ± 3.7 91.8 ± 3.8*** 86.3 ± 3.7***
AUC x 103 14.2 ± 0.9 10.3 ± 0.9*** 9.6 ± 1.0*** 15.0 ± 0.7 11.3 ± 0.7*** 10.6 ± 0.7***
Insulin (uIU/ml)
Fasting 17.0 ± 4.1 12.6 ± 4.1 8.5 ± 4.4 20.7 ± 2.8 14.7 ± 3.0 7.0 ± 2.8***
AUC x 103 8.3 ± 0.8 5.5 ± 0.8*** 5.2 ± 0.9*** 6.8 ± 0.6 4.5 ± 0.6*** 4.0 ± 0.6***
HOMA-IR            
4.5 ± 1.1 2.5 ± 1.1 1.7 ± 1.3* 6.0 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.7** 1.5 ± 0.8***
PYY (pg/ml)
Fasting 81.1 ± 21.5 75.8 ± 21.5 75.0 ± 22.6 92.6 ± 14.9 123.5 ± 15.5* 119.7 ± 14.9
AUC x 103 13.1 ± 4.6 24.4 ± 4.6* 18.8 ± 4.9 16.0 ± 3.5 37.9 ± 3.4***O 39.1 ±3.2***OOO
GLP-1 (pmol/l)
Fasting 19.1 ± 3.1 18.1 ± 3.2 16.5 ± 3.1 14.5 ± 2.3 13.5 ± 2.3 13.1 ± 2.2
AUC x 103 1.6 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2** 1.8 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2*** 2.2 ± 0.2**
Ghrelin (pg/ml)
Fasting 518.6 ± 35.2 230.8 ± 36.7*** 224.9 ± 43.5*** 347.1 ±24.2OOO 347.4 ± 25.0 OO 347.1 ± 24.7 O
AUC x 103 55.0 ± 3.7 25.2 ± 3.9*** 25.0 ± 4.6*** 36.3 ± 2.7OOO 35.3 ± 2.7O 33.7 ± 2.6
Leptin (ng/ml)
Fasting 56.7 ± 3.7 27.0 ± 3.7*** 26.0 ± 3.9*** 43.2 ± 2.5 OO 17.2 ± 2.6***O 15.6 ± 2.5*** O

Values presented are linear mixed model mean ± SEM. P value compared with Week 0 within-group

*P < 0.05

**P < 0.01

***P < 0.001. P value compared with SG values at same time point: P < 0.05

ººP < 0.01

ºººP < 0.001. HOMA-IR units: (mmol x μIU x l-2). AUC x 103 are integrated over 0–120 min with the exception of AUC for GLP-1 which was determined from 0–60 min.

Fig 2. Fasting and postprandial gut hormone levels after SG and RYGB.

Fig 2

Values are reported as model estimated mean ± SEM. *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001 within group difference; oP <0.05, ooP <0.01, oooP <0.001 between group difference.

Both groups had a similar percentage of subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (21% SG, 27% RYGB, P = 0.59). Combined data from subjects with and without diabetes are presented (Table 2). Fasting and postprandial glucose decreased in both groups without significant differences between procedures. Insulin also decreased, with both groups demonstrating early peak levels at 15 minutes post-test meal followed by a rapid decline such that insulin AUC decreased significantly in each (Table 2 and Fig 3). HOMA-IR decreased in both groups. While there was a significant negative correlation between HOMA-IR and percent weight loss in SG (r = -0.65, P = 0.008) there was no correlation in RYGB (r = -0.15, P = 0.4) (Fig 4). Data were similar when subjects with diabetes were excluded from the correlation analysis; there remained a significant negative correlation between HOMA-IR and percent weight loss in SG (r = -0.59, P = 0.04) and no correlation in RYGB (r = -0.25, P = 0.19).

Fig 3. Fasting and postprandial glucose and insulin.

Fig 3

Values are reported as model estimated mean ± SEM. *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001 within group difference.

Fig 4. HOMA-IR and correlation with percentage Weight Loss (%WL) after SG and RYGB.

Fig 4

Visual analog scale analysis

VAS ratings for appetitive sensations were similar in both groups at baseline. There were decreases in hunger after SG at 26 weeks (P = 0.03) that were not maintained at 1 year, whereas the opposite trend was observed after RYGB with a decrease in hunger at 1 year (P = 0.09). Both groups showed increases in fullness. There were no differences in abdominal discomfort. When asked “How much do you crave something sweet right now?” there was a trend towards decreased sweet cravings in RYGB compared to baseline (P = 0.07) and compared with SG (P = 0.056) at 52 weeks (Fig 5), whereas there were no significant changes in sweet cravings after SG.

Fig 5. Visual analog scale results of appetitive ratings.

Fig 5

Values are AUC 0–120 min. *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001 within group difference.

Discussion

This study demonstrates significant changes after bariatric surgery in levels of gut hormones that regulate glucose and energy homeostasis and shows differences in these levels between RYGB and SG. Increases in postprandial PYY and GLP-1 levels in the blood were observed primarily after RYGB and transiently after SG. Anatomic changes after RYGB that circumvent the gastric pylorus accelerates nutrient delivery to the distal intestine and likely stimulates secretion of these L cell hormones. Chronically high gastric emptying rates after RYGB have also been shown to induce adaptive changes such as an increase in enteroendocrine cell number, villous height, and surface area [3335]. In SG there is increased gastric pressure, lack of receptive relaxation in the tubular stomach remnant, accelerated gastric emptying and small bowel transit to induce early and prolonged secretion of L-cell hormones from the distal intestine [3639]. RYGB has been shown to induce higher and sustained postprandial PYY and GLP-1 compared to SG up to 1 year follow up [4043]. We observed increases in PYY and GLP-1 in SG at 26 weeks which were not maintained at 52 weeks. Sleeve dilatation after SG does occur in a majority of patients at one year follow up [44]. We postulate this could slow gastric emptying and subsequent GI hormone secretion though this has not been studied.

Changes in GLP-1 and PYY may underlie improvements in glucose homeostasis. Increases in postprandial insulin levels were seen in both groups, as early as 15 minutes following consumption of the test meal. Early postprandial peaks in insulin secretion, proportional to glucose, have been observed in patients with Type 2 diabetes undergoing RYGB, that correlated with improved hemoglobin A1C [45]. In addition to rapid nutrient transport and an early glycemic stimulus, GLP-1 contributes significantly to insulin secretion [46]. GLP-1 receptor blockade after RYGB significantly reduces insulin secretion and this reduction is greater than that seen in non-surgical controls [47]. The increase in PYY may also contribute to improved insulin sensitivity [21, 22].

Interestingly, HOMA-IR correlated with percentage weight loss only after SG, suggesting that improvement in insulin resistance is mediated, at least in part, by the amount of weight loss. In contrast, there was not a significant correlation between HOMA-IR and weight loss after RYGB. Thus, it is possible that weight loss independent changes, such as the increases in GLP-1 and PYY, are driving much of the improvement in HOMA-IR, with weight loss playing a somewhat lesser role. In conjunction with greater weight loss, additional gut hormones and changes in other factors not measured in this study such as metabolites, bile acids and the microbiome may promote improvement in glucose homeostasis which most studies show is greater after RYGB compared with SG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [19, 43].

Both procedures result in a dysregulation of ghrelin when compared with non-surgical weight loss or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), which result in a rise in fasting ghrelin and maintenance of meal-related decreases [25, 26]. In contrast, there was no significant change in ghrelin levels after RYGB, although it should be noted that by two years and later after RYGB, ghrelin levels do increase [26] and there was a large decrease after SG. In our study, pre-operative ghrelin levels were greater in the SG group compared with RYGB for unclear reasons. There was a wide range of fasting ghrelin values (SG, 226–960 pg/ml; RYGB, 110–904 pg/ml); this inter-individual variability and the smaller sample size in the SG group likely underlie the difference in baseline values. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the variability in levels was due to the assay used which measures both acyl-ghrelin, considered the active form of ghrelin, plus des-acyl ghrelin. Other characteristics associated with differences in ghrelin levels, such as BMI, insulin resistance, and sex [48, 49] were similar between groups. Racial differences in ghrelin have been observed: African Americans had higher fasting levels and impaired postprandial suppression[5052]. In our study, there was a larger proportion of African American subjects in the SG group compared to RYGB (36.8% and 15.0%, respectively), but there was no difference in fasting ghrelin between African American and Caucasian SG subjects (P = 0.56). Despite differences in ghrelin at baseline, the statistical analysis of change in ghrelin with time took into account baseline levels. Additionally, the percent reduction in AUC persisted at 52 weeks after SG. The large decrease in ghrelin is most likely due to resection of a large portion of the ghrelin-secreting cells of the gastric fundus and is consistent with the findings of recent studies [41, 42].

The mean fasting leptin level was also lower in RYGB compared to SG despite similar BMI at baseline. Body composition analysis was not performed thus, we are unable to decipher if differences in leptin were due to differences in adipose tissue mass or distribution. Menopause is known to be associated with decreased leptin and there was a higher proportion of women above the age of 50 in the RYGB group compared to SG (38% and 20%, respectively) which may have contributed somewhat to lower leptin levels. Given that the relationship between leptin and ghrelin is complex, [53] we are unable to draw inferences about whether differences in leptin levels between groups contributed to differences in ghrelin.

