Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236164

An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine

Antonietta Stellavato 1,*, Lucrezia Abate 1, Valentina Vassallo 1, Maria Donniacuo 2, Barbara Rinaldi 2,, Chiara Schiraldi 1,‡,*
Editor: Alberto G Passi3
PMCID: PMC7410276  PMID: 32760085

Abstract

Hyaluronan (HA) is a nonsulfated glycosaminoglycan that has been widely used for biomedical applications. Here, we have analyzed the effect of HA on the rescue of primary cells under stress as well as its potential to recover muscle atrophy and validated the developed model in vitro using primary muscle cells derived from rats. The potentials of different HAs were elucidated through comparative analyses using pharmaceutical grade a) high (HHA) and b) low molecular weight (LHA) hyaluronans, c) hybrid cooperative complexes (HCC) of HA in three experimental set-ups. The cells were characterized based on the expression of myogenin, a muscle-specific biomarker, and the proliferation was analyzed using Time-Lapse Video Microscopy (TLVM). Cell viability in response to H2O2 challenge was evaluated by 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, and the expression of the superoxide dismutase enzyme (SOD-2) was assessed by western blotting. Additionally, in order to establish an in vitro model of atrophy, muscle cells were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), along with hyaluronans. The expression of Atrogin, MuRF-1, nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells (NF-kB), and Forkhead-box-(Fox)-O-3 (FoxO3a) was evaluated by western blotting to elucidate the molecular mechanism of atrophy. The results showed that HCC and HHA increased cell proliferation by 1.15 and 2.3 folds in comparison to un-treated cells (control), respectively. Moreover, both pre- and post-treatments of HAs restored the cell viability, and the SOD-2 expression was found to be reduced by 1.5 fold in HA-treated cells as compared to the stressed condition. Specifically in atrophic stressed cells, HCC revealed a noteworthy beneficial effect on the myogenic biomarkers indicating that it could be used as a promising platform for tissue regeneration with specific attention to muscle cell protection against stressful agents.

Introduction

Diverse physiological and pathological conditions such as inactivity, aging (i.e., age-related sarcopenia), starvation, diabetes, cachexia, and cancer can cause reduced synthesis and increased breakdown of muscle proteins, leading to lessened muscle mass, known as muscle atrophy [1, 2]. Skeletal muscle atrophy is an important clinical disorder mediated by the activation of proteolytic systems inducing muscle weakness and mass reduction [3]. At the molecular level, the atrophy is associated with impaired protein metabolism in several physiological and pathophysiological conditions [4, 5]. Furthermore, the maintenance of skeletal muscle mass is based on a balance between the synthesis and degradation of muscle regulatory proteins. Specifically, atrophy resulted from an increase in protein degradation, loss of muscle mass [6, 1], and a reduction of protein synthesis (Fig 1). This process is predominantly regulated by myogenic transcription factors, the atrogenes, including FoxO3a (Forkhead box (Fox)-O 3), atrogin, also known as MAFbx1, muscle-specific ring finger protein (MuRF-1) [6], and myogenic regulatory protein such as myogenin and desmin [7], and these factors are used as biomarkers of muscle functionality [8]. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) production represents one of the most prominent events during the contractile muscle activity, suggesting that it could influence muscle-specific function. It has also been shown that ROS accumulation promoted the activation of proteolytic systems, leading to atrophy, and the degradation of muscle tissue [9]. However, the specific molecular mechanisms underlying the cell damage have not been fully explored. Several studies [10, 11] have highlighted the role of oxidative stress in atrophic muscle resulting from an imbalance between the cellular antioxidant systems and ROS production. High levels of ROS redox status and weakened antioxidant defense system are among the major contributing factors toward atrophy [12], thereby requiring a medium that could inhibit or counteract the biochemical pathways involved in cellular stress and damage.

Fig 1. Schematic description of the in vitro atrophy model and related signaling pathway investigated.

Fig 1

With an objective to explore the molecular mechanisms underlying cellular damage and development of a model to recover the cells from stressful conditions, we have analyzed the potential of hyaluronan (HA), the sole natural non-sulfated glycosaminoglycan (GAG), which is ubiquitously expressed in the extracellular matrix (ECM) of mammals [13]. HA is a hygroscopic molecule that is able to structurally organize the ECM by complexing with other ECM macromolecules. Due to its rheological and biochemical properties, HA has been used as an active component in a broad range of class III medical products [14,15]. The fact that linear HA with different molecular weights produces different effects is well documented, and currently, many formulations based on linear and/or chemically cross-linked HA are used in dermo-aesthetic, wound healing, and ophthalmic applications [16]. Additionally, as a result of its natural presence in the synovial fluid, joint capsule, and articular cartilage, HA is widely used in the treatment of osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis [1719]. In addition to linear HAs, the novel stabilized hybrid cooperative complexes (HCC) derived from high and low molecular weight HA through NAHYCOTM technology has been reported to be used in several in vitro studies based on different cellular models [20]. HCC can be defined as “physical gels,” in which the interactions between long and short HA chains are optimized without changing the structure of disaccharide units and without introducing other exogenous “chemical compounds.” As previously reported, this formulation protects the high molecular weight hyaluronan (HHA) from enzymatic degradation, and this fact is expected to confer the longer persistence to the product in vivo [21, 22]. It can be expected that the typical rheological properties of HHA, as well as the biological action (e.g., receptor interaction/biochemical cascade), are more persistent in this new preparation than that in linear HA formulations. Besides, the biological properties of HCC have already been tested on several cell cultures used as representative models for tissue regeneration [2224]. Recently, HCC has been proved to be effective on cell co-culture models subjected to stressful conditions to mimic injuries [25]. Furthermore, it is known that HA is the subject of the ROS attack, which leads to changes in its structure modulating oxidative condition [2628]. In the present study, we have explored the comparative potentials of linear and hybrid HAs through three different experimental set-ups with respect to increasing cell growth and proliferation and rescuing cells under oxidative stress. Moreover, we have developed an in vitro model of muscle atrophy using rat muscle-derived cells insulated with TNF-α to mimic atrophy [29]. in order to identify the mechanism underlying muscle atrophy and to assess the potential effect of HAs on the recovery of muscle atrophy. The model developed here could be helpful in exploring the specific function of HAs not only as antioxidants [28], but also as molecules capable of modifying the ECM structure with potential in tissue remodeling and engineering.

Materials and methods

Materials

High molecular weight (HHA; MW 1400±200 kDa) and low molecular weight (LHA; MW 100±20 kDa) HA were provided by Altergon (Altergon Italia Srl, Italy). These are extensively purified fermentative HA derived from Streptococcus equi ssp. equi, at pharmaceutical grade (e.g. purity >95%, water content <10%, EU/mg <0.05, and very low metal content). Hybrid cooperative complexes of hyaluronic acid (HCC), obtained through a patented process [20] named NAHYCO™ technology, were provided in the form of sterile syringes from IBSA Italia (IBSA Farmaceutici Italia Srl, Italy). A final concentration of 1.6 mg/mL was used in these experiments.

Methods

Rat muscle-derived cell isolation and experimental set-up

Skeletal muscle tissue was obtained from rat quadriceps (Mus musculus; Rodentia, Muridae; Envigo, Milano, Italy, weighing 200–250 g), under anesthesia with pentobarbital (50 mg/kg, i.p.). The experimental procedures were carried out during the light phase and were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli” (Naples, Italy). Animal care was in compliance with Italian (D.L. 116/92) European Economic Community (EEC) (O.J. of E.C. L358/1 18/12/86) regulations on the protection of laboratory animals. All efforts were made to minimize animal suffering and to reduce the number of animals used. Rat quadriceps were minced into small pieces using tweezers and scalpels in a Petri dish. For digestion and cell extraction, the tissue pieces were enzymatically digested using a solution of Collagenase type I (3 mg/mL) (Gibco, Invitrogen, Milano, Italy), and Dispase (4 mg/mL) (Gibco) prepared in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, PH 7.2, Gibco), and incubated in a falcon tube overnight at 37°C under stirring. To prevent bacterial contamination, gentamycin (0.2 mg/mL; Hospira, Milano, Italy) was added to the enzymatic solution. Isolated cells were separated from undigested pieces through a sterile filter (70 μm, Falcon), and the cellular suspension was centrifuged at 400 g for 7 min (Eppendorf Centrifuge). The pellet was washed with PBS, re-centrifuged and re-suspended in Dulbecco`s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) (10% v/v) (Gibco, MA, Invitrogen), glutamine (1% v/v), penicillin-streptomycin (1% v/v), and Amphotericin B (1% v/v) (Lonza, Basel, Switzerland). The cells were seeded in a 35 mm tissue culture dish and maintained at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% v/v CO2, and the medium was changed every 48 h. At confluence, the cells were harvested with trypsin/EDTA 0.2 mg/mL and re-seeded in appropriate tissue culture plates.