Paradoxically, decreases in post-prandial hunger were not maintained at 52 weeks despite marked decreases in ghrelin after SG. In addition, fullness increased significantly after SG despite lower postprandial PYY and GLP-1 levels compared to RYGB. In a study of 12 subjects who underwent SG, there were similar VAS scores for hunger and satiety at 3 months follow up compared to baseline despite increases in postprandial PYY [54]. Other mediators of fullness and satiety related to the mechanical changes after SG, such as increases in gastric pressure and vagal firing, could contribute to these findings. Interestingly, there was a trend toward decreased sweet cravings after RYGB, which recapitulates the findings of a prior study comparing LAGB with RYGB where LAGB patients had no change in sweet cravings and RYGB patients had significantly lower fasting and postprandial sweet cravings [26]. GLP-1 and PYY are potential mediators of this effect as they have been shown to enhance the ability to taste sweet flavors and heighten aversion to sweet taste [55, 56]. The presence of oral sweet taste receptors in the intestinal tract are known to enhance the intake and preference for sugar-rich foods and mediate GLP-1 release [57]. Our finding of increases in GLP-1 and PYY associated with RYGB support this mechanism and highlight the potential role of the gut-brain axis in mediating sugar preference recently described in rodents [58].

There was a significantly higher mean percentage weight loss after RYGB at 52 weeks. In line with long-term data, these differences in weight loss are anticipated to become more pronounced over time [11]. A subset of subjects was followed out to two years with weight data available for 74% of SG (14/19) and 70% of RYGB (28/40) demonstrating a lack of continued weight loss in SG and continued weight loss in RYGB of 26% and 32%, respectively.

A limitation of this study is the lack of randomization. There are also other gastrointestinal hormones of energy and glucose homeostasis of interest which were not measured [59, 60]. Additionally, only one type of meal stimulus was used. A solid meal stimulus or a different macronutrient composition, administered at different times of the day or at different rates, could have elicited different effects on hormone secretion and appetitive sensation. Rates of feeding have the ability to evoke higher sensations of satiety without corresponding changes in GLP-1 or PYY, which makes it possible other mechanisms unrelated to gut hormone secretion might underlie the success of surgery [54].

In conclusion, our results demonstrate that differences in gastrointestinal hormones of energy homeostasis and changes in sweet cravings are possible mechanisms for greater weight loss after RYGB compared to SG. Additionally, changes in these hormones may mediate weight-independent improvement in insulin resistance after RYGB. Continued research may further identify different factors that contribute to the metabolic benefits of SG and RYGB and the differences between these procedures.

Supporting information

S1 File. Dataset.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Irene Conwell, Princess Swan and Mya Pugh for their expert technical assistance.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [DK072011 to JK, T32 DK07271 to Dr. Domenico Accili, UL1TR001873 and UL1TR000040 to Dr. Muredach Reilly]. RA was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (T32 DK 007559-29). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Flegal KM, Kruszon-Moran D, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Trends in Obesity Among Adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2284–91. 10.1001/jama.2016.6458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adams KF, Schatzkin A, Harris TB, Kipnis V, Mouw T, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Overweight, obesity, and mortality in a large prospective cohort of persons 50 to 71 years old. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(8):763–78. 10.1056/NEJMoa055643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sjostrom LV. Mortality of severely obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55(2 Suppl):516S–23S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, Wolski K, Aminian A, Brethauer SA, et al. Bariatric Surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy for Diabetes—5-Year Outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):641–51. 10.1056/NEJMoa1600869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arterburn DE, Courcoulas AP. Bariatric surgery for obesity and metabolic conditions in adults. BMJ. 2014;349:g3961 10.1136/bmj.g3961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sjostrom L. Bariatric surgery and reduction in morbidity and mortality: experiences from the SOS study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32 Suppl 7:S93–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Formisano G, Buchwald H, Scopinaro N. Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2013. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1822–32. 10.1007/s11695-015-1657-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Vitiello A, Zundel N, Buchwald H, et al. Bariatric Surgery and Endoluminal Procedures: IFSO Worldwide Survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2279–89. 10.1007/s11695-017-2666-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Salminen P, Helmio M, Ovaska J, Juuti A, Leivonen M, Peromaa-Haavisto P, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss at 5 Years Among Patients With Morbid Obesity: The SLEEVEPASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):241–54. 10.1001/jama.2017.20313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Peterli R, Wolnerhanssen BK, Peters T, Vetter D, Kroll D, Borbely Y, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Weight Loss in Patients With Morbid Obesity: The SM-BOSS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(3):255–65. 10.1001/jama.2017.20897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arterburn D, Wellman R, Emiliano A, Smith SR, Odegaard AO, Murali S, et al. Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Bariatric Procedures for Weight Loss: A PCORnet Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(11):741–50. 10.7326/M17-2786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ahmed B, King WC, Gourash W, Belle SH, Hinerman A, Pomp A, et al. Long-term weight change and health outcomes for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and matched Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) participants in the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) study. Surgery. 2018;164(4):774–83. 10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shoar S, Saber AA. Long-term and midterm outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(2):170–80. 10.1016/j.soard.2016.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hofso D, Fatima F, Borgeraas H, Birkeland KI, Gulseth HL, Hertel JK, et al. Gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in patients with type 2 diabetes (Oseberg): a single-centre, triple-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(12):912–24. 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30344-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.McTigue KM, Wellman R, Nauman E, Anau J, Coley RY, Odor A, et al. Comparing the 5-Year Diabetes Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet) Bariatric Study. JAMA Surg. 2020:e200087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Scott WR, Batterham RL. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: understanding weight loss and improvements in type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011;301(1):R15–27. 10.1152/ajpregu.00038.2011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Batterham RL, Cummings DE. Mechanisms of Diabetes Improvement Following Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(6):893–901. 10.2337/dc16-0145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Karra E, Yousseif A, Batterham RL. Mechanisms facilitating weight loss and resolution of type 2 diabetes following bariatric surgery. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2010;21(6):337–44. 10.1016/j.tem.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nguyen KT, Korner J. The sum of many parts: potential mechanisms for improvement in glucose homeostasis after bariatric surgery. Curr Diab Rep. 2014;14(5):481 10.1007/s11892-014-0481-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vincent RP, le Roux CW. Changes in gut hormones after bariatric surgery. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2008;69(2):173–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vrang N, Madsen AN, Tang-Christensen M, Hansen G, Larsen PJ. PYY(3–36) reduces food intake and body weight and improves insulin sensitivity in rodent models of diet-induced obesity. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006;291(2):R367–75. 10.1152/ajpregu.00726.2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guida C, Stephen SD, Watson M, Dempster N, Larraufie P, Marjot T, et al. PYY plays a key role in the resolution of diabetes following bariatric surgery in humans. EBioMedicine. 2019;40:67–76. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Muller TD, Nogueiras R, Andermann ML, Andrews ZB, Anker SD, Argente J, et al. Ghrelin. Mol Metab. 2015;4(6):437–60. 10.1016/j.molmet.2015.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tong J, Prigeon RL, Davis HW, Bidlingmaier M, Kahn SE, Cummings DE, et al. Ghrelin suppresses glucose-stimulated insulin secretion and deteriorates glucose tolerance in healthy humans. Diabetes. 2010;59(9):2145–51. 10.2337/db10-0504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cummings DE, Weigle DS, Frayo RS, Breen PA, Ma MK, Dellinger EP, et al. Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced weight loss or gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1623–30. 10.1056/NEJMoa012908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tsouristakis AI, Febres G, McMahon DJ, Tchang B, Conwell IM, Tsang AJ, et al. Long-Term Modulation of Appetitive Hormones and Sweet Cravings After Adjustable Gastric Banding and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Obes Surg. 2019;29(11):3698–705. 10.1007/s11695-019-04111-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Korner J, Inabnet W, Febres G, Conwell IM, McMahon DJ, Salas R, et al. Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after adjustable gastric banding and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33(7):786–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Korner J, Inabnet W, Conwell IM, Taveras C, Daud A, Olivero-Rivera L, et al. Differential effects of gastric bypass and banding on circulating gut hormone and leptin levels. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(9):1553–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Korner J, Bessler M, Inabnet W, Taveras C, Holst JJ. Exaggerated glucagon-like peptide-1 and blunted glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide secretion are associated with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass but not adjustable gastric banding. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3(6):597–601. 10.1016/j.soard.2007.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24(1):38–48. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stubbs RJ, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, Rowley E, Reid C, Elia M, et al. The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. Br J Nutr. 2000;84(4):405–15. 10.1017/s0007114500001719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia. 1985;28(7):412–9. 10.1007/BF00280883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mumphrey MB, Patterson LM, Zheng H, Berthoud HR. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery increases number but not density of CCK-, GLP-1-, 5-HT-, and neurotensin-expressing enteroendocrine cells in rats. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(1):e70–9. 10.1111/nmo.12034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.le Roux CW, Borg C, Wallis K, Vincent RP, Bueter M, Goodlad R, et al. Gut hypertrophy after gastric bypass is associated with increased glucagon-like peptide 2 and intestinal crypt cell proliferation. Ann Surg. 2010;252(1):50–6. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d3d21f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cavin JB, Couvelard A, Lebtahi R, Ducroc R, Arapis K, Voitellier E, et al. Differences in Alimentary Glucose Absorption and Intestinal Disposal of Blood Glucose After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(2):454–64 e9. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Braghetto I, Davanzo C, Korn O, Csendes A, Valladares H, Herrera E, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of gastric emptying in obese patients submitted to sleeve gastrectomy compared to normal subjects. Obes Surg. 2009;19(11):1515–21. 10.1007/s11695-009-9954-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Melissas J, Leventi A, Klinaki I, Perisinakis K, Koukouraki S, de Bree E, et al. Alterations of global gastrointestinal motility after sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective study. Ann Surg. 2013;258(6):976–82. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182774522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Baumann T, Kuesters S, Grueneberger J, Marjanovic G, Zimmermann L, Schaefer AO, et al. Time-resolved MRI after ingestion of liquids reveals motility changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy—preliminary results. Obes Surg. 2011;21(1):95–101. 10.1007/s11695-010-0317-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yehoshua RT, Eidelman LA, Stein M, Fichman S, Mazor A, Chen J, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy—volume and pressure assessment. Obes Surg. 2008;18(9):1083–8. 10.1007/s11695-008-9576-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yousseif A, Emmanuel J, Karra E, Millet Q, Elkalaawy M, Jenkinson AD, et al. Differential effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass on appetite, circulating acyl-ghrelin, peptide YY3-36 and active GLP-1 levels in non-diabetic humans. Obes Surg. 2014;24(2):241–52. 10.1007/s11695-013-1066-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Svane MS, Bojsen-Moller KN, Martinussen C, Dirksen C, Madsen JL, Reitelseder S, et al. Postprandial Nutrient Handling and Gastrointestinal Hormone Secretion After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(6):1627–41 e1. 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alamuddin N, Vetter ML, Ahima RS, Hesson L, Ritter S, Minnick A, et al. Changes in Fasting and Prandial Gut and Adiposity Hormones Following Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y-Gastric Bypass: an 18-Month Prospective Study. Obes Surg. 2017;27(6):1563–72. 10.1007/s11695-016-2505-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Casajoana A, Pujol J, Garcia A, Elvira J, Virgili N, de Oca FJ, et al. Predictive Value of Gut Peptides in T2D Remission: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Metabolic Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy and Greater Curvature Plication. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2235–45. 10.1007/s11695-017-2669-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Disse E, Pasquer A, Pelascini E, Valette PJ, Betry C, Laville M, et al. Dilatation of Sleeve Gastrectomy: Myth or Reality? Obes Surg. 2017;27(1):30–7. 10.1007/s11695-016-2261-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nguyen KT, Billington CJ, Vella A, Wang Q, Ahmed L, Bantle JP, et al. Preserved Insulin Secretory Capacity and Weight Loss Are the Predominant Predictors of Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Randomized to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Diabetes. 2015;64(9):3104–10. 10.2337/db14-1870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Larraufie P, Roberts GP, McGavigan AK, Kay RG, Li J, Leiter A, et al. Important Role of the GLP-1 Axis for Glucose Homeostasis after Bariatric Surgery. Cell Rep. 2019;26(6):1399–408 e6. 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Salehi M, Gastaldelli A, D'Alessio DA. Blockade of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor corrects postprandial hypoglycemia after gastric bypass. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(3):669–80 e2. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Soriano-Guillen L, Ortega L, Navarro P, Riestra P, Gavela-Perez T, Garces C. Sex-related differences in the association of ghrelin levels with obesity in adolescents. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(8):1371–6. 10.1515/cclm-2015-0555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sakao Y, Ohashi N, Sugimoto M, Ichikawa H, Sahara S, Tsuji T, et al. Gender Differences in Plasma Ghrelin Levels in Hemodialysis Patients. Ther Apher Dial. 2019;23(1):65–72. 10.1111/1744-9987.12764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Araneta MR, Barrett-Connor E. Adiponectin and ghrelin levels and body size in normoglycemic Filipino, African-American, and white women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(10):2454–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Brownley KA, Light KC, Grewen KM, Bragdon EE, Hinderliter AL, West SG. Postprandial ghrelin is elevated in black compared with white women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(9):4457–63. 10.1210/jc.2004-0607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fluitt MB, Gambhir KK, Nunlee-Bland G, Odonkor W. Fasting plasma ghrelin levels are reduced, but not suppressed during OGTT in obese African American adolescents. Ethn Dis. 2013;23(4):436–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cummings DE, Foster KE. Ghrelin-leptin tango in body-weight regulation. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(5):1532–5. 10.1016/s0016-5085(03)00350-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rigamonti AE, Bini S, Rocco MC, Giardini V, Massimini D, Crippa MG, et al. Post-prandial anorexigenic gut peptide, appetite and glucometabolic responses at different eating rates in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Endocrine. 2017;55(1):113–23. 10.1007/s12020-016-0933-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mathes CM, Spector AC. Food selection and taste changes in humans after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a direct-measures approach. Physiol Behav. 2012;107(4):476–83. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bueter M, Miras AD, Chichger H, Fenske W, Ghatei MA, Bloom SR, et al. Alterations of sucrose preference after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Physiol Behav. 2011;104(5):709–21. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.07.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sclafani A, Ackroff K. Role of gut nutrient sensing in stimulating appetite and conditioning food preferences. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012;302(10):R1119–33. 10.1152/ajpregu.00038.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tan HE, Sisti AC, Jin H, Vignovich M, Villavicencio M, Tsang KS, et al. The gut-brain axis mediates sugar preference. Nature. 2020;580(7804):511–6. 10.1038/s41586-020-2199-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pucci A, Batterham RL. Mechanisms underlying the weight loss effects of RYGB and SG: similar, yet different. J Endocrinol Invest. 2019;42(2):117–28. 10.1007/s40618-018-0892-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dimitriadis GK, Randeva MS, Miras AD. Potential Hormone Mechanisms of Bariatric Surgery. Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6(3):253–65. 10.1007/s13679-017-0276-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

François Blachier

23 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-08332

Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arakawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process.

Particularly, you will see that additional informations regarding several aspects of your study have been asked by several reviewers. In addition, you will note that several comments have been made regarding the statistical analysis performed, the way some data are presented, interpretated, and discussed, and some missing important references in the bibliography.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 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,

François Blachier, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

At this time we ask that you include the following in your manuscript:

1. The patient recruitment date range

2. Additional information regarding the VAS survey used in the study, ensuring that you have provided sufficient details so that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the survey as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy as Supporting Information.

3. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

4. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "Dr. Korner participates on advisory boards for Applied Biosciences, Digma Medical, GI Dynamics, and Esquagama Labs.  Dr. Bessler is a founder of Endobetes, has a patent application, and owns stock in it.  Dr. Krikhely is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical, CLG, and CSATs.  These disclosures do not constitute a competing interest.  This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.  "

We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

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

[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: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 manuscript describes a prospective study comparing the clinical outcomes and gut hormone response after two different bariatric surgery procedures, SG and RYBG. This research addresses a very timely and important topic, since SG being a much simpler surgical procedure has become ever more appealing and the most widely performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet, there is a growing amount of evidence suggesting that SG has poorer outcomes compared to RYGB, also supported by the conclusion of the herein described work. In sum, the knowledge gained by having conducted this study builds on previously available data and can help to support future clinical decision makers and guidance's. Despite the scientific merit, as well as this being a well designed, adequately conducted and very well described study, there are a number of points that still need to be addressed by the authors:

1- A similar proportion of patients in both groups had type 2 diabetes diagnosed prior to the bariatric surgery procedure. Information on disease duration and anti-diabetic treatment prior and after surgery, should be provided in the manuscript. This could allow to evaluate how comparable were the groups at baseline. Likewise the authors should provide further details on the progression of T2D after the procedures.

2- The authors should provide more detailed information on the VAS scale used in the methods section, including references and whether this was previously validated.

3- Figures with VAS data are presented using different Y axis scales, which give a false impression by magnifying scant differences that the authors classify as a trend when in fact there is no statistically difference. Likewise, data need be presented in the results and discussed in a more objective way. The effect of RYGB on sweet cravings is currently overemphasized and is not suported by the data.

4- Baseline ghrelin levels were significantly higher in the group of subjects submitted to SG, without any obvious explanation being provided by the authors nor hypothesis being advanced. Was the type of surgical procedure performed decided on the basis of baseline ghrelin levels? Authors should expand the discussion on this topic, and particularly addressing how these differences could represent a limitation for data interpretation.

5- Baseline leptin levels were also significantly higher in the SG group, suggesting that patients despite having a similar BMI could have a different body composition. Authors should also elaborate on possible hypothesis for this difference, this is finding is even more surprising given the fact that patients with higher fat mass tend to have higher leptin levels and lower fasting ghrelin levels.

6- In the study design the authors mention that patients were evaluated 2, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery, although data is only depicted for baseline, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery. How did weight loss progressed in the initial post-operative period, was it similar?

7- In Table 1, waist should be expressed in cm and not in inches to comply with the use of the metric system as BMI.