The phenotypic characterization of rat muscle-derived cells was performed based on the expression of myogenin as a muscle-specific biomarker using immunofluorescence.

The effect of hyaluronan was evaluated on rat muscle-derived cells by three different experimental set ups:

  1. Physiological condition:

    Control samples (untreated cells) were compared to HHA, LHA, and HCC (treated cells) treatments used at a final concentration of 1.6 mg/mL w/w, on cell proliferation by Time-Lapse Video Microscopy (TLVM), and biomarkers expression by immunofluorescence and western blotting.

  2. The oxidative stress in vitro model:

    We aimed at evaluating if the hyaluronan gels were able to:

  1. counteract the detrimental effect of hydrogen peroxide stress- and in this case the cells were initially added with H2O2 (50 μM) for 30 min and successively treated with the HA gels (HHA, LHA, and HCC) at 1.6 mg/mL w/w.

  2. prevent the damage of stressfull agent and in this case the cells were initially treated with the HA gels (HHA, LHA, and HCC) at 1.6 mg/mL w/w, and then exposed (challenged) with H2O2.

We called case 1) repair function; while case 2 is a prevention or protective function of the gels.

For 1 and 2 conditions, cell’s metabolic activity was analyzed in time course until 72 h using the MTT assay.

Additionally, the antioxidant activity of the HAs was evaluated based on SOD-2 expression by performing western blotting after 24 h of treatment.

Finally, atrophy in vitro model was established to better evaluate the potentiality of hyaluronan gels to modulate cells response in this other damage model.

and c) Atrophy in vitro model

To establish an in vitro atrophy condition, rat muscle-derived cells were incubated with TNF-α (100 ng/mL) for 24 h and HHA, LHA, and HCC (1.6 mg/mL w/w). Specific atrophic transcription factors (FoxO3a and NF-kB), atrogenes (Atrogin and MURF-1-1), and desmin and myogenin, were assayed as specific muscle biomarkers, at the transcriptional and protein level using qRT-PCR and western blot, respectively.

In vitro determination of cell morphology and proliferation using Time-Lapse Video Microscopy (TLVM)

The morphology and proliferation of rat muscle-derived cells were monitored and analyzed by time-lapse video microscopy station (TLVM) (Okolab, Naples, Italy). For these experiments, cells were seeded at a density of 2.5 x 104 in a 12-well plate, and treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC diluted in the medium at a final concentration of 1.6 mg/mL w/w. Quantitative data analysis was performed by calculating the cell number/cm2 at different incubation times (0, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96 h) in 4‒5 fields of view for all samples tested.

Immunofluorescence for the muscle-specific biomarker, myogenin

In physiological conditions (experimental set up a), the basal expression of myogenin for characterization of muscle phenotype was analyzed using immunofluorescence. Specifically, 5.0 × 103 cells were grown on chamber slides (BD Falcon, Italy), and treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC. After 24 h, treated and the control cells were washed with PBS, fixed with paraformaldehyde 4% w/v, and permeabilized in 0.2% v/v Triton X-100 prepared in PBS. Immunofluorescence was performed using conditions reported previously [30]. Antibody against myogenin (diluted 1: 100; Abcam, Cambridge MA), was used as the primary antibody. FITC-conjugated goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody was used at a dilution of 1:1000 (Life Technologies, Milano, Italy). Nuclei were stained with 2'-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-5-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-2,5'-bi-1H-benzimidazole trihydrochloride hydrate, bisBenzimide (Hoechst 0.5 mg/mL, Sigma-Aldrich, Milano, Italy). Images were captured using a fluorescence microscope Axiovert 200 (Zeiss) and analyzed using AxioVision 4.8.2.

Atrogene and specific muscle protein evaluation by western blotting

Western blots were performed as previously described [1728]. Briefly, cells were lysed in RIPA buffer, and protein concentration was determined using the Bradford method. Twenty micrograms of intracellular proteins were loaded and resolved on a 10% SDS–PAGE gel. Antibodies against FoxO3a and NF-kB, atrogin, MuRF-1, myogenin, desmin, and SOD-2 (diluted 1:500 in T-TBS 0.1%, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, TX) were used as primary antibodies. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated donkey anti-mouse and goat anti-rabbit antibodies were used as secondary antibody (diluted 1:5000 in T-TBS 0.1; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas TX). The signal was detected using the ECL system (Chemicon-Millipore, Milano, Italy). Protein levels were normalized with respect to the expression of the housekeeping protein, actin (diluted 1:1000 in T-TBS 0.1%). The semi-quantitative analysis of protein levels was carried out by the Gel Doc 2000 UV System and the Gel Doc EZ Imager (Quantity one software, Bio-Rad Laboratories).

MTT-test to evaluate cell viability in the presence of hyaluronan

Cytotoxicity was assessed using 3.0 × 104 cells seeded in a standard 24-well culture plate, pre-treated with 50 μM H2O2 (30 min), and then treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC, respectively (1.6 mg/mL w/v) until 72 h. Analyses were performed after 24, 48, and 72 h post-treatment by measuring the reduction of the tetrazolium dye 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) [31]. The optical densities of the obtained solutions were measured at 570 nm using a Beckman DU 640 spectrometer (Beckman, Milano, Italy). The relative cell viability was calculated as a percentage of the maximal absorbance (vitality = 100 × mean ODtreated cells/mean ODcontrol).

mRNA analyses using qRT-PCR

For transcriptional analyses of atrogenes (FoxO3a, MuRF-1, and Atrogin), myogenin, and desmin, 5.0 × 104 cells in a 12 well were seeded. In order to perform qRT-PCR, total RNA was isolated following a previously described procedure [23]. The specific oligonucleotide sequences were reported in Table 1. The samples were analyzed in triplicate, and the mRNA expression of specific genes was normalized to the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) housekeeping gene. The variations of gene expressions were evaluated using the quantification 2-ΔΔCt method [32].

Table 1. Primer sequences for real-time PCR.
Gene GenBank accession no. Primer sequence Amplicon length (bp)
GAPDH NM_017008 5’-CATCCTGCACCACCAACTG-3’ 117
5’-CACAGTCTTCTGAGTGGCAG-3’
FoxO3a NM_001106395.1 5’-TCCCTGAAGGGAAGGAGC-3’ 105
5’-CTCGTCCAGGATGGCGTAG-3’
Atrogin NM_133521.1 _ 5’-AAGCTTGTGCGATGTTACCC-3’ 110
5’-CCAGGAGAGAATGTGGCAGT-3’
MuRF-1 NM_080903 5’-CTCGCAGCTGGAGGACTCC-3’ 103
5’-CTCGTCCAGGATGGCGTAG-3’
Myogenin NM_017115.2 5’-CCTGCCCTGAGATGAGAGAG-3’ 106
5’- TGGAAGGTTCCCAATATCCA-3’
Desmin NM_022531.1 5’- AGC CTG GGT CAG AGA CAG AA-3’ 106
5’- TAT CTC CTG CTC CCA CAT CC-3’

Statistical analyses

The Student’s t-test was used to determine statistically significant differences (p<0.01). The comparisons were accomplished with an average of three independent experiments, each in duplication to avoid possible variation of cell cultures. Also statistical significance for the data reported in Figs 3, 5A and 6A was determined using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test for comparing a family of five estimates by JASP soft-ware (https://jasp-stats.org) and reported in Supporting information.

Fig 3. MTT assay.

Fig 3

(A) Pre-treatment with H2O2 (50 μM) for 30 minutes and post -treatment with HHA, LHA and HCC (1.6 mg/mL w/w) for 24-48-72 hours (Repair function). (B) Pre-treatment with HHA, LHA and HCC (1.6 mg/mL w/w) for 24-48-72 hours and post-treatment with H2O2 (50 μM) for 30 minutes (Protective function). Data shown are average of triplicates and means ± SD. The statistical significance was analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test for comparing a family of 5 estimates: # p<0.05 or less vs untreated-cells (CTR); ° p< 0.05 or less vs H2O2, § p<0.05 or less vs HHA;* p< 0.05 or less vs HCC.

Fig 5. Atrophy in vitro model.

Fig 5

(A) Quantitative Real-Time PCR of atrogenes. RNA expression was determined by quantitative real-time PCR on rat muscle-derived cells treated with TNF-α along HHA, LHA, HCC at 1.6 mg/mL w/w for 24 h. Data shown as average of triplicates and each column represents the mean and error bars indicating the standard deviation. The statistical significance was analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test for comparing a family of 5 estimates: # p<0.05 or less vs untreated-cells (CTR); ° p< 0.05 or less vs TNF-α, § p<0.05 or less vs HHA;* p< 0.05 or less vs HCC. Western blotting analyses of (B) NF-kB and FoxO3a transcription factors and (C) atrogenes were performed and normalized to Actin housekeeping protein. Data shown are average of duplicates and means ± SD. The statistical significance was analyzed through the students’t-test (*p<0.01) respect to TNF-α treated cells.

Fig 6. Desmin and myogenin were analyzed at transcriptional and protein levels in rat muscle-derived cells treated for 24 h with TNF-α and HHA, LHA, HCC at 1.6 mg/mL w/w, each.

Fig 6

(A) qRT-PCR was conducted to analyze the gene expression levels. The statistical significance was analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test for comparing a family of 5 estimates: # p<0.05 or less vs untreated-cells (CTR); ° p< 0.05 or less vs TNF-α, § p<0.05 or less vs HHA;* p< 0.05 or less vs HCC. (B) Western blotting analyses of specifics bands obtained for both protein expressions are normalized to actin expression. Data shown are average of duplicates and means ± SD. The statistical significance was analyzed through the students’t-test (*p<0.01) respect to TNF-α treated cells.

Results

Hyaluronan effect on rat muscle-derived cells phenotype and cell growth

The phenotypic characterization of rat muscle-derived cells was performed by analyzing the expression myogenin as specific skeletal muscle marker through immunofluorescence staining (S1 Fig) revealed consistent phenotype of the cells like their source from skeletal muscle. The primary cells were cultivated and expanded to obtain the amount needed for the experiments, and in the second passage, time-lapse experiments were performed to evaluate the cell growth in the presence of HHA, LHA, and HCC. The cells were monitored for 96 h, and specific times of observation (0-6-12-24-48-72-96 h) were considered for data analyses. The growth curve is shown in Fig 2A. The results demonstrated that HCC promoted cell proliferation faster than LHA and HHA after 24 h of treatment. In particular, HHA and LHA showed a slight increase in cell density (1.15 fold) as compared to the control (un-treated cells), while it was 2.3 fold in HCC. Subsequently, the phenotypic characterization of myogenin in the presence of hyaluronans revealed a higher expression of myogenin in the presence of HCC as compared to HHA and LHA treatments. However, all treatments were superior to the untreated control cells (Fig 2B). Densitometric analyses showed increased expression of both proteins myogenin and desmin in the HA treated samples (a 4fold increase was promoted by HCC treatment) in comparison with the untreated samples (Fig 2C).

Fig 2. Proliferation assay of muscle-derived cells performed by time-lapse experiments at 0, 6, 12, 24, 48,72, and 96 h of incubation with HHA, LHA, and HCC at 1.6 mg/mL w/w, compared to CTR.

Fig 2

(A) Data shown are means±SD of four fields of view of three different wells for each sample. Proliferation experiments were repeated three times. (B) Immunofluorescence staining of myogenin in the presence of HHA, LHA, and HCC. Blue nuclei, red actin cytoskeleton, green myogenin. (C) Western blotting analyses and densitometry. Desmin and myogenin protein levels in rat muscle-derived cells treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC for 24 h. Specific bands corresponding to the proteins of interest are measured using commercially available software (Image J software). Densitometric analyses of specific bands were obtained for both the proteins, normalized to actin expression. Data shown are average of duplicates and means ± SD. The statistical significance was analyzed through the students’t-test (*p<0.01).

Effect of hyaluronan treatment on H2O2 treated skeletal muscle-derived cell: Cell’s metabolic activity using colorimetric assay

The viability of cells stressed with H2O2 and successively added with HA gels (rescue/repair function) at three different times (24-48-72h) revealed a similar behavior of HHA and LHA treatment both increasing the cells’ metabolic activity of approximately 55% respect to untreated cells and of 79% as compared to the H2O2 insulted cells at 72h. While HCC treated cells showed a cell’s metabolic activity increase of approximately 83% respect to untreated cells and of 92% as compared to respective H2O2 insulted cells (p<0.001). HCC treatments also showed to prompt cell growth better then the HHA and LHA ones (Fig 3A). Alternatively, in samples pre-treated with HAs (protective function) and then stressed with H2O2 (Fig 3B), HCC preserved the viability by 2.5, and 1.5 fold higher than untreated cells and HHA treatment, respectively. HCC treatment also showed a significant increase in cell’s metabolic activity of 57% and 85% at 48 and 72h as compared to H2O2 treatment (p<0.001). While HHA treatment increased the cells’ metabolic activity approximately 48% and 37% and LHA treatment of 37% and 81% at 48 and 72 h, respectively, as compared to H2O2 stressed cells (p<0.05 and p<0.001). In addition, one-way anova test showed that there was a significance in HCC treatments respect all others for the different times and for both experimental conditions investigated. While HHA and HCC presented similar outcomes at 48h in the protective function.

At shorter incubation times, differences among the various treatments were less significant. These results proved that HA gels preserved cells from death counteracting the detrimental oxidative stress. Generally, treatments performed differently if they are compared in rescuing the cells from a stressful/damaged condition or as protective pre-treatments.

SOD-2 expression

The analysis of the expression of SOD-2 protein through western blotting was done to test the efficacy of the HA in cell protection under oxidative stress. The densitometric analyses of the H2O2 pre-treated cells showed that all HA treatments reduced the SOD-2 expression (p<0.01). Both HHA and LHA showed a 1.5 fold reduction in comparison with H2O2 challenged cells (negative control), and HCC, with a 2 fold SOD-2 expression decrease, was identified to be most effective (Fig 4A). While in the experimental set-up with HA gels pre-treatment before the H2O2, the protective condition of the SOD-2 expression was also found to be reduced. Specifically, the protective effect of HHA was superior and significant compared to the other treatments (p<0.01), while HCC was significantly more efficient in rescuing the cells from stressful conditions. Overall, the effect of hyaluronan treatments was more marked when these were added after the oxidative stress (rescue condition).

Fig 4. Western blotting analyses and densitometry of SOD-2.

Fig 4

The upper bands show the expression of the actin housekeeping protein, while the lower bands indicate the SOD-2 expression. The histograms indicate the densitometric normalized analysis on actin band for each of the cell extracts (control and treatments). (A) Pre-treatment with H2O2 (50 μM) for 30 minutes and post -treatment with HHA, LHA and HCC (1.6 mg/mL w/w) for 24-48-72 hours (Repair function). (B) Pre-treatment with HHA, LHA and HCC (1.6 mg/mL w/w) for 24-48-72 hours and post-treatment with H2O2 (50 μM) for 30 minutes (Protective function). Data shown are average of duplicates and means ± SD. The statistical significance was analyzed through the students’t-test (*p<0.01) respect to H2O2 treated cells.