8- In line 95 the sentence "PYY increases insulin sensitivity..." lacks a reference at the end (38), already in the reference list and quoted in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: Aim of the present study was that to evaluate differences in the effect of two procedures of bariatric surgery, particularly laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), on some gut hormones, such as fasting and post-prandial levels of PYY, GLP-1 and ghrelin, and glucometabolic homeostasis. Circulating levels of leptin and some subjective parameters such as hunger, fullness, sweet craving and abdominal disconfirm were also evaluated. The Authors conclude that differences in gut hormones, mainly PYY and GLP-1, and in glucometabolic homeostasis can be invoked to explain the greater efficacy of RYGB compared to SG, particularly after 1 year.

The topic is of interest despite the increasing adoption of SG against obesity depends upon the lower incidence of intra- and post-surgical complications when compared to RYGB.

The Introduction appropriately describes the most relevant articles dealing with the research field. The results are adequately presented and discussed.

Comments

- GLP-1 is a peptide having a short half-life due to the proteolytic action of DPP-IV (dipeptidyl-peptidase-4). Did the Authors add a DPP-4 inhibitor in blood tubes?

- The Authors have not mentioned the analytical methods for glucose, insulin and leptin.

- It’s difficult to establish whether the post-RYGB or post-SG weight loss is a consequence of differences in gut hormones secretion or induces a different gut hormones secretion. The Referee suggests to statistically adjust any parameter, particularly PYY, GLP-1 and ghrelin, by the weight loss reached at each time point. In other words, the significant differences at week 52 and not at week 26 vs. basal values or between RYGB and SG might disappear after an adjustment for weight loss. This issue should be discussed.

- Is there a particular reason to measure post-prandial circulating levels of GLP-1 until to 60 min?

- In Statistical Analysis there is no description of the method used to calculate the correlations.

- Line 101: new paragraph with “The objective of this…”

- Lines 168-169: is there a sex-matching in the two groups?

- Lines 236-243: a full description of the method used to evaluate subjective parameters such sweet craving should be located in Materials&Methods and not in Results.

- Lines 273-278: The paragraph is not clear.

- The Authors should discuss the results of the study by Rigamonti et al. (Endocrine, 2017;55:113-123). In particular, anorexigenic gut hormones would play a a negligible role in SG-induced weight loss. In other words, other mechanisms not related to gut hormones secretion might underlie the success of bariatric surgery. This critical issue should be reported in the limitations of the work (final part of the Discussion).

Reviewer #3: The is a cohort study comparing RYGB vs SG and is very interesting with clear objectives set out. However the manuscript could benefit from a revision of how results are presented and expansion on the methods section.

In the statistical analysis section prior to details re fitting a mixed model authors should mention how descriptive summaries are summarized, e.g continuous variables means(SD) or median(IQR) if skewed and and for categorical variables, counts (%ages) presented etc. Also mention what tests were used to compare compare in terms of baseline characteristics. Additionally looks like correlation was also looked at, this should be mentioned.

Authors should state what covariance structure was fitted in the model. And mention if model assumptions were met.

Table 1 - should be the baseline characteristics by group.

Add a Table 2 to include descriptive of outcomes at all timepoints with changes. Also to authors should decide whether to present actual changes (e.g week 26 - baseline) (week52 - baseline), OR whether to present percentage change.

Currently Table 1 is labelled as baseline characteristics and changes over time...and then a foot note to indicate what was presented in the linear mixed effect. This is very confusing as the reader is left to work out changes etc...

Better to then have a Table 3 - which will include estimates from the model for the RYGB vs SG.

Also have full names in the table header e.g sleeve gastrectomy not SG.

For all these time-points measured, authors do not mention any issues with missing data and if at all how it was handled? Which would helpful to include 'n' available at each time points for the descriptive of outcomes presented in Table 1.

Reviewer #4: The paper entitled “Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass” by Arakawa et al. aims at comparing and contrasting gut hormones levels (especially PYY Ghrelin and GLP-1) during a meal test in subjects operated on RYGB and SG. A quality of this study is that it is a prospective cohort studying meal test response at base line and 26 and 52 weeks post-surgery.

Although the study is well designed and the paper well written, it presents an important limitation. The authors report a statistical difference in ghrelin and leptin levels at baseline. Baseline is supposed to be before the surgery and the authors cannot compare the impact of surgery on patients’ gut hormone levels with such a difference at baseline.

This raise questions on the drastic reduction of ghrelin they observed at weeks 26 and 52 in subjects operated on SG. Is it because SG ghrelin levels are over evaluated at baseline or are the RYGB ghrelin levels under evaluated at baseline ? In both cases the interpretations could be different and RYGB could also result in a reduction of ghrelin levels although at a lesser extent that SG but in agreement with previous reports.

How can the authors explain such a difference? Are the 2 groups of subjects coming from the same center ? Were the meal tests performed and blood samples drawn within the same center ? Were the assays performed in the same center ? Can one imagine a problem of inhibitors during one of the blood drawn ? Or a problem of sample conservation before the ghrelin assay ?

In addition, the GLP-1 level profiles are also very different between the VSG group and the RYGB group at baseline (especially T15, T90 and T120 on figure 1) with no explanation.

Minor point

Line 165 the sentence “There were 59 subjects enrolled consisting of 63% Hispanic, 37% non-Hispanic, 22% African American, and 78% Caucasian adults” is confusing as the total is more than 100%

Are the AUC incremental or total AUC ?

Why are the AUC calculated for GLP1 different from the others ?

Reviewer #5: This article presents some interesting data related to the beneficial effect of bariatric surgery regarding weight loss and glucose tolerance by comparing the effects of vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). In this study, 19 patients undergoing VSG and 40 RYGB have been followed at different time points, before 6 months and one year after surgery, without randomisation between the two groups. At each time point, the patients were given a liquid meal and some gut hormones where measured at different time points. Overall, the study is correctly designed and provides interesting information but is not very new as several articles have already focused on the effects of these surgery on gut hormones, either independently or comparing both procedures. Generally speaking, this paper confirms the main literature showing a higher GLP-1 and PYY response after RYGB compared to VSG. The main interest resides in the time follow up suggesting a diminution of the VSG surgery effect on the long-time which is just discussed by a probable reversion of the VSG by stomach dilation. We can regret that the high individual variability is not discussed.

I have some major and minor comments, but I consider this research acceptable for publication if these points are correctly addressed

Major comments:

- The literature review about the comparison between VSG and RYGB and the role of gut hormones in these surgery is lacking the most recent published evidences (Svane et al, Gastroenterology 2019 ; Alamuddin et al, Obesity Surgery 2017 ; Casajoana et al, Obesity Surgery 2017 ; Cavin et al, Gastroenterology 2017; Larraufie et al, Cell Reports, 2019 …). The authors should discuss the most recent papers and how their results match or bring novelty to the existing litterature.

- The data analysis should be reviewed and better explained. I really appreciated data availability and this is very important for open-science, however I was quite surprised to see many missing points that are not discussed in the paper regarding gut hormone measurements. As an example, 3 individuals do not have any value for PYY measurement in the VSG group at 52 weeks and 6 in the RYGB and many data is missing for 15 minutes measurement despite being often the most important point regarding gut hormones. It would be important that the authors indicate clearly the number of measurement for each point on their graphs or tables. Moreover, the statical analysis is inappropriate as the authors use a linear regression with mixed effects to account for individual measurements for comparison between groups and time points, as well as to infer values for missing points in table one. This results in calculated values that differs to the actual mean using the raw data. As an example, the indicated mean value for PYY in the table in the VSG group at 52 weeks is 75 pM whereas the mean from the provided data is 85.4 pM! The use of a linear mixed model is wrong here due to the missing values which are not randomly distributed but associated with the variables individuals and time points. Moreover, due to the high heterogeneity of the response between individuals and through time, they cannot fit with linear models. I therefore encourage the authors to revisit their analysis.

- Data analysis suggest important individual variability in some of the different parameters analysis. It would be interesting to further analyse individual correlation between gut hormone levels and metabolic parameters as some papers have suggested that gut hormones can be predictive of bariatric surgery outputs, and this data could help confirming or not this.

Minor comments:

- The authors focus only on Ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1 as gut hormones without mentioning the potential role of other gut hormones such as GIP, CCK or Neurotensin in the beneficial effects of bariatric surgery.

- In the methods, there is no indication of blood sampling at 15 minutes despite data being presented. Moreover, it is not clear how time is considered: is the time indicated from the start or of the end liquid meal and did the authors measured time consumption during each meal, and did the authors notice any difference ? This information is quite important as they allowed a large amount of time to drink the meal which represents a large volume for patients after these surgery, and may therefore importantly alter the gut hormone response happens within minutes in response to food intake, especially in these patients.

- Total Ghrelin is measured, but nothing is said about the importance nor the origin of acylated ghrelin which is mainly produced in the stomach whereas non-acylated ghrelin is found in the upper SI. Can the authors discuss about this difference ?

- As often, RYGB procedure varies from one individual to the other and is dependent on the surgeon appreciation. An important parameter seems to be the length of SI that is bypass and that can explain the stimulation of more or less distant enteroendocrine cells. Does the authors have access to this information, and did they notice any correlation between the length of bypassed SI and responses?

Small remark:

Figure 1 PYY SG time point indicates 5minutes, I suppose this should be 15.