Atrophy model specific atrophic biomarkers evaluated at transcriptional and protein level

In order to understand the specific molecular mechanisms as the basis of the cell damage, specific regulatory factors involved in atrophy signaling were examined, as reported in Fig 1. Specifically, the atrogenes (FoxO3a, Atrogin and MuRF-1) were analyzed at the transcriptional level using qRT-PCR (Fig 5A). All hyaluronan treatments showed a down-regulation of these biomarkers as compared to the positive control of atrophy (TNF-α) (p<0.001). However, FoxO3a was less modulated and slightly higher respect to TNF-α in the presence of HHA. In addition, HHA and LHA significantly reduced the expression levels of Atrogin and MuRF-1 in comparison with TNF-α. Moreover, the effect of HCC treatment was found to be the most efficient (p<0.001). It showed about 7 fold reduction in expression of FoxO3a while expression levels of Atrogin and MuRF-1 were reduced by 22, and 12.6 fold as compared with TNF-α, respectively. In addition, NF-κB and FoxO3a as up-stream activators of atrophy signaling were also evaluated (Fig 5B) through western blotting. A significant protein reduction was obtained when the cells were treated with HA. HHA reduced the expression levels of NF-κB, FoxO3a, Atrogin, and MuRF-1 (Fig 5B) by 1.2, 2.5, 5.5, and 6.3 fold, respectively, as compared to TNF-α (p<0.01). Whereas, the LHA treatment reduced the expression of NF-κB, and FoxO3a by 1.7 and 1.4 fold as compared to the negative control (un-treated cells), respectively, while that of Atrogin and MuRF-1were reduced by 1.4 fold, each as compared to TNF-α (Fig 5C) (p<0.01). The HCC treatments also reduced the expression levels of FoxO3a, NF-κB, Atrogin, and MuRF-1 by 1.4, 1.5, 1.9, and 6.5 fold compared to TNF-α.

Analyses of myogenin and desmin at transcriptional and protein level

The gene expression analysis of myogenin and desmin showed increased expression levels of both the proteins for all HA treatments as compared to TNF-α atrophic cells. In particular, the expression level of desmin was significantly increased by 7 fold and myogenin by 4 fold in HCC treated cells (Fig 6A) (p<0.001). Moreover, western blotting analyses corroborated the mRNA results, where the desmin and myogenin genes were more expressed in HA treated cells as compared to TNF-α. Specifically, LHA and HCC significantly upregulated the expression of desmin by 2.2 and 2.3 fold, respectively, as compared to TNF-α, while for myogenin expression, both LHA and HCC increased its level by 1.6 and 1.75 fold, respectively (Fig 6B) (p<0.01).

Discussion

In the present study, we demonstrated that TNF-α induced in vitro atrophy in rat muscle-derived cells by activating atrogenes (e.g., Atrogin and MuRF-1) expression through FoxO3a and NF-kB transcription factors pathway and negatively modulating the muscle phenotype-specific proteins, such as myogenin and desmin. Furthermore, hyaluronan gels, showed a higher potential to rescue H2O2-challenged cells, as previously verified in other in vitro models [28, 33]. Our results clearly showed that hyaluronan gel-based treatments supported rat skeletal muscle primary cell growth, preserved the specific phenotype counteracting the correlated cell degeneration process. Specifically, of the different hyaluronans tested, the effects of HCC were significantly higher in comparison to the linear HA of high and low molecular weight.

The quantitative analyses performed by TLVM proved that HCC promoted muscle cells proliferation, doubling the density compared to both the linear HAs and the control. Earlier studies have reported that exogenous hyaluronan is able to modulate muscle precursor cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation [33]. It has also been reported that HA may play a role in binding collagen fibers, thus affecting muscle elasticity. This mechanism could be related to the concentration of HA in the fasciae [34]. Specific proteins, such as desmin and myogenin, were also implicated in tissue repair and regeneration [35,36]. Our data demonstrated that these two proteins are better modulated in the cells treated with HCC both in physiological and atrophic conditions. Recent studies reported the need to find targeted treatments to promote skeletal muscle tissue growth and functionality by increasing protein synthesis (or decreasing protein degradation) defining specific regulation pathways as well as the myogenesis signaling [37,38]. So, in the present study, we have investigated the key transcription factors of muscle atrophy in order to elucidate its underlying mechanism. It has also been reported that the activation of FoxO3a and NF-kB, promotes the expression of Atrogin and MuRF-1, which is directly correlated to the loss of muscle mass and function [39,6]. As expected, the expression levels of atrophic proteins were increased in the presence of TNF-α while significantly decreased when the cells were treated with hyaluronans. In particular, the HCC was most efficient at improving muscle cell functionality. Recently Miky et al. (2019) [7] have shown that the pro-inflammatory signal related to the atrophy process impaired the cell function, increasing the atrogenes factors expression, thus, inhibiting the atrophic pathway and restoring the myogenic function [40]. Moreover, the role of oxidative stress in atrophic muscle due to an imbalance between the cellular antioxidant systems and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production has been reported [34,11]. It has also been shown that HA can protect the cells against damage either by exerting antioxidant activity to scavenge ˙OH, peroxynitrite (ONOO–), O2˙- and peroxyl radicals in a dose-dependent manner, either through the chelation or elimination of Fe2+ or by deletion of the proteins bound to Fe2+ [26, 34]. In this respect, the H2O2 challenge was used in the present study, HCC, beyond the beneficial effect of linear HA increased cell viability and proliferation in both oxidative stress conditions. The activity of antioxidant enzymes, such as SOD-2, has also been studied in myocytes [912]. In our experiments, HCC also showed an extensive reduction of SOD-2 protein, proving that it is more efficient in promoting the rescue effects. Considering the recent literature, HA function in muscle cells may possibly involve the Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-stimulated gene 6 (TSG-6). In fact, TSG6 is able to interact with HA [4143], activating in cell response a variety of growth factors and pro-inflammatory mediators. Milner and collaborators (2003) [41], proposed a high TSG6 expression level in skeletal muscle. For this reason we may suppose that beside the CD44 mediated signaling also TSG6 may be involved in the molecular interaction mechanism responsible for the biological effect. In this respect it will be of great interest a specific assessment of the HCC interaction in comparison to the sole high and low molecular weight fraction, not only in the muscle cell line, but also in other in vitro model (e.g. OA).

Overall, this study demonstrated that hyaluronan and, in particular, hybrid cooperative complexes made by high and low molecular weight chains of HA inhibited or counteracted the biochemical pathways involved in cell stress and damage preserving viability, phenotype, and overall functionality. Considering all the results together, we can suggest that hyaluronan based treatments provided an in vitro evidence of their potentiality in the therapeutic approach to treat muscle atrophy.

Conclusions

In this study, the preserving, beneficial, and protective effect of different hyaluronan-based gels on the recovery of stressed cells and muscle atrophy was evaluated and validated in an in vitro model based on rat muscle-derived cells. The two linear hyaluronans at high and low molecular weight proved their positive effect in modulating stress conditions. In addition, our results showed that HCC has a greater potential in preserving the muscle phenotype, promoting cell proliferation, and reducing the reactive oxygen species damage and atrophic biomarkers expression. However, further in vivo studies are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of HCC as potential new ingredients/active principles in the treatment of skeletal muscle disorders.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(PDF)

S2 Fig

(DOCX)

S3 Fig

(DOCX)

S4 Fig

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Editage for English language editing.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

National grant MIUR PON03PE_00060_3 “Sviluppo e sperimentazione di molecole ad azione nutraceutica e cosmeceutica” MIUR Ministero dell’Universita` e della Ricerca Scientifica. Regional Competence Center in Industrial Biotechnologies (Bioteknet) S.C.P.A funded short term grants for A.S. and L.A.

References

  • 1.Schiaffino S, Dyar KA, Ciciliot S, Blaauw B, Sandri M. Mechanisms regulating skeletal muscle growth and atrophy. FEBS J. 2013;280(17):4294–314. 10.1111/febs.12253 Epub 2013 Apr 17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rinaldi B, Donniacuo M, Sodano L, Gritti G, Signoriello S, Parretta E, et al. Effects of sildenafil on the gastrocnemius and cardiac muscles of rats in a model of prolonged moderate exercise training. PLoS One. 2013;29;8(7):e69954 10.1371/journal.pone.0069954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sandri M, Lin J, Handschin C, Yang W, Arany ZP, Lecker SH, et al. PGC-1α protects skeletal muscle from atrophy by suppressing FoxO3 action and atrophy-specific gene transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;31;103(44):16260–5. 10.1073/pnas.0607795103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bonaldo P, Sandri M. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of muscle atrophy. Dis Model Mech. 2013. January;6(1):25–39. 10.1242/dmm.010389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cohen S, Nathan JA,. Goldberg AL. Muscle wasting in disease: molecular mechanisms and promising therapies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015. January;14(1):58–74. 10.1038/nrd4467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ryu Y, Lee D, Jung SH, Lee KJ, Jin H, Kim SJ, et al. Sabinene Prevents Skeletal Muscle Atrophy by Inhibiting the MAPK–MuRF-1 Pathway in Rats. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;8;20(19). pii: E4955 10.3390/ijms20194955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Miki T, Morioka A, Shioi K, Fujimoto T, Sakura H, Uedono Y, et al. Oncostatin M induces C2C12 myotube atrophy by modulating muscle differentiation and degradation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019; 27;516(3):951–956. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.06.143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Charge SB, Rudnicki MA. Cellular and molecular regulation of muscle regeneration, Physiol. 2004; (1):209–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kinoshita H, Orita S, Inage K, Yamauchi K, Abe K, Inoue M, et al. Skeletal Muscle Cell Oxidative Stress as a Possible Therapeutic Target in a Denervation-Induced Experimental Sarcopenic Model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;15;44(8):E446–E455. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sandri M, Barberi L, Bijlsma AY, Blaauw B, Dyar KA, Milan G, et al. Signalling pathways regulating muscle mass in ageing skeletal muscle: the role of the IGF1-Akt-mTOR-FoxO pathway. Biogerontology. 2013. June;14(3):303–23. 10.1007/s10522-013-9432-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brocca L, Pellegrino MA, Desaphy JF, Pierno S, Camerino DC, Bottinelli R. Is oxidative stress a cause or consequence of disuse muscle atrophy in mice? A proteomic approach in hindlimb unloaded mice. Exp Physiol. 2010;95(2):331–50. 10.1113/expphysiol.2009.050245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaur N, Gupta P, Saini V, Sherawat S, Gupta S, Dua A, et al. Cinnamaldehyde regulates H2O2-induced skeletal muscle atrophy by ameliorating the proteolytic and antioxidant defense systems. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(5):6194–6208. 10.1002/jcp.27348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fakhari A, Berkland C. Applications and Emerging Trends of Hyaluronic Acid in Tissue Engineering, as a Dermal Filler, and in Osteoarthritis Treatment. Acta Biomater. 2013. July;9(7):7081–92. 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Galesso D, Secchieri C, Bonassar LJ. Frictional characterization of injectable hyaluronic acids is more predictive of clinical outcomes than traditional rheological or viscoelastic characterization. PLoS One. 2019; 5 e0216702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fallacara A, Manfredini S, Durini E, Vertuani S. Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Soft Tissue Regeneration. Facial Plast Surg. 2017. April;33(2):244 10.1055/s-0037-1601851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim H, Jeong H, Han S, Beack S, Hwang BW, Shin M, Oh SS, Hahn SK. Hyaluronate and its derivatives for customized biomedical applications. 2017. April;123:155–171. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.01.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stellavato A, De Novellis F, Reale S, De Rosa M, Schiraldi C. Hybrid complexes of high and low molecular weight: evaluation using an in vitro model of osteoarthritis. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2016;30(4 Suppl 1):7–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stellavato A, Vassallo V, La Gatta A, Pirozzi AVA, De Rosa M, Balato G, D'Addona A, Tirino V, Ruosi C, Schiraldi C. Novel Hybrid Gels Made of High and Low Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid Induce Proliferation and Reduce Inflammation in an Osteoarthritis In Vitro Model Based on Human Synoviocytes and Chondrocytes. Biomed Res Int. 2019; (23);2019:4328219 10.1155/2019/4328219 eCollection 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 19.Stellavato A, Restaino OF, Vassallo V, Finamore R, Ruosi C, Cassese E, De Rosa M, Schiraldi C. Comparative Analyses of Pharmaceuticals or Food Supplements Containing Chondroitin Sulfate: Are Their Bioactivities Equivalent? Adv Ther. 2019;36(11):3221–3237. 10.1007/s12325-019-01064-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.De Rosa M, D’Agostino A, La Gatta A, Schiraldi C. Hybrid cooperative complexes of hyaluronic acid, WO Patent WO/2012/032,151.
  • 21.Schiraldi C, Stellavato A, de Novellis F, La Gatta A, De Rosa M. Hyaluronan viscosupplementation: state of the art and insight into the novel cooperative hybrid complexes based on high and low molecular weight HA of potential interest in osteoarthritis treatment. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2016. Jan-Apr 13(1):36–7. 10.11138/ccmbm/2016.13.1.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.D'Agostino A, Stellavato A, Busico T, Papa A, Tirino V, Papaccio G et al. In vitro analysis of the effects on wound healing of high- and low-molecular weight chains of hyaluronan and their hybrid H-HA/L-HA complexes. BMC Cell biology. 2015;16–19. 10.1186/s12860-015-0062-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stellavato A, La Noce M, Corsuto L, Pirozzi AVA, De Rosa M, Papaccio G, Schiraldi C, Tirino V. Hybrid Complexes of High and Low Molecular Weight Hyaluronans Highly Enhance HASCs Differentiation: Implication for Facial Bioremodelling. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017;44(3):1078–1092. 10.1159/000485414 Epub 2017 Nov 27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stellavato A, Corsuto L, D'Agostino A, La Gatta A, Diana P, Bernini P et al. Hyaluronan Hybrid Cooperative Complexes as a Novel Frontier for Cellular Bioprocesses Re-Activation. PLoS One. 2016. October 10;11(10):e0163510 10.1371/journal.pone.0163510 eCollection 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Alessio N, Stellavato A, Squillaro T, Del Gaudio S, Di Bernardo G, Peluso G, et al. Hybrid complexes of high and low molecular weight hyaluronan delay in vitro replicative senescence of mesenchymal stromal cells: a pilot study for future therapeutic application. Aging. 2018;12;10(7):1575–1585. 10.18632/aging.101493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.D'Agostino A, Maritato R, La Gatta A, Fusco A, Reale S, Stellavato A, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of Novel Hybrid Cooperative Complexes in a Wound Healing Model: A Step Toward Improved Bioreparation. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;24;20(19). pii: E4727. 10.3390/ijms20194727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mendoza G, Prieto JG, Real R, Pérez M, Merino G, Alvarez AI. Antioxidant profile of hyaluronan: physico-chemical features and its role in pathologies. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2009; 9 (13):1479–88. 10.2174/138955709790361494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cho S, Hong R, Yim P, Yeom M, Lee B, Yang WM, et al. An herbal formula consisting of Schisandra chinensis (Turcz.) Baill, Lycium chinense Mill and Eucommia ulmoides Oliv alleviates disuse muscle atrophy in rats. J Ethnopharmacol. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018. March 1;213:328–339. 10.1016/j.jep.2017.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stellavato A, Pirozzi AVA, Donato S, Scognamiglio I, Reale S, Di Pardo A, et al. Positive Effects against UV-A Induced Damage and Oxidative Stress on an In Vitro Cell Model Using a Hyaluronic Acid Based Formulation Containing Amino Acids, Vitamins, and Minerals. Biomed Res Int. 2018; (26);2018:8481243 10.1155/2018/8481243 eCollection 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 30.D'Agostino A, Stellavato A, Corsuto L, Diana P, Filosa R, La Gatta A, et al. Is molecular size a discriminating factor in hyaluronan interaction with human cells? Carbohydr Polym. 2017;10;157:21–30. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983; (1–2):55–63. 10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta CT)). Method, Methods. 2001;(4):402–8. 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Salwowska NM, Bebenek KA, Żądło DA, Wcisło-Dziadecka DL. Physiochemical properties and application of hyaluronic acid: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2016;15(4):520–526. 10.1111/jocd.12237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jiang D, Liang J, Noble PW. Hyaluronan in tissue injury and repair. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2007;23:435–61. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.23.090506.123337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Musarò A, Fulle S, Fanò G. Oxidative stress and muscle homeostasis. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010. May;13(3):236–42. 10.1097/MCO.0b013e3283368188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Paulin D, Li Z. Desmin: a major intermediate filament protein essential for the structural integrity and function of muscle. Exp Cell Res. 2004; 1:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ishikawa T, Shimizu M, Mikawa Y, Zhu BL, Quan L, Li DR, et al. Pathology of experimental disuse muscular atrophy in rats. Connect Tissue Res. 2005; 2:101–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cui W, Liu CX, Zhang YC, Shen Q, Feng ZH, Wang J, et al. A novel oleanolic acid derivative HA-19 ameliorates muscle atrophy via promoting protein synthesis and preventing protein degradation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2019;1;378:114625 10.1016/j.taap.2019.114625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lawler JM, Song W, Kwak HB. Differential response of heat shock proteins to hindlimb unloading and reloading in the soleus. Muscle Nerve. 2006;33(2):200–7. 10.1002/mus.20454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mirzoev TM, Shenkman BS. Regulation of protein synthesis in inactivated skeletal muscle: Signal inputs, protein kinase cascades, and ribosome biogenesis. Biochemistry (Mosc). 2018;83(11):1299–1317. 10.1134/S0006297918110020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Milner CM, Day AJ. J. TSG-6: a multifunctional protein associated with inflammation. Cell Sci. 2003. May 15;116(Pt 10):1863. –73. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Spinelli FM, Vitale DL, Icardi A, Caon I, Brandone A, Giannoni P, et al. Hyaluronan preconditioning of monocytes/macrophages affects their angiogenic behavior and regulation of TSG-6 expression in a tumor type-specific manner. FEBS J. 2019. September;286(17):3433–3449. 10.1111/febs.14871 Epub 2019 May 16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Baranova NS, Nilebäck E, Haller FM, Briggs DC, Svedhem S, Day AJ, et al. The inflammation-associated protein TSG-6 cross-links hyaluronan via hyaluronan-induced TSG-6 oligomers. J Biol Chem. 2011. July 22;286(29):25675–86. 10.1074/jbc.M111.247395 Epub 2011 May 19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alberto G Passi