Overall, this study provides additional data showing that VSG and RYGB differently modulate some gut hormones that could explain the different physiological effects of these surgeries, mainly on the long term as VSG effects seem to decrease. However, the data analysis should be reviewed based on two points: the analysis presented here using linear models with mixed effects is not suitable due to the missing values that should not be inferred, especially considering the high intra and inter individual variability responses and an analysis individual centred could help to better characterize the high variability of responses.

I therefore consider this study worth publishing, but it requires the data analysis to be revisited to ensure appropriate tools have been used and a better acknowledgement of the existing literature.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Pierre Larraufie

[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 Jul 20;15(7):e0236133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236133.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Jun 2020

Dear Dr. Blachier,

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript entitled “Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.” We appreciate the careful review and comments from the Reviewers. Below we have fully addressed each of the comments.

RESPONSE to the EDITOR:

From the editor, to include in manuscript:

1. Style requirements, including those for file naming. Follow:

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

b. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7797/Title%20Page%20-%20ONE%20Formatting.pdf

The Vancouver style template was edited in Endnote to have brackets around citations rather than parentheses. On the authorship page, we deemed it not necessary to add the equal author contribution denotation. File names for figures and supplemental information files have been updated per PLOS style requirements.

2. Patient recruitment date range:

The first subject was enrolled on 4/02/03 and the last subject was enrolled on 9/15/17. This information is now included in the manuscript.

3. VAS survey additional info (sufficient details ensuring others could replicate the analysis)

Subjects completed a validated VAS questionnaire. The reproducibility and availability to predict subsequent food intake has been shown in previous studies (Flint et al 2000, Stubbs et al 2000). The VAS questionnaire consists of 100-mm lines with words anchored at each end describing extreme sensations of hunger, satiety, sweet cravings, and nausea or abdominal discomfort. Subjects were asked to make a vertical mark across the line corresponding to their feelings. Quantification was performed by measuring the distance from the left end of the line to the mark. This information has been added to the manuscript.

4. Sample size and power calculation in the methods (or discuss reasons for not performing one before study initiation)

A sample size and power calculation was not performed before study initiation, however, sample number was based on prior and ongoing work from our group comparing RYGB and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in which differences in gut hormone levels were observed in cross-sectional and prospective studies of subjects after RYGB (n= 9-28) and LAGB (n= 9-18) (references below). In the current study there are 40 and 19 subjects in the RYGB and SG groups, respectively. This information has been added to the manuscript.

Korner J, Inabnet W, Febres G, Conwell IM, McMahon DJ, Salas R, et al. Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after adjustable gastric banding and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33(7):786-95.

Korner J, Inabnet W, Conwell IM, Taveras C, Daud A, Olivero-Rivera L, et al. Differential effects of gastric bypass and banding on circulating gut hormone and leptin levels. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(9):1553-61.

Korner J, Bessler M, Inabnet W, Taveras C, Holst JJ. Exaggerated glucagon-like peptide-1 and blunted glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide secretion are associated with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass but not adjustable gastric banding. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3(6):597-601.

5. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Dr. Korner participates on advisory boards for Digma Medical, GI Dynamics, and Esquagama Labs. Dr. Bessler is a founder of Endobetes, has a patent application titled “Lumen Reinforcement and Anchoring System” application no. 16/046592. The patent is focused on a method to anchor devices in the GI tract and is assigned to Endobetes, a medical device startup with a goal of developing endoscopic devices for treatment of obesity and diabetes. Dr. Bessler owns stock in Endobetes. Dr. Krikhely is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical, CLG, and CSATs. These disclosures do not constitute a competing interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

The Competing Interests statement was amended in the cover letter to include more details on the patent held by Dr. Bessler. Dr. Korner’s participation on the advisory board for Applied Biosciences was also removed.

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

The dataset was added to the Supporting Information section at the end of the manuscript and captioned “S1 file. Dataset”. The file name was changed to “S1_file.xlsx”

RESPONSE to REVIEWERS

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes a prospective study comparing the clinical outcomes and gut hormone response after two different bariatric surgery procedures, SG and RYBG. This research addresses a very timely and important topic, since SG being a much simpler surgical procedure has become ever more appealing and the most widely performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet, there is a growing amount of evidence suggesting that SG has poorer outcomes compared to RYGB, also supported by the conclusion of the herein described work. In sum, the knowledge gained by having conducted this study builds on previously available data and can help to support future clinical decision makers and guidance's. Despite the scientific merit, as well as this being a well designed, adequately conducted and very well described study, there are a number of points that still need to be addressed by the authors:

1- A similar proportion of patients in both groups had type 2 diabetes diagnosed prior to the bariatric surgery procedure. Information on disease duration and anti-diabetic treatment prior and after surgery, should be provided in the manuscript. This could allow to evaluate how comparable were the groups at baseline. Likewise the authors should provide further details on the progression of T2D after the procedures.

We do not have detailed information on medication use or diabetes duration. Based on fasting glucose measurements, none of our subjects progressed to diabetes. Given results of several published randomized trials and observational studies, much longer follow-up would be required to examine progression from the non-diabetic to diabetic state.

The Reviewer raises an interesting point about whether diabetes status could have a modifier effect. We believe that one of the most intriguing findings from this study is the correlation of HOMA-IR and percentage weight loss, which is only significant in the SG group. This data was re-analyzed for just non-diabetics in order to remove possible confounding from the use of diabetes medications. The results remain essentially the same (RYGB r= -0.25, P =0.19; SG r= -0.59, P =0.04) This data has been added to the Results in the manuscript.

2- The authors should provide more detailed information on the VAS scale used in the methods section, including references and whether this was previously validated.

Subjects completed a validated VAS questionnaire. The reproducibility and availability to predict subsequent food intake has been shown in previous studies (Flint et al 2000, Stubbs et al 2000). Subjects completed a VAS questionnaire consisting of 100-mm lines with words anchored at each end describing extreme sensations of hunger, satiety, sweet cravings, and nausea or abdominal discomfort. Subjects were asked to make a vertical mark across the line corresponding to their feelings. Quantification was performed by measuring the distance from the left end of the line to the mark. This information has been added to the manuscript.

Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24(1):38-48.

Stubbs RJ, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, Rowley E, Reid C, Elia M, et al. The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. Br J Nutr. 2000;84(4):405-15.

3- Figures with VAS data are presented using different Y axis scales, which give a false impression by magnifying scant differences that the authors classify as a trend when in fact there is no statistically difference. Likewise, data need be presented in the results and discussed in a more objective way. The effect of RYGB on sweet cravings is currently overemphasized and is not supported by the data.

We certainly agree that using different Y axes when comparing RYGB to SG would be unacceptable, however, that is not how we presented the data. We are comparing appetitive sensations over time and between surgical groups as opposed to comparing sensations to each other (eg. hunger to fullness or hunger to sweet cravings); if the latter case was the objective, then we agree that the same Y axis would be appropriate. However, that is not the objective, and in fact, use of the same Y-axis amongst these different parameters would compress the bar graph to the point where the actual numbers will be difficult to see.

The intention was not to magnify scant differences between groups but to compare differences of the same variable over time and between groups. In order to do this, each variable has its own distinct range of values.

The data for sweet cravings show about a 3 fold difference in the AUC for RYGB compared to SG (~1.7 vs 0.5) that while not statistically significant represents a trend as was previously published comparing RYGB and LAGB (Tsouristakis et al 2019). We recognize, and agree, that this is a “trend” and do not want to over-interpret that data, but do feel that there is potentially important biology worthy of further investigation, particularly given recent results in rodents demonstrating that the gut-brain axis mediates sugar preference (Tan et al 2020). We have addressed your concerns regarding overemphasis of this trend in the manuscript and have shortened the Discussion.

Tsouristakis AI, Febres G, McMahon DJ, Tchang B, Conwell IM, Tsang AJ, et al. Long-Term Modulation of Appetitive Hormones and Sweet Cravings After Adjustable Gastric Banding and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Obes Surg. 2019;29(11):3698-705.

Tan HE, Sisti AC, Jin H, Vignovich M, Villavicencio M, Tsang KS, et al. The gut-brain axis mediates sugar preference. Nature. 2020;580(7804):511-6.

4- Baseline ghrelin levels were significantly higher in the group of subjects submitted to SG, without any obvious explanation being provided by the authors nor hypothesis being advanced. Was the type of surgical procedure performed decided on the basis of baseline ghrelin levels? Authors should expand the discussion on this topic, and particularly addressing how these differences could represent a limitation for data interpretation.