9 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03354

An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof Schiraldi,

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

The study is well written and interesting, some aspect should be added, in particular some comments on the machinery which could be involved as well some details should be more explained in the text.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 24 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,

Alberto G Passi, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The Authors presented a very interesting study on the role of different hyaluronan on the rescue of primary cells under stress and in recover of muscle atrophy. The study is based on the comparison of different hyaluronan polymers with pharmaceutical grade including high (HHA), low molecular weight (LHA) hyaluronan polymer, including a hybrid cooperative complexes (HCC) of HA. The HCC is demonstrated to play an intriguing role, in fact the data indicate that cells increased specific markers and growth. Control experiments support the protective role of HCC compared to other supports.

The study is well written and interesting, nevertheless reviewers raised some points that should be addressed as some information about the mechanistic aspects of the difference between HCC and other HAs, some infoprmation on the receptors or TASG6 involvement and more details in the methods in order to clarify the aspects discussed in the text.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The authors describe the effects of HA of high and low mol. mass and conjugated HA on rat muscle derived cells. Authors studied cell proliferation, viability and in vitro atrophy finding that conjugated HA had the better effects.

The manuscript is clearly written and could be of interest in several clinical applications.

Several points, however, need to be addressed by the authors to increase discuss and to hypothesize the molecular mechanisms that trigger such HA treatments.

Have the authors an hypothesis of the mechanism of HCC? could HCC uses similar receptors of LHA and HHA?

Are the different HA added stable in the cell medium or such HA are degraded (a measurement of HYALs could be usefull to discuss this point)?

Many function of HA are know to be mediated by HC-HA complexes formed by TSG6. Have the authors investigated whether or not TSG6 could be involved?

As HCC is patented by one of the authors, is there any conflict of interest?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript demonstrates that a composite of high and low molecular weight hyaluronan (HCC) better preserves muscle cell phenotype than high molecular weight hyaluronan (HHA) or low molecular weight hyaluronan (LHA) in preserving phenotype of primary muscle cells and protect them from atrophy. While this finding is interesting, there are notable details lacking from the methods (e.g., description of controls) and some questions about the data that make it difficult to interpret. Details are provided in the comments below.

1. Please add an “and” before “c)” in the 3rd sentence to complete this list.

2. The abstract states: “The results showed that HCC and HHA increased cell proliferation by 1.15 and 2.3 folds in comparison to control, respectively.” Please clarify what the control is here in the text. It is also not clear from the Methods or Results text what the control conditions are.

3. The abstract states: “In this model, HCC revealed a noteworthy beneficial effect on the myogenic biomarkers indicating that it could be used as a promising platform for tissue regeneration with specific attention to muscle cell protection against stressful agents.” However, text up to this point indicates that HHA worked at least as well, if not better, than HCC.

4. Introduction, pg. 4: “HA is a hygroscopic molecule that is able to synthesize the ECM…” The use of “synthesize” is not appropriate here. The HA does not produce the ECM, although it can act to organize it structurally by complexing with other ECM macromolecules.

5. Method, Pg. 8, paragraph 3- Please provide more information on the fluorescence microscope such as what brand and model was used.

6. Method, pg.9, paragraph 2- Authors state that “Cytotoxicity was assessed using 3.0 × 104 cells seeded in a standard 24-well culture plate, pre- treated with 50 μM H2O2 (30 min), and then treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC, respectively (0.16% w/v) for 24 h. Analyses were performed after 24, 48, and 96 h post-treatment by measuring the reduction of the tetrazolium dye 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) “. Does this mean that HA was kept in the medium for only the first 24 hrs? Later, in the Results on pg. 12, the text implies that instead the times of HA treatments were different. Please clarify this issue.

7. How was the concentration of HA controlled for because HHA, LHA and HCC experimental conditions?

8. Were different concentrations of HA in each solution evaluated? It will be important to know if these effects are concentration dependent.

9. Please add indications onto graphs in Figures to show where data are significantly different from each other. This has only been done in Figures 3 and 6. It would also help to state when findings are statistically significant when discussing them in the Results text.

10. Figure 1 is never referred to in the text.

11. Table 1, pg.10.- Table does not look very polished: e.g. some Genbank accession no are underlined while others are not, some rows are wider than others, etc.

12. Results: The subtitles like “(experimental Set-up a)” are not really necessary.

13. This may have happened during pdf conversion, but all of the figures have blurry lines and text.

14. In Figure 2B, the images require scale bars.

15. The procedures for hydrogen peroxide “pre-challenge” and “post-challenge” are not clear from the methods or figure 4 caption.

16. As the MTT assay does not explicitly measure numbers of viable cells, it is more appropriate to refer to MTT results as reflective of the cells’ metabolic activity.

17. Statistical analyses: Students t-tests are not appropriate for these data sets where multiple comparisons are being made or where multiple independent variables are evaluated (e.g., Fig. 3, where time and treatment are variables). Please also include the software used for statistical analysis in the Methods.

18. Results: For all graphs, it is not clear what the asterisks indicating significance are comparing to here. For example, in Fig. 5A, is HHA MuRF-1 different than HHA FoxO3a? For LHA and HCC, do the different genes have different expression than the other genes or are all genes different than TNFalpha?

19. Results: For all figures, please indicate what the error bars represent (e.g., Standard deviation/ SEM?) in the captions.

20. Results: For all figures, please indicate what the number of replicates used for data analysis in the captions.

21. Results, Fig 3: Was there a positive control for this experiment?

22. Result, Fig 4: What are the negative and positive controls for this experiment?

23. Results, Fig 5. (B, C): The actin control rows appear to be identical in both western blot figures. Were these all run on the same blot? Also, the HCC treatment condition appears to have more actin. Is there a reason for this?

24. Results, Fig 6(B). For western blotting sample, random hyphens were added to the LHA and HHA the abbreviations.

25. Discussion, pg. 17: Please be consistent in italic style of “in vitro”.

26. Supporting information, S1B: Background in the red channel seems pretty high.

**********

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: Yes: Stephanie Seidlits

[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 Aug 6;15(8):e0236164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236164.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 May 2020

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your consideration for our manuscript.

Hereby we submit the revised version of the manuscript number PONE-D-20-03354

“An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine” PLOS ONE

We considered the reviewer suggestions and the manuscript was modified and corrected accordingly.

All the minor points were addressed and modified in the text, the manuscript with track changes revisions (revised manuscript with track changes) is provided beside the “clean”version (“manuscript” without tracked changes) according to the PlosOne author guidelines.

The original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot results are reported in Supporting information files.

Please find following the response to reviewers:

Response to Reviewer #1:

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: The authors describe the effects of HA of high and low mol. mass and conjugated HA on rat muscle derived cells. Authors studied cell proliferation, viability and in vitro atrophy finding that conjugated HA had the better effects.

The manuscript is clearly written and could be of interest in several clinical applications.

Several points, however, need to be addressed by the authors to increase discuss and to hypothesize the

molecular mechanisms that trigger such HA treatments.

Have the authors an hypothesis of the mechanism of HCC? could HCC uses similar receptors of LHA and HHA?

HCC is based on the cooperativity of hydrogen bonding among che high molecular weight Hyaluronan chains and the low molecular weight ones. These are thermally stabilized. However, when diluted in the cell media, or in physiological environment the competition of solvent is becoming more and more effective in time releasing both the low and high molecular weight chains. For this reason, it is possibly the direct interaction of the slowly released single chains to release the effect. A study focus on the direct interaction of the complex on the cell wall specific receptors was not carried out yet. However, we think that the suggestion of the editor/referee is very interesting starting point for in depth analyses of the unraveled features of these HCC.

Are the different HA added stable in the cell medium or such HA are degraded (a measurement of HYALs could be usefull to discuss this point)?

HCC are more stable than HHA to hyaluronidases, specifically 80% of the initial molecular population with MW higher than 1 MDa was digested in 24h in presence of hyaluronidase (BTH 0.5 U/mL at 37°C) while 5% only was degraded of the same fraction in HCC (D’Agostino et al. 2015). Very few studies on the hyaluronidases synthesis in vitro are presented in literature, however the most recent is addressing this point regarding mast cells (Calve et al. J Biol Chem. 2019 Jul 26;294(30):11458-11472). In previous research paper we evaluated in a similar time scale the effect of HCC compared to HHA and LHA and generally the medium (containing the gel preparation) was exchanged every 48h.

Many function of HA are know to be mediated by HC-HA complexes formed by TSG6. Have the authors

investigated whether or not TSG6 could be involved?

TSG6 has been demonstrated to interact with HA (Spinelli et al., Milner et al., and Baranova et al.).

Caroline and collaborators propose a high expression level in skeletal muscle for this reason we may suppose that among the molecular mechanism (some of which mainly related to CD44) responsible for the biological effect also TSG6 may be involved. In this respect it will be of great interest a specific assessment of the HCC interaction in comparison to the sole high and low molecular weight fraction, not only in the muscle cell line, but also in other in vitro model (e.g. OA). The authors have been discussed potential function of TSG-6 referring our study in the discussion section (page 17 line 607-615).

As HCC is patented by one of the authors, is there any conflict of interest?

Prof Schiraldi is among the inventors, but the assignee is a company, since the research work was developed within a public-private joint project partially financed by Campania regional government (measure for innovation). We may add a specification in the section conflict of interest to specify this.

Response to Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #2: The manuscript demonstrates that a composite of high and low molecular weight hyaluronan (HCC) better preserves muscle cell phenotype than high molecular weight hyaluronan (HHA) or low molecular weight hyaluronan (LHA) in preserving phenotype of primary muscle cells and protect them from atrophy. While this finding is interesting, there are notable details lacking from the methods (e.g., description of controls) and some questions about the data that make it difficult to interpret. Details are provided in the comments below.

1. Please add an “and” before “c)” in the 3rd sentence to complete this list.

We added “and” before “c)” in the 3rd sentence to complete the list (page 8 line 163).

2. The abstract states: “The results showed that HCC and HHA increased cell proliferation by 1.15 and 2.3 folds in comparison to control, respectively.” Please clarify what the control is here in the text. It is also not clear from the Methods or Results text what the control conditions are.

In this sentence (page 2 line 38) we replaced “control” with “un-treated cells”. Also, we clarified the description of all the control conditions used for the three experimental set-up investigated from the Methods and Results text.

3. The abstract states: “In this model, HCC revealed a noteworthy beneficial effect on the myogenic biomarkers indicating that it could be used as a promising platform for tissue regeneration with specific attention to muscle cell protection against stressful agents.” However, text up to this point indicates that HHA worked at least as well, if not better, than HCC.

Yes, this is the meaning we wanted to give (page 2 line 40).

However, in figure 5 A, B and C a significant better effect from HCC was found in reducing atrogens expression. Results relative to oxidative stress (Fig 3A) and atrophy (fig 5C) HCC and HHA presented similar behavior counteracting stressful conditions. We underline that HHA resulted slightly more effective than HCC in reducing SOD-2 expression during protective effect (fig4B).

4. Introduction, pg. 4: “HA is a hygroscopic molecule that is able to synthesize the ECM…” The use of “synthesize” is not appropriate here. The HA does not produce the ECM, although it can act to organize it structurally by complexing with other ECM macromolecules.

We apologize, the sentence was not correct, we modified that inserting:

“HA is a hygroscopic molecule that is able to structurally organize the ECM by complexing with other ECM macromolecules”, page 4 line 78-79 in the introduction section.

5. Method, Pg. 8, paragraph 3- Please provide more information on the fluorescence microscope such as what brand and model was used.

Immufluorescence analyses was accomplished using an Axiovert 200 (Zeiss) microscope, detail have been added to the materials and methods section page 9 line 189-190.

6. Method, pg.9, paragraph 2- Authors state that “Cytotoxicity was assessed using 3.0 × 104 cells seeded in a standard 24-well culture plate, pre- treated with 50 μM H2O2 (30 min), and then treated with HHA, LHA, and HCC, respectively (0.16% w/v) for 24 h. Analyses were performed after 24, 48, and 96 h post-treatment by measuring the reduction of the tetrazolium dye 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) “. Does this mean that HA was kept in the medium for only the first 24 hrs? Later, in the Results on pg. 12, the text implies that instead the times of HA treatments were different. Please clarify this issue.

Thanks for the comment, we have clarified the description of the procedure performed in the methods section page 9 line 207 and modified the outcomes considering the metabolic activity in the results section line starting from page 13 line 283-298 (fig 3A and B).

7. How was the concentration of HA controlled for because HHA, LHA and HCC experimental conditions?

Respect to the initial gels, that were prepared from pharma grade powder at 16 g/L and thermally treated for 12 min at 120°C in the autoclave, we diluted them into the cell medium 1:10 to achieve a final concentration of 1.6mg/mL. For HCC we used a sterile syringes from IBSA Italia (IBSA Farmaceutici Italia Srl, Italy) diluted 1:20 into the cell medium, as reported in materials and methods section page 5 line 115.

8. Were different concentrations of HA in each solution evaluated? It will be important to know if these effects are concentration dependent.

No, we have used only one concentration (1.6 mg/mL) for all hyaluronans tested.

9. Please add indications onto graphs in Figures to show where data are significantly different from each other. This has only been done in Figures 3 and 6. It would also help to state when findings are statistically significant when discussing them in the Results text.

As requested by the referee we have performed t- student test analyses on all figures as suggested, and modified accordingly the figures and texts.

10. Figure 1 is never referred to in the text.

We have mentioned the figure 1 referring to atrophy signaling at page 3 line 59 of the introduction section.

11. Table 1, pg.10.- Table does not look very polished: e.g. some Genbank accession no are underlined while others are not, some rows are wider than others, etc.

According to the suggestion the table 1 was formatted according to plos one guidelines and inserted in the manuscript.

12. Results: The subtitles like “(experimental Set-up a)” are not really necessary.

We deleted subtitles as suggested by the referee.

13. This may have happened during pdf conversion, but all of the figures have blurry lines and text.

We have upload figures as a 300 dpi following the journal guidelines however, we will up-load those again hoping that their quality will be improved.

14. In Figure 2B, the images require scale bars.

We apologize, on the original figure scale bars were present and visible. The issue may be due to the pdf conversion. We will try to re-upload the image to make it better visible.

15. The procedures for hydrogen peroxide “pre-challenge” and “post-challenge” are not clear from the methods or figure 4 caption.

Ok, we have modified the description for oxidative stress in the materials and methods page 7 from line 150-158.

We aimed at evaluating if the hyaluronan gel were able to:

1) counteract the detrimental effect of Hydrogen peroxide treatment- and in this case the cells were initially challenged with H2O2 and successively treated with the gels.

2) To prevent the damage of stressfull agent- and in this case the cells were initially treated with the gels and then exposed (challenged) with H2O2.

We called case A) Rescue (repair function); while case B is a prevention/alert or protective function of the gels.

16. As the MTT assay does not explicitly measure numbers of viable cells, it is more appropriate to refer to MTT results as reflective of the cells’ metabolic activity.

We agree with the referee that the figure axis may be misleading to the readers for this reason we modified the text indicating MTT results as cells’ metabolic activity page 13 line 283-298.

17. Statistical analyses: Students t-tests are not appropriate for these data sets where multiple comparisons are being made or where multiple independent variables are evaluated (e.g., Fig. 3, where time and treatment are variables). Please also include the software used for statistical analysis in the Methods.

We have used Microsoft excel in order to perform t-student test analyses. In particular, we compared the efficacy of different HAs treatments in counteracting H2O2 effect. For all time investigated (24, 48 and 72h) all HAs tested were effective respect to H2O2 treatment. However, the effect of HCC is more noticeable at 72h in the rescue/repair function (fig3A). Also, the HAs treatments resulted significant (p<0.01) with respect to H2O2 treatment at 48 and 72h in the protection function condition (Fig.3B).

18. Results: For all graphs, it is not clear what the asterisks indicating significance are comparing to here. For example, in Fig. 5A, is HHA MuRF-1 different than HHA FoxO3a? For LHA and HCC, do the different genes have different expression than the other genes or are all genes different than TNF-α?

For figure 5A statistical analyses (t-test *p<0.01) were performed for each gene of different HAs treatment respect to TNF-α insult. Our purpose was to demonstrate that TNF-α insult induces atrogenes up-regulation and HAs treatment was effective in reducing it. HAs counteract the detrimental effect of TNF-α that is recognized as a treatment resembling atrophic conditions (Cho et al. 2018 ref 28 in the present manuscript).

19. Results: For all figures, please indicate what the error bars represent (e.g., Standard deviation/ SEM?) in the captions.

As requested, we indicated the error bars as standard deviation in the figure captions.

20. Results: For all figures, please indicate what the number of replicates used for data analysis in the captions.

We indicated the number of replicates used for our data analyses in the figure captions.

21. Results, Fig 3: Was there a positive control for this experiment?

The positive control (of stress) was the H2O2 treated cells while the negative control was the untreated-cells.

Untreated cells are the control

Stressed cells are the detrimental conditions.

On the already stressed cells were run to evaluate the biological effect of HAs.

22. Result, Fig 4: What are the negative and positive controls for this experiment?

The positive control (of stress) was the H2O2 treated cells while the negative control was the untreated-cells.

Untreated cells are the control

Stressed cells are the detrimental conditions.

On the already stressed cells were run to evaluate the biological effect of HAs.

23. Results, Fig 5. (B, C): The actin control rows appear to be identical in both western blot figures. Were these all run on the same blot? Also, the HCC treatment condition appears to have more actin. Is there a reason for this?

It is in fact a single western blot where we have separated the genes according to their function. For all experiment we have loaded the same protein amount (10�g tot) for all biomarkers investigated and also for actin. In this respect, actin signal is used as housekeeping protein as internal control for normalization.

24. Results, Fig 6(B). For western blotting sample, random hyphens were added to the LHA and HHA the

abbreviations.

Thank you for the remark, a mistake was made. We changed the name of samples (in the results section fig 6.B).

25. Discussion, pg. 17: Please be consistent in italic style of “in vitro”.

We controlled the italics for “in vitro” throughout the document.

26. Supporting information, S1B: Background in the red channel seems pretty high.

Ok, we have re-acquired the image by lowering the phalloidin red channel, for figure S1B.

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions that greatly improved our manuscript.

Kind regards

Chiara Schiraldi

Antonietta Stellavato

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-03354.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alberto G Passi

29 May 2020

PONE-D-20-03354R1

An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schiraldi,

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

The manuscript has been carefully revised and improved. There is an issue related to the statistics that should be addressed as suggested by reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alberto G Passi, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript has been carefully revised and improved. There is a issue related to use of statistical method T instead ANOVA. It may be addressed to confirm data robustness.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your careful consideration of the previous review comments. There are still issues with the use of t-tests for statistical analysis. In all data sets, there are multiple levels of the independent variables, and thus multiple comparisons. Use of t-tests repeatedly compounds error and may give false positives. Thus, something like a one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data) is required. T-tests are particularly not appropriate when multiple independent variables are evaluated (e.g., Fig. 3, where time and treatment are variables). Please address this issue.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236164.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jun 2020

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your consideration for our manuscript.

Hereby we submit the second revision of the manuscript number PONE-D-20-03354R1

“An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine” PLOS ONE

We considered the suggestions of reviewer 2, the manuscript was modified and corrected accordingly.

All the minor points were addressed and modified in the text, the manuscript with track changes revisions (revised manuscript with track changes) is provided beside the “clean”version (“manuscript” without tracked changes) according to the PlosOne author guidelines.

One-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test were performed by JASP soft-ware (https://jasp-stats.org) and are reported in Supporting information files.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript has been carefully revised and improved. There is a issue related to use of statistical method T instead ANOVA. It may be addressed to confirm data robustness.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

________________________________________

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your careful consideration of the previous review comments. There are still issues with the use of t-tests for statistical analysis. In all data sets, there are multiple levels of the independent variables, and thus multiple comparisons. Use of t-tests repeatedly compounds error and may give false positives. Thus, something like a one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data) is required. T-tests are particularly not appropriate when multiple independent variables are evaluated (e.g., Fig. 3, where time and treatment are variables). Please address this issue.

We have included for Fig 3, Fig 5A and Fig 6A, the one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test by JASP soft-ware (https://jasp-stats.org). In fact in this way we efficiently compared the different treatments and data sets. On the figures we inserted the symbols corresponding to p values for the diverse comparisons. All the data are reported as tables of the software outcomes and included as Supporting information.

Please find following the specific response to each point raised by reviewer and inserted in the manuscript accordingly:

Line 247-250 page 11 in the statistical analyses paragraph.

Line 298, 303, 305, 308 page 13 in the MMT-test results referring to Fig3.

Line 329-331 page 14 in the fig3 legend.

Line 366,368,371 page 15 for qRT-PCR results and 386-393 for fig5A legend.

Line 408 page 17 qRT-PCR results and 413-421 page 17 for fig6A legend.

We think that this further in depth analyses of experimental data set is improving the manuscript quality and for this reason we wish to thank the reviewer for the suggestion.

________________________________________

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 16 06 2020_rev CS.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alberto G Passi

1 Jul 2020

An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine

PONE-D-20-03354R2

Dear Dr. Schiraldi,

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,

Alberto G Passi, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In this revised version of the manuscript the Authors properly addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers.

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: (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 #2: Yes: Stephanie Seidlits

Acceptance letter

Alberto G Passi

13 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-03354R2

An in vitro study to assess the effect of hyaluronan-based gels on muscle-derived cells: Highlighting a new perspective in regenerative medicine

Dear Dr. Schiraldi:

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

Prof. Alberto G Passi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-03354.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 16 06 2020_rev CS.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