It is unclear why baseline ghrelin was significantly higher in SG compared to RYGB. The choice of procedure was based on patient and surgeon preference and not on baseline ghrelin levels. The RYGB and SG samples were run simultaneously within the same assay. We also use a pool of plasma that is included in every assay to ensure there is no assay drift over time. Data has been reanalyzed and no outliers were identified. Baseline characteristics associated with differences in ghrelin, such as BMI and insulin resistance, were similar in both groups. Sex-related differences in ghrelin levels have been observed (Soriano-Guillen et al 2016, Sakao et al 2019) however both surgical groups had a similar percentage of female subjects 78% for SG and 80% for RYGB. Racial differences in fasting ghrelin have been observed, where obese African Americans had higher fasting ghrelin (Araneta 2012) and impaired postprandial ghrelin suppression (Brownley 2004, Fluitt 2013) compared to Caucasians. In our study there was a larger proportion of African American subjects in the SG group compared to RYGB (36.8% and 15% respectively). However, there were no differences in fasting ghrelin between black and Caucasian SG subjects (P=0.56)

There was a wide range of fasting ghrelin values (SG 226-960 pg/ml; RYGB 110-904 pg/ml). This variability has been observed by many others and is not unique to our study. As RYGB had more than twice the number of subjects as SG, the difference in fasting ghrelin could simply reflect the smaller sample size. Most importantly, analysis of the change in ghrelin with time took into account the baseline ghrelin values. The reduction in ghrelin AUC persisted at 52 weeks after SG. This makes physiologic sense, as the ghrelin-secreting cells of the gastric fundus are excised during the surgery, and not explained solely by a higher AUC at baseline. In line with our findings, recent studies comparing RYGB and SG also show a significant suppression of fasting and postprandial ghrelin after SG (Svane et al 2019, Alamuddin et al 2016, Casajoana et al 2017). As requested, we have expanded the discussion on this topic in the manuscript.

Soriano-Guillen L, Ortega L, Navarro P, Riestra P, Gavela-Perez T, Garces C. Sex-related differences in the association of ghrelin levels with obesity in adolescents. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(8):1371-6.

Sakao Y, Ohashi N, Sugimoto M, Ichikawa H, Sahara S, Tsuji T, et al. Gender Differences in Plasma Ghrelin Levels in Hemodialysis Patients. Ther Apher Dial. 2019;23(1):65-72.

Araneta MR, Barrett-Connor E. Adiponectin and ghrelin levels and body size in normoglycemic Filipino, African-American, and white women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(10):2454-62.

Brownley KA, Light KC, Grewen KM, Bragdon EE, Hinderliter AL, West SG. Postprandial ghrelin is elevated in black compared with white women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(9):4457-63.

Fluitt MB, Gambhir KK, Nunlee-Bland G, Odonkor W. Fasting plasma ghrelin levels are reduced, but not suppressed during OGTT in obese African American adolescents. Ethn Dis. 2013;23(4):436-40.

Svane MS, Bojsen-Moller KN, Martinussen C, Dirksen C, Madsen JL, Reitelseder S, et al. Postprandial Nutrient Handling and Gastrointestinal Hormone Secretion After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(6):1627-41 e1.

Alamuddin N, Vetter ML, Ahima RS, Hesson L, Ritter S, Minnick A, et al. Changes in Fasting and Prandial Gut and Adiposity Hormones Following Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y-Gastric Bypass: an 18-Month Prospective Study. Obes Surg. 2017;27(6):1563-72.

Casajoana A, Pujol J, Garcia A, Elvira J, Virgili N, de Oca FJ, et al. Predictive Value of Gut Peptides in T2D Remission: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Metabolic Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy and Greater Curvature Plication. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2235-45.

5- Baseline leptin levels were also significantly higher in the SG group, suggesting that patients despite having a similar BMI could have a different body composition. Authors should also elaborate on possible hypothesis for this difference, this is finding is even more surprising given the fact that patients with higher fat mass tend to have higher leptin levels and lower fasting ghrelin levels.

Fasting leptin was lower in RYGB compared to SG despite similar BMI at baseline. Body composition analysis was not performed in this study thus we are unable to know whether differences in baseline leptin levels were due to differences in fat mass or adipose tissue distribution. If higher leptin levels were due to greater fat mass, we would also expect to see lower ghrelin levels in the SG group, which is not the case. Other factors known to affect leptin (eg. age, sex) were similar between groups. Menopause is known to be associated with decreased leptin and there was a higher proportion of women above the age of 50 in the RYGB group compared to SG (38% and 20% respectively) which may have contributed somewhat to lower leptin levels. We have added these issues to the Discussion including lack of body composition analysis as a study limitation. Given that the relationship between leptin and ghrelin is complex and somewhat controversial (Cummings and Foster 2003) we are unable to draw inferences about whether differences in leptin levels between groups contributed to differences in ghrelin.

Cummings DE, Foster KE. Ghrelin-leptin tango in body-weight regulation. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(5):1532-5.

6- In the study design the authors mention that patients were evaluated 2, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery, although data is only depicted for baseline, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery. How did weight loss progressed in the initial post-operative period, was it similar?

We have added a graph of the weight loss progression. (see Figure 1).All values are significant from baseline without between group differences until 52 weeks.

7- In Table 1, waist should be expressed in cm and not in inches to comply with the use of the metric system as BMI.

Waist circumference has been converted from inches to centimeters in the original table 1 (now labeled table 2).

8- In line 95 the sentence "PYY increases insulin sensitivity..." lacks a reference at the end (38), already in the reference list and quoted in the discussion.

Vrang et al 2006 was inserted as a reference for line 95

Reviewer #2: Aim of the present study was that to evaluate differences in the effect of two procedures of bariatric surgery, particularly laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), on some gut hormones, such as fasting and post-prandial levels of PYY, GLP-1 and ghrelin, and glucometabolic homeostasis. Circulating levels of leptin and some subjective parameters such as hunger, fullness, sweet craving and abdominal disconfirm were also evaluated. The Authors conclude that differences in gut hormones, mainly PYY and GLP-1, and in glucometabolic homeostasis can be invoked to explain the greater efficacy of RYGB compared to SG, particularly after 1 year.

The topic is of interest despite the increasing adoption of SG against obesity depends upon the lower incidence of intra- and post-surgical complications when compared to RYGB.

The Introduction appropriately describes the most relevant articles dealing with the research field. The results are adequately presented and discussed.

Comments

1- GLP-1 is a peptide having a short half-life due to the proteolytic action of DPP-IV (dipeptidyl-peptidase-4). Did the Authors add a DPP-4 inhibitor in blood tubes?

The Reviewer raises an important issue. Because of the susceptibility to proteolytic activity, we intentionally measured total GLP-1 which does not necessitate the use of a DPP-IV inhibitor. The assay used measures both the active form and inactive form when cleaved by DPP-IV. As much of GLP-1 is cleaved immediately upon secretion from the L-cell (Jens Holst, personal communication), and prior to the blood collected in the test tube, the measurement of active GLP-1 does not really assess how much is secreted from the L-cell as the much of the GLP-1 is already proteolytically processed and inactivated by the time it’s measured. For the Reviewer’s information, we have also measured total GLP-1 with and without addition of a DPP-IV inhibitor and have obtained similar results confirming that the presence of inhibitor is not necessary when measuring total peptide.

2- The Authors have not mentioned the analytical methods for glucose, insulin and leptin.

This information was referred to in an earlier manuscript (Korner et al 2005) and included below and now added to the manuscript.

• Plasma glucose was measured by the hexokinase method

• Plasma insulin was measured with the Immulite Analyzer (Diagnostic Products Corp., Los Angeles, CA) with the lower limit of detection of 2uIU/ml.

• Leptin was measured with a human RIA kit (LINCO Research, Inc., St. Charles, MO) using a 125I-iodinated human leptin tracer.

• Total plasma immunoreactive ghrelin was measured by an RIA kit (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Belmont, CA) using 125I-iodinated ghrelin tracer and a rabbit polyclonal antibody against full-length, octanoylated human ghrelin that recognizes the acyl and des-acyl forms of the hormone, with the lower limit of detection of 20 pg/ml.

3- It’s difficult to establish whether the post-RYGB or post-SG weight loss is a consequence of differences in gut hormones secretion or induces a different gut hormones secretion. The Referee suggests to statistically adjust any parameter, particularly PYY, GLP-1 and ghrelin, by the weight loss reached at each time point. In other words, the significant differences at week 52 and not at week 26 vs. basal values or between RYGB and SG might disappear after an adjustment for weight loss. This issue should be discussed.

Differences in gut hormones were seen at 26 weeks, where there was similar weight loss between the two procedures, so any differences in gut hormone secretion is likely due to the procedure itself and not due to the weight loss. At 52 weeks, the additional weight loss may produce some additional changes on the gut hormones; alternatively, the changes in gut hormones might influence weight loss. If one change is a consequence of the other, then adjusting for weight loss may erroneously negate the finding. We do agree with the Reviewer, that we cannot establish causation with this type of observational study.

4- Is there a particular reason to measure post-prandial circulating levels of GLP-1 until to 60 min?

The RIA assay used to measure GLP-1 was quite labor intensive, involving use of iodinated tracer and extraction of samples. Since most of the postprandial increase in GLP-1 occurs within the first 60 min, and GLP-1 levels are nearly back to baseline by 60 min we sought to save technician time and expense without sacrificing important information. During the course of this study, a reliable ELISA did become commercially available, but we did not want to measure samples with two different assays over time.

5-In Statistical Analysis there is no description of the method used to calculate the correlations.

Pearson correlation was calculated. We have specified this in the methods.

6- Line 101: new paragraph with “The objective of this…”

This was changed in the manuscript

7- Lines 168-169: is there a sex-matching in the two groups?

The choice of bariatric procedure was based on the preference of the patient and surgeon and therefore sex matching was not performed in the two groups. For SG (n=19) there were 4 males (21%) and 15 females (79%). For RYGB (n=40) there were 8 males (20%) and 32 females (80%). This information is included in the manuscript.

8- Lines 236-243: a full description of the method used to evaluate subjective parameters such sweet craving should be located in Materials&Methods and not in Results.

The methods section was updated with a full description of the visual analog scale (VAS)

9-Lines 273-278: The paragraph is not clear.

We have changed the paragraph to read:

Interestingly, HOMA-IR correlated with percentage weight loss only after SG, suggesting that improvement in insulin resistance is mediated, at least in part, by the amount of weight loss. In contrast, there was not a significant correlation between HOMA-IR and weight loss after RYGB. Thus, it is possible that weight loss independent changes, such as the increases in GLP-1 and PYY, are driving much of the improvement in HOMA-IR, with weight loss playing a somewhat lesser role. In conjunction with greater weight loss, additional gut hormones and changes in other factors not measured in this study such as metabolites, bile acids and the microbiome may promote improvement in glucose homeostasis which most studies show is greater after RYGB compared with SG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [19, 43].

10- The Authors should discuss the results of the study by Rigamonti et al. (Endocrine, 2017;55:113-123). In particular, anorexigenic gut hormones would play a a negligible role in SG-induced weight loss. In other words, other mechanisms not related to gut hormones secretion might underlie the success of bariatric surgery. This critical issue should be reported in the limitations of the work (final part of the Discussion).

Subjects were asked to consume the test meal over a 15 minute period. Different outcomes in VAS might be observed with differences in the rate of food delivery. This was added to the limitations section, along with the fact that many other GI hormones were not measured.

Rigamonti AE, Bini S, Rocco MC, Giardini V, Massimini D, Crippa MG, et al. Post-prandial anorexigenic gut peptide, appetite and glucometabolic responses at different eating rates in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Endocrine. 2017;55(1):113-23.

Reviewer #3: The is a cohort study comparing RYGB vs SG and is very interesting with clear objectives set out. However the manuscript could benefit from a revision of how results are presented and expansion on the methods section.

In the statistical analysis section prior to details re fitting a mixed model authors should mention how descriptive summaries are summarized, e.g continuous variables means(SD) or median(IQR) if skewed and for categorical variables, counts (%ages) presented etc. Also mention what tests were used to compare in terms of baseline characteristics. Additionally looks like correlation was also looked at, this should be mentioned.

Descriptive summaries are summarized directly below tables 1 and 2. Tests for comparing baseline characteristics included the t-test for age and the Wald test for the others. Pearson correlation was used and now specified in the manuscript.

Authors should state what covariance structure was fitted in the model. And mention if model assumptions were met.

Random intercept effects were included to account for within-subject correlation, which was equivalent to a compound symmetric covariance structure. No other covariance structures were explored due to limited sample size.

Table 1 - should be the baseline characteristics by group.

Table 1 with baseline characteristics was added to the manuscript.

Add a Table 2 to include descriptive of outcomes at all timepoints with changes. Also to authors should decide whether to present actual changes (e.g week 26 - baseline) (week52 - baseline), OR whether to present percentage change.

Actual change is presented.

Currently Table 1 is labelled as baseline characteristics and changes over time...and then a foot note to indicate what was presented in the linear mixed effect. This is very confusing as the reader is left to work out changes etc...

Better to then have a Table 3 - which will include estimates from the model for the RYGB vs SG.

Percent change in ghrelin AUC from baseline was calculated in light of differences in fasting levels and is now reported in the Results section. Percent change in AUC for the remaining hormones was calculated but not included in the table, in order to avoid confusion and minimize redundancy with the actual AUC data in the table.

We have also included a separate Table for some of the baseline characteristics.

Also have full names in the table header e.g sleeve gastrectomy not SG.

Full names are now used in the tables

For all these time-points measured, authors do not mention any issues with missing data and if at all how it was handled? Which would helpful to include 'n' available at each time points for the descriptive of outcomes presented in Table 1.

Please see response to reviewer 5, item 2

Reviewer #4: The paper entitled “Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass” by Arakawa et al. aims at comparing and contrasting gut hormones levels (especially PYY Ghrelin and GLP-1) during a meal test in subjects operated on RYGB and SG. A quality of this study is that it is a prospective cohort studying meal test response at base line and 26 and 52 weeks post-surgery.

Although the study is well designed and the paper well written, it presents an important limitation. The authors report a statistical difference in ghrelin and leptin levels at baseline. Baseline is supposed to be before the surgery and the authors cannot compare the impact of surgery on patients’ gut hormone levels with such a difference at baseline.

1. This raise questions on the drastic reduction of ghrelin they observed at weeks 26 and 52 in subjects operated on SG. Is it because SG ghrelin levels are over evaluated at baseline or are the RYGB ghrelin levels under evaluated at baseline ? In both cases the interpretations could be different and RYGB could also result in a reduction of ghrelin levels although at a lesser extent that SG but in agreement with previous reports.

How can the authors explain such a difference? Are the 2 groups of subjects coming from the same center ? Were the meal tests performed and blood samples drawn within the same center ? Were the assays performed in the same center ? Can one imagine a problem of inhibitors during one of the blood drawn ? Or a problem of sample conservation before the ghrelin assay ?

In addition, the GLP-1 level profiles are also very different between the VSG group and the RYGB group at baseline (especially T15, T90 and T120 on figure 1) with no explanation.

The subjects were recruited from two hospital sites in Manhattan (CUIMC and Harlem Hospital). All of the surgeries were performed at the two sites by 3 different surgeons who reportedly use similar techniques, however, it certainly is possible that there is some variability. All the meal tests were performed, and blood samples drawn, by author GF and completed within the same center. Blood samples are kept on ice and spun in a refrigerated centrifuge at 4 degrees C. The GLP-1 assay was performed without addition of a DPP-IV inhibitor (please see response to Reviewer 2, item 1). Plasma samples containing EDTA were all stored at -80ºC and assayed in duplicate. A plasma pool is included in each assay in order to ensure that there is no assay drift over the course of this study. Repeated freeze-thaw cycles were avoided. The GLP-1 profile appears different because the AUC curves erroneously included the 120min timepoint. GLP-1 AUC was determined from 0-60 minutes. (see Response to Reviewer 2, item 4). The curves were corrected.

In order to account for baseline variability, the statistical analysis took into account the baseline value of the variable being tested. Given the known inter-individual variability in hormone levels, some authors choose to only present their data as incremental change over time and don’t show baseline values. We chose to show the actual values. We further analyzed the data using percent change in AUC from baseline. At 26 weeks percent change was 46.6% for SG and -11.3% for RYGB (P <0.01) and at 52 weeks percent change was 45.2% for SG and -13.7% for RYGB (P <0.01). Given the similar percent changes in SG and RYGB at 26 and 52 weeks, we have confidence the differences we observed were real and not explained solely by a higher AUC at baseline in SG. This has been added to the manuscript in the Results and Discussion.

Given the care that was taken in the processing and assaying of the samples, and accounting for baseline values by the statistical analysis in addition to calculating percent change, we feel that the conclusions drawn from this report are valid.

Minor point

2.Line 165 the sentence “There were 59 subjects enrolled consisting of 63% Hispanic, 37% non-Hispanic, 22% African American, and 78% Caucasian adults” is confusing as the total is more than 100%

Both race and ethnicity data are included. Ethnicity was characterized as Hispanic or non-Hispanic (which adds to 100%). Race was characterized as African American or Caucasian (which adds to 100%). There were no Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander subjects in our study thus these categories are not included under ethnicity. The baseline characteristics of the participants are included in a new table, labeled “Table 1” for clarification.

3.Are the AUC incremental or total AUC ?

Total AUC was used. This has been clarified in the manuscript.

4.Why are the AUC calculated for GLP1 different from the others ?

Please see response to Reviewer 2, item 4.

Reviewer #5: This article presents some interesting data related to the beneficial effect of bariatric surgery regarding weight loss and glucose tolerance by comparing the effects of vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). In this study, 19 patients undergoing VSG and 40 RYGB have been followed at different time points, before 6 months and one year after surgery, without randomisation between the two groups. At each time point, the patients were given a liquid meal and some gut hormones where measured at different time points. Overall, the study is correctly designed and provides interesting information but is not very new as several articles have already focused on the effects of these surgery on gut hormones, either independently or comparing both procedures. Generally speaking, this paper confirms the main literature showing a higher GLP-1 and PYY response after RYGB compared to VSG. The main interest resides in the time follow up suggesting a diminution of the VSG surgery effect on the long-time which is just discussed by a probable reversion of the VSG by stomach dilation. We can regret that the high individual variability is not discussed.

I have some major and minor comments, but I consider this research acceptable for publication if these points are correctly addressed

Major comments:

-1. The literature review about the comparison between VSG and RYGB and the role of gut hormones in these surgery is lacking the most recent published evidences (Svane et al, Gastroenterology 2019 ; Alamuddin et al, Obesity Surgery 2017 ; Casajoana et al, Obesity Surgery 2017 ; Cavin et al, Gastroenterology 2017; Larraufie et al, Cell Reports, 2019 …). The authors should discuss the most recent papers and how their results match or bring novelty to the existing litterature.

These most recently published studies were added as citations in our manuscript. Our results largely match the findings of Svane et al 2019, Alamuddin et al 2016, and Casaioana et al 2017, where RYGB subjects had higher postprandial PYY and/or GLP-1 and SG subjects had marked ghrelin suppression. With the exception of Casaioana, they were also cohort studies with at least 1 year follow up. Our study has more participants than the other studies.

Cavin et al 2017 was also added to the discussion, as it provides further support for histologic changes following RYGB, namely hyperplasia and an increased number of incretin producing cells.

Larraufie et al 2019, describes GLP-1 as the main driver of insulin secretion after RYGB, consistent with findings from Salehi et al. It is a possible mechanism for superior improvement in glucose homeostasis after RYGB which we have added to the discussion section of the manuscript, though we did not find significant differences in insulin AUC between surgical groups.

Svane MS, Bojsen-Moller KN, Martinussen C, Dirksen C, Madsen JL, Reitelseder S, et al. Postprandial Nutrient Handling and Gastrointestinal Hormone Secretion After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(6):1627-41 e1.

Alamuddin N, Vetter ML, Ahima RS, Hesson L, Ritter S, Minnick A, et al. Changes in Fasting and Prandial Gut and Adiposity Hormones Following Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y-Gastric Bypass: an 18-Month Prospective Study. Obes Surg. 2017;27(6):1563-72.

Casajoana A, Pujol J, Garcia A, Elvira J, Virgili N, de Oca FJ, et al. Predictive Value of Gut Peptides in T2D Remission: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Metabolic Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy and Greater Curvature Plication. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2235-45.

Cavin JB, Couvelard A, Lebtahi R, Ducroc R, Arapis K, Voitellier E, et al. Differences in Alimentary Glucose Absorption and Intestinal Disposal of Blood Glucose After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Sleeve Gastrectomy. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(2):454-64 e9.

Larraufie P, Roberts GP, McGavigan AK, Kay RG, Li J, Leiter A, et al. Important Role of the GLP-1 Axis for Glucose Homeostasis after Bariatric Surgery. Cell Rep. 2019;26(6):1399-408 e6.

Salehi M, Gastaldelli A, D'Alessio DA. Blockade of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor corrects postprandial hypoglycemia after gastric bypass. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(3):669-80 e2.

-2.The data analysis should be reviewed and better explained. I really appreciated data availability and this is very important for open-science, however I was quite surprised to see many missing points that are not discussed in the paper regarding gut hormone measurements. As an example, 3 individuals do not have any value for PYY measurement in the VSG group at 52 weeks and 6 in the RYGB and many data is missing for 15 minutes measurement despite being often the most important point regarding gut hormones. It would be important that the authors indicate clearly the number of measurement for each point on their graphs or tables. Moreover, the statical analysis is inappropriate as the authors use a linear regression with mixed effects to account for individual measurements for comparison between groups and time points, as well as to infer values for missing points in table one. This results in calculated values that differs to the actual mean using the raw data. As an example, the indicated mean value for PYY in the table in the VSG group at 52 weeks is 75 pM whereas the mean from the provided data is 85.4 pM! The use of a linear mixed model is wrong here due to the missing values which are not randomly distributed but associated with the variables individuals and time points. Moreover, due to the high heterogeneity of the response between individuals and through time, they cannot fit with linear models. I therefore encourage the authors to revisit their analysis.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comments. While we generally agree with the reviewer on model selection for such a longitudinal study, we do have reasons to choose the model used in the paper. Specifically, our choice of model was based on the following considerations. First, the model had to account for within subject correlation and between subject variations. We looked at nonlinearity by treating the week variable as categorical to explore nonlinear temporal trends. Had we a larger data set, we would have considered a growth curve (instead of a linear relationship) model with random effects on all the coefficients (instead of one only on the intercept). Unfortunately, such a sophisticated model would yield unstable results due to limited sample size. Based on our experience, we would need at least 100 subjects per group for such a task. As a compromise, we chose to use the simplest mixed effects model, that is, one included only intercept random effects. Another reason we choose a conditional model as we did was that the method would be appropriate in the presence of missing data if the missing at random (MAR) assumption was reasonable. This is because that our model, which is a likelihood based model, used all available data, that is, a subject with part of data missing would still be included in the analysis. We agree with the reviewer that there might be reason to suspect the MAR assumption, particularly for PYY. However, such a violation can hardly be “confirmed” in a small data. To sum up, our choice of model was a compromise of what needed to be done and what could be done. Per reviewer’s comment, we have added above discussions as part of the limitation of the paper.

-3.Data analysis suggest important individual variability in some of the different parameters analysis. It would be interesting to further analyse individual correlation between gut hormone levels and metabolic parameters as some papers have suggested that gut hormones can be predictive of bariatric surgery outputs, and this data could help confirming or not this.

We agree completely. Unfortunately, the study was not designed to address this question and we don’t have other metabolic parameters. For example, lipids are not routinely measured in the surgical care of these patients and this was not in our protocol. As such, we were only able to address insulin resistance as measured by HOMA-IR and as the paper describes, while resistance improves in both procedures, the mechanism by which this is achieved may differ. The change in HOMA-IR did not correlate with changes in the hormones measured. Our ongoing research is delving further into additional potential mechanisms.

Minor comments:

-4.The authors focus only on Ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1 as gut hormones without mentioning the potential role of other gut hormones such as GIP, CCK or Neurotensin in the beneficial effects of bariatric surgery.

We certainly agree with the Reviewer’s comment. A limitation of this study is that there were many other hormones or interest with a potential role but were not measured (Dimitriadis 2017 and Pucci & Batterham 2019). This was added to the limitations section of the manuscript.

Dimitriadis GK, Randeva MS, Miras AD. Potential Hormone Mechanisms of Bariatric Surgery. Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6(3):253-65.

Pucci A, Batterham RL. Mechanisms underlying the weight loss effects of RYGB and SG: similar, yet different. J Endocrinol Invest. 2019;42(2):117-28.

-5.In the methods, there is no indication of blood sampling at 15 minutes despite data being presented. Moreover, it is not clear how time is considered: is the time indicated from the start or of the end liquid meal and did the authors measured time consumption during each meal, and did the authors notice any difference ? This information is quite important as they allowed a large amount of time to drink the meal which represents a large volume for patients after these surgery, and may therefore importantly alter the gut hormone response happens within minutes in response to food intake, especially in these patients.

The test meal was consumed by subjects within a 15-minute period and blood samples were drawn thereafter, starting from the point at which they completed the drink. The methods section was updated with this clarification

-6.Total Ghrelin is measured, but nothing is said about the importance nor the origin of acylated ghrelin which is mainly produced in the stomach whereas non-acylated ghrelin is found in the upper SI. Can the authors discuss about this difference ?

We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the variability in ghrelin levels were due to the assay used which measures both acyl, considered the active form of ghrelin, plus des-acyl ghrelin. To circumvent this issue, some samples were assayed in a two-site sandwich assay specific for acyl-ghrelin (Liu et al 2008), but the assay was not sensitive enough to detect very low levels of acyl-ghrelin in some subjects with very high BMI or in many of the subjects after SG. We have added this to the discussion.

Liu J, Prudom CE, Nass R, Pezzoli SS, Oliveri MC, Johnson ML, et al. Novel ghrelin assays provide evidence for independent regulation of ghrelin acylation and secretion in healthy young men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(5):1980-7.

-7.As often, RYGB procedure varies from one individual to the other and is dependent on the surgeon appreciation. An important parameter seems to be the length of SI that is bypass and that can explain the stimulation of more or less distant enteroendocrine cells. Does the authors have access to this information, and did they notice any correlation between the length of bypassed SI and responses?

Surgeons at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center and one surgeon at Harlem Medical Center, who did his training at Columbia, performed the procedures and adhered to a uniform surgical protocol for RYGB: division of the jejunum 50-100cm distal to the ligament of Treitz and anastomosing the afferent biliopancreatic limb of the jejunum 100-150cm distally. We don’t believe there was enough variability between surgeons and procedures performed on individual patients to determine a correlation between the length of bypassed SI and responses, although this is an interesting question, and may certainly affect response with longer limb bypass procedures which are not routinely performed at our institution.

8. Small remark:

Figure 1 PYY SG time point indicates 5minutes, I suppose this should be 15.

Yes, this was a typo and was corrected. Thank you!

9.Overall, this study provides additional data showing that VSG and RYGB differently modulate some gut hormones that could explain the different physiological effects of these surgeries, mainly on the long term as VSG effects seem to decrease. However, the data analysis should be reviewed based on two points: the analysis presented here using linear models with mixed effects is not suitable due to the missing values that should not be inferred, especially considering the high intra and inter individual variability responses and an analysis individual centred could help to better characterize the high variability of responses.

I therefore consider this study worth publishing, but it requires the data analysis to be revisited to ensure appropriate tools have been used and a better acknowledgement of the existing literature.

We believe that the statistical analysis used has been justified and the limitations that the Reviewer points out have been addressed above. We have addressed this now in the manuscript. Additionally, as the Reviewer recommends, we have more fully acknowledged the existing literature.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

François Blachier

30 Jun 2020

Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

PONE-D-20-08332R1

Dear Dr. Arakawa,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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,

François Blachier, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #3: No

**********

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 #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: The authors have adequately addressed the comments I have raised and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

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 #3: No

Acceptance letter

François Blachier

7 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-08332R1

Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Dear Dr. Arakawa:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. François Blachier

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. Dataset.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES