Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 17;15(9):e0238834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238834

Pellucidin A promotes antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms inhibiting COX-2 and NOS: In vivo and in silico study

Amanda Pâmela Santos Queiroz 1,#, Manolo Cleiton Costa Freitas 2,3,#, José Rogério A Silva 4, Anderson Bentes Lima 1,5, Leila Sawada 1, Rayan Fidel Martins Monteiro 1, Ana Carolina Gomes Albuquerque de Freitas 4, Luís Antônio Loureiro Maués 1, Alberto Cardoso Arruda 2, Milton Nascimento Silva 2,6, Cristiane Socorro Ferraz Maia 7, Enéas Andrade Fontes-Júnior 7, José Luiz M do Nascimento 8, Mara Silvia P Arruda 2, Gilmara N T Bastos 1,*
Editor: John M Streicher9
PMCID: PMC7498071  PMID: 32941458

Abstract

Peperomia pellucida (PP) belongs to the Peperomia genus, which has a pantropic distribution. PP is used to treat a wide range of symptoms and diseases, such as pain, inflammation, and hypertension. Intriguingly, PP extract is used by different tropical countries for its anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects. In fact, these outcomes have been shown in animal models, though the exact bioactive products of PP that exert such results are yet to be discovered. To determine and elucidate the mechanism of action of one of these compounds, we evaluated the antinociceptive effect of the novel dimeric ArC2 compound, Pellucidin A by using in vivo and in silico models. Animals were then subjected to chemical, biphasic and thermal models of pain. Pellucidin A induced an antinociceptive effect against chemical-induced pain in mice, demonstrated by the decrease of the number of writhes, reaching a reduction of 43% and 65% in animals treated with 1 and 5 mg/kg of Pellucidin A, respectively. In the biphasic response (central and peripheral), animals treated with Pellucidin A showed a significant reduction of the licking time exclusively during the second phase (inflammatory phase). In the hot-plate test, Pellucidin A did not have any impact on the latency time of the treated animals. Moreover, in vivo and in silico results show that Pellucidin A’s mechanism of action in the inflammatory pain occurs most likely through interaction with the nitric oxide (NO) pathway. Our results demonstrate that the antinociceptive activities of Pellucidin A operate under mechanism(s) of peripheral action, involving inflammatory mediators. This work provides insightful novel evidence of the biological properties of Pellucidin A, and leads to a better understanding of its mechanism of action, pointing to potential pharmacological use.

1. Introduction

Peperomia pellucida (PP) is a plant used in folk medicine. It belongs to the Peperomia genus, which consists of approximately 1,600 tropical species with a pantropic distribution. It grows well in humid and shady conditions, presents succulent stems and heart-shaped leaves [13].

Traditionally, PP has been used in the treatment of a wide variety of diseases. Local communities of the pantropical have been using PP to treat several types of pain [4]. The areal parts of the plant have been described to treat various kidney diseases and decoction of the entire plant is used against poisonous animal bites by the Miskitu indigenous group of eastern Nicaragua [4, 5]. In Brazil, local communities have used PP in the treatment of abscesses, furuncles, inflammation in general, and hypertension [4].

In the ethnopharmacology field, there is growing evidence suggesting that PP has pharmacological properties. PP oils and extracts have been shown to inhibit both gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms and human pathogenic fungi. The methanol extract exhibited a specific cytotoxic activity expressly against human cancer cell lines. PP has also presented potential analgesic activities [4].

Facing the fact that PP extracts and oils have been shown to present biological functions, the search for bioactive compounds in this plant is important, since this discovery will allow the development of new medicinal agents. In fact, previous studies with PP established the presence of several substances, such as tannins, flavonoids, among others [2, 6]. Interestingly, a chemical analysis of the methanolic extract from the aerial parts of PP has led to the isolation of a novel dimeric ArC2 compound, Pellucidin A [7]. Ayafor, suggest that these ArC2 dimers are products of a Diels-Alder reaction between two 2,4,5-trimethoxystyrene units, which literature also reports occurs in this plant [8]. However, Ayafor, names ArC2 dimers as bisnorlignans. The biological functions of Pellucidin A, have not been described so far to our knowledge [7, 8].

Intriguingly, PP is traditionally utilized in general cases of inflammation. Moreover, the use of PP in pain treatment led us to hypothesize that the PP compounds may interfere in the phenomenon of pain. These facts were supported by previous works, which showed that PP extracts present analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties in animal models of pain [110]. The exact substances in the PP extracts that are involved in these functions, as well as their mechanism of action, are yet to be discovered. Hence, in this work, we describe the biological functions of a PP compound, Pellucidin A, by evaluating its antinociceptive properties using in vivo models and clarifying the mechanism of action of this compound.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Extract preparation

The specimen was collected from the Icoaraci district of Belém (Brazil). Experts from Emilio Goeldi Museum carried out the botanical identification. A voucher specimen was deposited under number 190136 IAN. The specimen’s previously authorized collection was in November 2018, in Belém, from the Icoraci district, at geographic coordinates 1º28’09.9”S 48º29’40.5”W. The entire plant (Fig 1A) was washed thoroughly with water, and the leaves were then air-dried and ground into powder.

Fig 1. Botanical image and Pellucidin A chemistry structure.

Fig 1

(A) P. pellucida, in preserved collection place, with inflorescence and leaves. (B) HPLC chromatograms of the extract of P. pellucida showing Pellucidin A peak.

The aerial parts of the dry and ground plant (450 g) were macerated at room temperature (25 ± 2°C). The extractions were performed three times, for three days, with 96% ethanol (8 L). The hydroethanolic solution was concentrated in a rotatory evaporator under reduced pressure at 50–60°C until it was completely dried, obtaining 32 g of crude extract. A sample of the ethanol extract (15 g) was subjected to percolation over a silica gel column using solvents with increasing polarity: hexane/EtOAc (9:1, 1 L, F1), hexane/EtOAc (7:3, 1 L, F2), hexane/EtOAc (1:1, 1 L, F3), EtOAc (1 L, F4), EtOAc/MeOH (1:1, 1 L, F5) and MeOH (2 L, F6).

2.2. Pellucidin A isolation

A 10 mg aliquot of the F5 fraction was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), solubilized in 1 ml CH3CN, and then filtered through a membrane with a pore diameter of 0.25 μm. The chromatographic profile was analyzed using the following adopted method: Column Gemini C18, 5 μm (250 x 4.6 mm) with a flow of 1 m/min; scanning with a wavelength between 200 and 400 nm (deuterium lamp), injection volume 20 μL, and isocratic H2O/CH3CN (45:55) over 25 min. Based on the analytical methodology described, the F5 fraction was subjected to preparative HPLC, resulting in the isolation of Pellucidin A (57.3 mg).

2.3. Nuclear magnetic resonance analysis for Pellucidin A

The structural identification of Pellucidin A was carried out based on the analysis of spectral data from 1D and 2D NMR, and comparison with previously reported data [7]. The NMR spectra were recorded in CDCl3 on a Varian MERCURY 300 MHz for 1H NMR and 1H-1H COSY, and a Varian MERCURY 75 MHz for 13C NMR and DEPT.

2.4. Animals

Experiments were conducted using adult male Swiss albino mice (8 to 12 weeks old; 20–35 g; n  =  180), housed at 22± 2°C under a 12/12 h light/dark cycle (lights on at 06:00), with free access to food and water. Mice were obtained from the Evandro Chagas Institute (Belém, Brazil). All animal procedures described in this work were reviewed and approved by the animal ethics committee from the Federal University of Para, (CEUA-UFPA Nº 5671030216) and were carried out following the ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals.

2.5. Drugs, chemicals and reagents

The drugs and reagents used were morphine (Cristália, São Paulo, Brazil), indomethacin, NS-398 and L-NAME (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA), acetic acid (Vetec, São Paulo, Brazil), formaldehyde (Vetec, São Paulo, Brazil) and NaCl (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA). They were dissolved in saline solution, except for indomethacin which was dissolved in 5% NaHCO3 and Tween 80 plus 0.9% NaCl. Finally, the pellucidin A solution was prepared every day, before each experiment, with Tween 80 plus 0.9% NaCl. The final concentration of Tween 80 did not exceed 5% and did not cause any effect per se.

2.6. Open field

To assess the possible effects of the Pellucidin A on locomotor activity, mice were evaluated individually in an open field paradigm, as described [10], with some modifications. A wooden box (100 cm x 100 cm x 20 cm) with the floor divided into 25 squares was used. The mice were placed individually in the center arena of the open-field and behavioral parameters were counted manually for 5 min. Ambulation (number of squares crossed with four paws) and frequency of rearing (partial or total rising onto hind limbs) were measured. Male Swiss mice (n = 6/group) were treated intraperitoneally (i.p) with different doses of Pellucidin A (0.5; 1; or 5 mg/kg, i.p.), diazepam (2mg/kg i.p.), vehicle (saline solution 10 ml/kg) 30 min before the assay. Diazepam was used as a control to decrease locomotor activity [11].

2.7. Acetic acid-induced abdominal writhing

The test was performed as previously described by Sawada [12]. Nociception was induced with an intraperitoneal injection of 0.6% acetic acid (0.1 ml/10 g body weight). Male Swiss mice (n = 6/group) were treated intraperioneally (i.p) with different doses of Pellucidin A (0.5; 1; or 5 mg/kg, i.p.) one hour before acid acetic injection. To elucidate the Pellucidin A mechanism of action, cyclooxygenase (indomethacin 5 mg/kg; nonselective COX inhibitor), COX-2 (NS-398 10 mg/kg; selective COX-2 inhibitor) and nitric oxide synthase (L-NAME 5 mg/kg; nonselective NOS inhibitor) were used. All substances were administered intraperitoneally [12, 13].

A group of mice was treated with indomethacin (5 mg/kg) as a reference drug. Control animals received a similar volume of saline solution (10 ml/kg). Mice were individually observed in experimental acrylic cages. A hand-operated stopwatch was used to score the number of abdominal writhes. Writhing reflexes (characterized by the presence of abdominal muscles contractions) consist of inward outstretching of the hind limbs, hind paw reflexes, and extension of the whole body. The writhes were cumulatively counted over 30 min. A significant reduction in the number of writhes between the control and pretreated animals was considered indicative of antinociceptive activity.

2.8. Formalin test

The formalin test was carried out as previously described by Sawada et al, [12], with some modifications. The formalin solution is the algic agent. Licking is a rapid response to painful chemical stimuli that is a direct indicator of nociceptive threshold. The time that the animal spent licking the injected paw, which is considered indicative of pain, was recorded for 30 min immediately following formalin injection. A significant reduction in the licking time was considered indicative of antinociceptive activity. Mice (n = 6/group) were treated intraperioneally (i.p) with different doses of Pellucidin A (0.5; 1; or 5 mg/kg, i.p.), and control animals received a similar volume of saline solution (10 ml/kg) 30 min before the formalin injection. Mice treated with indomethacin (10 mg/kg) or morphine (4 mg/kg, s.c.) were used as reference drugs. Morphine was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) to the morphine-treated group 15 min before the formalin injection.

2.9. Hot-plate test in mice

This test was adapted from Sawada et al, 2014 [12]. Animals were placed on a hot-plate set at 55± 0.5°C. The hight temperature is the algic agent. The time between the placement of the mouse on the platform and shaking, licking of the paws or jumping was recorded as the hot-plate latency. Licking or jumping is a rapid response to painful thermal stimuli that is a direct indicator of nociceptive threshold. The animals were tested one day before the assay, and the mice with baseline latencies higher than 20s were eliminated from the study. Successive 30 min intervals before the administration of Pellucidin A (0.5; 1; or 5 mg/kg, i.p.) were applied. Saline solution was administered intraperitoneally. Morphine (10 mg/kg) was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) to the morphine-treated group. The reaction time was recorded when the animals licked their hind-paws or jumped.

2.10. Statistical analysis

Data in the text and figures are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. Statistical evaluations were performed using ANOVA, followed by Tukey test for individual pairwise comparisons, p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

2.11. Molecular docking

The crystal structures of inducible NOS (iNOS) (PDB code 1M8D [14]), endothelial NOS (eNOS) (PDB code 1M9J [14]), ancestral corticoid receptor (ACR) (PDB code 2Q1V [15]) and COX-2 (PDB code 4COX [16]) were obtained from the PDB website. Inducible and endothelial NOS enzymes contain chlorzoxazone (CLW) as a crystal inhibitor and heme group as a cofactor. The ancestral corticoid receptor has 17,21-dihydroxypregna-1,4-diene-3,11,20-trione (PDN) as a crystal inhibitor. For the COX-2 structure, indomethacin (IMN) is complex as an inhibitor. These inhibitors were used for a re-docking procedure to validate processes applied for molecular docking analysis. Then, the Pellucidin A was submitted for docking calculations.

The molecular docking studies were carried out by using the Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) program [17]. This program has two docking search algorithms, MolDock Optimizer and MolDock SE (Simplex Evolution). The first is the default search algorithm in MVD [18], which is based on an evolutionary algorithm. However, MolDock SE performs better on some complexes where the standard MolDock algorithm fails [19]. Default parameters for the search algorithm were used to carry out molecular docking analysis. The detailed theory behind the MVD program and its characteristics are described elsewhere [17, 20].

3. Results

3.1. Isolation and identification of Pellucidin A

Isolation of Pellucidin A was possible using the HPLC method, where a single symmetric signal at the retention time of 27.09 min was obtained (Fig 1B). The absorbance of the eluting compound showed high intensity at 224 nm and relatively low at 290 nm (Fig 2). After isolation, NMR assay was performed to identify the substance, and the data obtained were compared with the literature data, further summarized in Table 1. These values match the chemical shifts reported in the literature [7].

Fig 2. UV-Vis plot spectra of the Pellucidin A.

Fig 2

Table 1. 1H and 13C NMR spectral data for Pellucidin A in CDCl3 at 300 MHz.

Pellucidin A Literature[7]
Position δC δH *δC *δH
1/1’ 124.5 124.9
2/2’ 147.5 147.8
3/3’ 97.6 6.47 98.2 6.47
4/4’ 151.0 151.3
5/5’ 143.0 143.3
6/6’ 111.7 6.97 112.2 6.97
7/7’ 40.4 40.6
8/8’ 27.0 27.0
OMe-4/4’ 56.3 3.74 56.3 3.74
OMe-2/2’ 56.6 3.84 56.6 3.84
OMe-5/5’ 56.1 3.85 56.1 3.85

3.2. Locomotor activity assessment

The effects of Pellucidin A on the exploratory and locomotor activities were measured in the open field assay (Fig 3). Compared with the control group, the number of crossings and the number of rearings were significantly decreased only in Diazepam-exposed mice. The animals that underwent treatment with Pellucidin A did not show a significant reduction in locomotor activity compared to the vehicle group. The Diazepam group was used as a reference drug since it induces alteration in the locomotor activity and on exploratory performance. Diazepan (2mg/kg) promoted sedation in the animals, decreased locomotion and exploratory behavior.

Fig 3. Assessment of motor functions in controls and Pellucidin A-treated mice (0.5, 1 and 5 mg/kg).

Fig 3

(A) Spontaneous horizontal locomotor activity (A) and rearing activity (B) in the open field during the period of exposure. The Pellucidin A treated and Diazepam the positive control were used and compared with control animals for statistical analysis puporses. Data are means ± S.E.M. of n = 6 per group. The $ shown p value versus diazepam-injected. ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test was used.

3.3. The antinociceptive effects of Pellucidin A in acetic acid-induced constriction

Pellucidin A (0.5–5 mg/Kg, i.p.) produced inhibition of acetic acid-induced writhing response (Fig 4). Pellucidin A treated animals showed a reduction of 43% and 65% when treated with 1% and 5%, respectively. The number of writhings in animals treated with 0.5 mg/kg of Pellucidin A was not significantly different from the control group (p>0.05). Among the Pellucidin A treated groups, the group subjected to a 5mg/kg dose was the only group that did not show any statistical difference with the positive control indomethacin.

Fig 4. Effect of Pellucidin A in acetic acid-induced nociception in mice.

Fig 4

Pellucidin A produced a dose-dependent inhibition of writhing response, that reached a maximum point at 5mg/kg. Data are means ± S.E.M. of n = 6 per group. The $ shown p value versus diazepam-injected. ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test was used. The * shown p value versus saline-injected, the + shown p values versus Indomethacin-injected, and & shown p values versus Pellucidin A 0,5 mg/kg.

3.4. Elucidation of the antinociceptive effects of Pellucidin A in the formalin model

Pellucidin A antinociceptive effect could be interfering in two neuronal pain mechanisms: central and/or peripheral. To confirm and elucidate these mechanisms, we used the formalin test. An injection of formalin (2.5%) leads to a biphasic licking response to the injected paw by the animal. As shown in Fig 5A, Pellucidin A did not significantly reduce the time that the animal spent licking the formalin-injected paw during the first phase of this test. Morphine-treated animals manifested a significant reduction of the licking time during the first phase and indomethacin did not induce significant alterations in this parameter.

Fig 5. Effect of Pellucidin A in formalin-induced nociception in mice.

Fig 5

(A)The activity of Pellucidin A in the first phase of a formalin induced-nociception test. (B) The activity of Pellucidin A in the second phase of a formalin induced-nociception. Data are means ± S.E.M. of n = 6 per group. ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test, was used. The * shown p value versus saline-injected, the + shown p values versus Indomethacin-injected, and # shown p values versus Morphine-injected, + shown p values versus Indomethacin-injected, and & shown p values versus Pellucidin A 5 mg/kg -injected.

During the second phase (inflammatory) of this test (Fig 5B), Pellucidin A (5mg/kg) showed a significant antinociceptive effect (39.3± 4.0), reducing the licking time by 68%, when compared to control. Lower concentrations of Pellucidin A (0.5 and 1mg/kg) did not induce a significant reduction in the number of lickings when compared to control animals (Fig 5A). The positive control indomethacin (10 mg/kg) significantly reduced contractions (29.2 ± 3.9) when compared to control (123.5 ± 5.8), inducing contraction inhibition in nearly 76%. Among the Pellucidin A treated groups, the group dosed with 5mg/kg was the only group that did not show any statistical difference with the positive control indomethacin.

3.5. Hot plate test in mice

As previous data showed that Pellucidin A may act on inflammatory and not on neurogenic pain, we decided to confirm this mechanism. We used the hot plate model to evaluate the supraspinal antinociceptive effects of the substance. According to the results in Fig 6, Pellucidin A did not induce a supraspinal antinociceptive effect in any of the different administrated concentrations (0.5, 1 and 5 mg/kg). On the other hand, morphine-treated mice (10 mg/kg) increased their latency time when compared to control.

Fig 6. Time-course of the effects of the Pellucidin A on thermal nociception.

Fig 6

Abscissa time (min) after Pellucidin A (i.p.) and morphine (s.c.) treatments. Ordinate latency time (s) for the response to thermal stimulation (55±0.5 ºC, mean±s.e.m., n = 6) for each Pellucidin A dose. Data are means ± S.E.M. of n = 6 per group. ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test, was used. The * shown p values from saline-injected.

3.6. Mechanism of action of the antinociceptive effects of Pellucidin A by combination with antagonists during acetic acid-induced writhing in mice

To evaluate which inflammatory mechanisms Pellucidin A was interfering with, mice were pre-treated with Indometacin, NS-398, and L-NAME (Fig 7). The pre-treatment with Indomethacin (27.5±2.9) and NS-398 (30.2±3.6) significantly reduced the number of contortions when compared to control (67.5±4.8), and their association with Pellucidin A did not induce a significant change in the number of writhings (22.5 ±3.3 and 20±5.4). On the other hand, the association of L-NAME with Pellucidin A induced a remarkable reduction in contortions (4.7±1.3) when compared to the L-NAME single treated group.

Fig 7. Investigation of the mechanism of action of Pellucidin A-treated mice (5 mg/kg).

Fig 7

The effects of different inhibitors on the nociceptive activity of Pellucidin A in acetic acid-induced writhings. Animals that were pretreated exclusively with the inhibitors Indomethacin, NS-398 and L-NAME. The number of writhings was only slightly further reduced when Indomethacin and NS-398 were administrated with Pellucidin A, showing no statistic difference when compared to groups that were solely treated with inhibitor. On the other hand, Pellucidin A further reduced the number of writhings of L-NAME single treated animals, indicating that L-NAME and Pellucidin A presented a synergistic effect. Data are means ± S.E.M. of n = 6 per group. ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test, was used. The * shown p value versus saline-injected, the £ shown p values versus L-NAME+Pellucidin A -injected, and § shown p values versus L-NAME -injected.

3.7. Molecular docking

The MVD program has been used successfully for molecular docking studies [2124], a suitable procedure for validating this program through the analyzed systems is to carry out a re-docking by using bound crystal compounds. In this study, MVD results present in Table 2 describe good agreements between theoretical and experimental data, where the binding mode for the ligands and their receptors are described successfully (Figs 8 and 9). Besides, atomic features occurring on the experimental complexes are elucidated by using molecular docking analysis.

Table 2. Experimental and theoretical binding affinity values.

System Experimental activity value MOLDOCK scoring (kcal·mol–1)
eNOS-CLW 8.70 μM -120.10
eNOS-PA* - -124.87
iNOS-CLW 14.10 μM -114.20
iNOS-PA - -125.21
ACR-PDN - -120.70
ACR-PA - -106.54
uCOX-2-IMN 0.96 μM -155.86
uCOX-2-PA* - -126.68
cCOX-2-PA* - -107.187

*PA: Pellucidin A

Fig 8.

Fig 8

(A) eNOS-CLW and (B) eNOS-PA systems. Heme group on silver color and inhibitors on cyan color.

Fig 9.

Fig 9

Uncompetitive (green color) and competitive (red color) sites on COX-2 system. PA inhibitor is present on both sites (silver color for C atoms).

4. Discussion

As Peperomia pellucida is a Neotropical plant largely used in traditional folk medicine [1], we were motivated to investigate whether its compound present any important pharmacological effect and elucidate its action mechanism. The central findings of this study revealed that antinociceptive activities of Pellucidin A operate under mechanism(s) of peripheral action through the inhibition of nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2, in vivo and in silico, whithout central activity interference on motor function or exploratory coordination.

The findings revealed that Pellucidin A did not induce alteration in locomotor activity and exploratory performance. Therefore, the activity of Pellucidin A was evaluated in open field test that can be used as a model for screening central nervous system actions, providing information about psychomotor performance [10,11]. Pellucidin A isolated from Peperomia pellucida and administered intraperitoneally appeared not to have caused a central action because locomotor activity did not significantly decrease. Moreover, there was no interference in motor coordination or exploratory activity.Therefore, our results are consistent with previous findings that have previously demonstrated a mechanism of peripherical activity [1, 9, 25].

Because previous studies have shown that PP extracts present anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties [1, 9, 25], we investigated if Pellucidin A was involved in those properties. To do so, we performed the acetic acid-induced writhing response test, which is used to screen potential new agents, in particular, the analgesic and anti-inflammatory ones. This model induces the release of inflammatory-mediated substances that causes pain [26, 27].

Our data of acetic acid-induced writhing indicated that Pellucidin A reduced the number of writhings in a dose-dependent fashion, indicating that Pellucidin A presents potential anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive properties. In line with our results, De Fatima or Aziba, also observed a reduction in writhing utilizing Pepperomia peluccida extracts administrated with higher doses (70–500 mg/kg) [1, 9] however, these authors used different administration routes compared to our study. Interestingly, in our study, we found similar effects with purified Pellucidin A, one of differents compounds from Pepperomia peluccida extracts. This is the first study to investigate the pharmacological activity of purificated Pellucidin A.

To shed light into the potential central and peripheral effects of Pellucidin A, we conducted the formalin test. This nociception model allows differentiation between the central or peripheral analgesic effects. The first phase of this test reflects a central effect (neurological pain) and the second phase (inflammatory pain) implies a peripheral action involving, respectively, the direct stimulation of nociceptors and the involvement of inflammatory mediators, such as prostaglandin and NO [28]. As Pellucidin A significantly reduced the frequency of paw licking exclusively during the second phase of the test, it potentially exerts its antinociception properties through regulation of the inflammatory pathways. These results were further confirmed by the use of the hot-plate test, a central antinociceptive test. In this model, mediated primarily by supraspinal mechanisms, there is no involvement of inflammatory mediators [29]. Pellucidin A did not alter the latency time in hot-plate test; however, morphine did. These results suggest that the antinociceptive action of Pellucidin A occurs via peripheral pathways, instead of a central-acting mechanism.

Inflammatory pain is a complex process that can be triggered by several mechanisms. Particularly, prostaglandins are important mediators in inflammatory pain, partly by increasing the nociceptor sensitization [30]. Our results, evaluated in formalin and writing test, indicate anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects of Pellucidin A. According to De Fatima et al. [1], the aqueous extract of the aerial parts of PP exerts its anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects through the regulation of prostaglandins. Moreover, in carrageenan-induced paw edema, the extract exhibited anti-inflammatory properties from earlier time-points and throughout the phases of inflammation, suggesting that the PP compounds may act on different mediators of this process [1]. Our study indicate that Pellucidin A is the compound that promotes the above mentioned pharmacological effects. In addition, It is known that free radicals are involved in inflammation. Wei et al (2011) have shown that PP extract presents antioxidant properties, pointing that PP components may present anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and analgesic activities [31]. Our data suggest the Pellucidin A may present antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity but the antioxidant effect was not evaluated.

In our study, we revealed that Pellucidin A reduces the number of writhings in acetic acid and formalin induced pain models, possibly through interaction with Nitric oxide synthase. Consistent with this idea, the treatment with Pellucidin A showed a synergetic effect with L-NAME treatment, inhibiting contractions by 96%. Mice treated only with L-NAME presented 48% of contraction inhibition. This result follows our molecular docking model, which showed that Pellucidin A could bind to NOS, showing less energy demand to bind to iNOS.

Due to anti-iflammatory activity and mechanism experiment, we have used molecular docking methods in our work to better elucidate the Pellucidin A mechanism of action. These methods have been used successfully to propose the bind mode and interactions occurring between protein-inhibitor systems [20]. In this sense, we have carried similar analyses using Pellucidin A from chemical synthesis. To validate the molecular docking procedure as well as the theory applied by the MVD program, a re-docking calculation was computed using the crystal inhibitor found in each 3D crystal protein selected as a reference. Thus, comparing computational and crystal complexes revealed an excellent agreement between both models. In this way, the molecular docking procedure and parameters applied were used to compute the favored conformation of Pellucidin A in the binding site of selected proteins.

According to the re-docking results, for each inhibitor, the conformation obtained by molecular docking was in good agreement with its crystal conformation. Furthermore, Pellucidin A was also submitted to the same molecular docking steps. Our results show that it is complexed similar to the same binding pocket of the crystal inhibitors. Finally, our results suggest that the MVD program can reproduce suitable conformations for molecules like Pellucidin A compounds in complex with selected enzymes.

As for the COX-2 system, two potential binding pockets can be found for Pellucidin A as a potential inhibitor. The first is the same binding pocket of indomethacin crystal inhibitor (uncompetitive site, uCOX-2). The second is the binding pocket of the heme group (competitive site, cCOX-2). Both regions are large enough to accommodate Pellucidin A as a ligand. According to our results, Pellucidin A interacts better on the uncompetitive site.

The binding affinity values obtained through the MOLDOCK scoring function showed a good affinity of Pellucidin A as a potential inhibitor in all considered systems. By comparing Pellucidin A with crystal inhibitors on each system, it could act with more potency on NOS enzymes (eNOS and iNOS), on similar affinities. Particularly, for the COX-2 system, Pellucidin A shows strong interaction on uncompetitive binding sites, on the same tendency of IMN crystal inhibitor. This is very interesting since eNOS, iNOS, and COX-2 present the heme group as a cofactor. On the NOS systems, Pellucidin A interacts satisfactorily on the heme-binding pocket, however, on the COX-2, the uncompetitive binding pocket is favorite for this molecule.

LaBuda et al.[32] showed that iNOS is involved in the acetic acid test in mice since the systemic administration of an iNOS inhibitor reduced the number of writhings. However, in a rat model, iNOS and nNOS inhibition does not seem to affect the number of writhings [33]. Nevertheless, in our mice and in silico model, we showed that Pellucidin A has the potential to act through interaction with NOS, indicating that iNOS plays a potential role in Pellucidin A antinociception function. iNOS is a molecule that is usually expressed after a stimulus. It is known that macrophages produce iNOS when stimulated with cytokines and/or other agents, and it is now accepted that iNOS can be produced by any cell that has been given the adequate stimuli [34].

The exact mechanism of action of Pellucidin A remains to be elucidated. De Fatima et al. [1] They reported that the PP extract did not block the arachidonic-acid induced edema formation, implying that the 5-lipoxigenase pathway is not involved with this extract’s mechanism of action. Also, Nwokocha et al. [35] suggested a dose-dependent hypotensive effect of PP extract via nitric oxide-dependent mechanisms. If Pellucidin A is inducing these effects in those experiments, we might infer that Pellucidin A could be acting on prostaglandin synthesis and interacting with NOS. In fact, our study demonstrated a reduction of writhings in inflammatory pain models through potential interaction with iNOS.

We have demonstrated for the first time that Pellucidin A, a novel component from the widely tropically distributed plant PP, presents antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory properties, possibly inhibiting NOS on in vivo and in silico approaches. The interaction with COX-2 is less likely to occur when compared to the energy demanded the interaction between iNOS and Pellucidin A.

Therefore, Pellucidin A most likely promoted the antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms, possibly through NO pathway, which supports PP ethnopharmacological use. In fact, previous work showed that PP has antioxidant properties [31]. Further studies must be performed to better characterize the exact mechanism through which Pellucidin A exerts its antinociceptive functions inhibiting eNOS and COX-2. The results showed in this work provide evidence that Pellucidin A, a novel component from the PP plant, may be applied as a potential new drug through inhibition of COX-2 and NOS.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that Pellucidin A, a component from PP, exhibits dose-dependent antinociception when assessed in chemical but not thermal models of nociception in mice. Pellucidin A most likely promoted the antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms and interaction with COX and NO pathways, which supports its ethnopharmacological use.

Acknowledgments

Thanks the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development for their financial support and the South African Centre for High-Performance Computing (https://www.chpc.ac.za/) and University of Florida Research Computing (http://researchcomputing.ufl.edu) for providing computational resources.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The authors received funding for National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), CAPES and Fundação Amazônia Paraense de Amparo à Pesquisa (FAPESPa).

References

  • 1.Fatima De, Arrigoni-Blank M, Dmitrieva EG, Franzotti EM, Antoniolli AR, Andrade MR, et al. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity of Peperomia pellucida (L.) HBK (Piperaceae). J Ethnopharmacol. 2004;91(2–3):215–8. Epub 2004/05/04. 10.1016/j.jep.2003.12.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Majumder P. Evaluation of pharmacognostic, phytochemical profile along with quantitative physicochemicals standards on the root of the medicinal herb Peperomia pellucida (l.) HBK. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences. 2011;10(10). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Samain M, Vanderschaeve L, Chaerle P, Goetghebeur P, Neinhuis C, Wanke S. Is morphology telling the truth about the evolution of the species rich genus Peperomia (Piperaceae)? Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2009;278:1–21. 10.1007/s00606-008-0113-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alves NSF, Setzer WN, da Silva JKR. The chemistry and biological activities of Peperomia pellucida (Piperaceae): A critical review. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019;232:90–102. Epub 2018/12/19. 10.1016/j.jep.2018.12.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Coe F, Anderson G. Ethnobotany of the Miskitu of eastern Nicaragua. Journal of Ethnobiology. 1997;17(2):171–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Xu S, Li N, Ning MM, Zhou CH, Yang QR, Wang MW. Bioactive compounds from Peperomia pellucida. J Nat Prod. 2006;69(2):247–50. Epub 2006/02/28. 10.1021/np050457s . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bayma JD, Arruda MS, Muller AH, Arruda AC, Canto WC. A dimeric ArC2 compound from Peperomia pellucida. Phytochemistry. 2000;55(7):779–82. Epub 2001/02/24. 10.1016/s0031-9422(00)00224-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ayafor J. F.; Ngadjui B. T.; Lontsi D. Unusual norlignans and antiviral agents from Pachypodanthium staudtii. Fitoterapia, 58 (5), p. 340–341, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aziba PI, Adedeji A, Ekor M, Adeyemi O. Analgesic activity of Peperomia pellucida aerial parts in mice. Fitoterapia. 2001;72(1):57–8. Epub 2001/02/13. 10.1016/s0367-326x(00)00249-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Menegatti R., Silva G., Zapata-Sudo G., Raimundo J., Sudo R., Barreiro E., 2006. Design, synthesis, and pharmacological evaluation of new neuroactive pyr-azolo[3, 4-b] pyrrolo[3, 4-d]pyridine derivatives with in vivo hypnotic and analgesic profile. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 14, 632–640. 10.1016/j.bmc.2005.08.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Crawley JN. Exploratory behavior models of anxiety in mice. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 9(1), 37–44; 1985 10.1016/0149-7634(85)90030-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sawada LA, Monteiro VS, Rabelo GR, Dias GB, Da Cunha M, do Nascimento JL, et al. 2014. Libidibia ferrea mature seeds promote antinociceptive effect by peripheral and central pathway: possible involvement of opioid and cholinergic receptors. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:508725 Epub 2014/05/27. 10.1155/2014/508725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim SF. The role of nitric oxide in prostaglandin biology; update. Nitric Oxide. 2011, 30; 25(3): 255–264. 10.1016/j.niox.2011.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rosenfeld RJ; Garcin ED; Panda K; Andersson G; Åberg A; Wallace AV; et al. Conformational Changes in Nitric Oxide Synthases Induced by Chlorzoxazone and Nitroindazoles:  Crystallographic and Computational Analyses of Inhibitor Potency. 10.1021/bi026313j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ortlund EA; Bridgham JT; Redinbo MR; Thornton JW. Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational Epistasis. Science 2007. (14): 317, 1544–1548 10.1126/science.1142819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kurumbail R., Stevens A., Gierse J. et al. Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory agents. Nature 384, 644–648 (1996) 10.1038/384644a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49(11):3315–21. Epub 2006/05/26. 10.1021/jm051197e . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gehlhaar DK, Bouzida D, Rejto PA. Fully automated and rapid flexible docking of inhibitors covalently bound to serine proteases In: Porto VW, Saravanan N, Waagen D, Eiben AE, editors. Evolutionary Programming VII EP 1998 Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1447. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1998. p. 449–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zaheer ul H, Khan W. Molecular and structural determinants of adamantyl susceptibility to HLA-DRs allelic variants: an in silico approach to understand the mechanism of MLEs. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2011;25(1):81–101. Epub 2010/12/01. 10.1007/s10822-010-9404-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lima CR, Silva JR, de Tassia Carvalho Cardoso E, Silva EO, Lameira J, do Nascimento JL, et al. Combined kinetic studies and computational analysis on kojic acid analogous as tyrosinase inhibitors. Molecules. 2014;19(7):9591–605. Epub 2014/07/09. 10.3390/molecules19079591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rawandra RDS; Aisha; Chen SH; Chang CI; Shih WL; Huang TC; et al. Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme-Inhibitory Tripeptide from Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Soft-Shelled Turtle (Pelodiscus sinensis) Egg White: In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico Study. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2014, 62 (50), 12178–12185. 10.1021/jf504734g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ciancetta A; Cuzzolin A; Moro S. Alternative Quality Assessment Strategy to Compare Performances of GPCR-Ligand Docking Protocols: The Human Adenosine A2A Receptor as a Case Study. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2014, 54 (8), 2243–2254. 10.1021/ci5002857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fantini J; Di Scala C; Yahi N; Troadec JD; Sadelli K; Chahinian H; et al. Bexarotene Blocks Calcium-Permeable Ion Channels Formed by Neurotoxic Alzheimer’s β-Amyloid Peptides. ACS Chemical Neuroscience 2014, 5 (3), 216–224. 10.1021/cn400183w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brasil EM; Canavieira LM; Cardoso ETC; Silva EO; Lameira J; Nascimento JLM; et al. Inhibition of tyrosinase by 4H‐chromene analogs: Synthesis, kinetic studies, and computational analysis. Chemical Biology & Drug Design 2017, 90(5), 804–810. 10.1111/cbdd.13001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mutee AF, Salhimi SM, Yam MF, Lim CP, Abdullah GZ, Ameer OZ, et al. In vivo Anti-inflammatory and in vitro Antioxidant Activities of Peperomia pellucida. 2010;6 10.3923/ijp.2010.686.690 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sarmento-Neto JF, do Nascimento LG, Felipe CF, de Sousa DP. Analgesic Potential of Essential Oils. Molecules. 2015;21(1):E20 Epub 2015/12/26. 10.3390/molecules21010020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sanchez-Mateo CC, Bonkanka CX, Hernandez-Perez M, Rabanal RM. Evaluation of the analgesic and topical anti-inflammatory effects of Hypericum reflexum L. fil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006;107(1):1–6. Epub 2006/03/22. 10.1016/j.jep.2006.01.032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Adeoluwa OA, Aderibigbe AO, Olonode ET. Antinociceptive property of Olax subscorpioidea Oliv (Olacaceae) extract in mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014;156:353–7. Epub 2014/09/16. 10.1016/j.jep.2014.08.040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gunn A, Bobeck EN, Weber C, Morgan MM. The influence of non-nociceptive factors on hot-plate latency in rats. J Pain. 2011;12(2):222–7. Epub 2010/08/28. 10.1016/j.jpain.2010.06.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kidd BL, Urban LA. Mechanisms of inflammatory pain. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87(1):3–11. Epub 2001/07/20. 10.1093/bja/87.1.3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wei LS, Wee W, Siong JY, Syamsumir DF. Characterization of anticancer, antimicrobial, antioxidant properties and chemical compositions of Peperomia pellucida leaf extract. Acta Med Iran. 2011;49(10):670–4. Epub 2011/11/11. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.LaBuda CJ, Koblish M, Tuthill P, Dolle RE, Little PJ. Antinociceptive activity of the selective iNOS inhibitor AR-C102222 in rodent models of inflammatory, neuropathic and post-operative pain. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(6):505–12. Epub 2005/08/30. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.07.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Srebro D, Vuckovic S, Prostran M. Inhibition of neuronal and inducible nitric oxide synthase does not affect the analgesic effects of NMDA antagonists in visceral inflammatory pain. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2016;76(2):110–16. Epub 2016/07/05. 10.21307/ane-2017-010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Forstermann U, Sessa WC. Nitric oxide synthases: regulation and function. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(7):829–37, 37a-37d. Epub 2011/09/06. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nwokocha CR, Owu DU, Kinlocke K, Murray J, Delgoda R, Thaxter K, et al. Possible Mechanism of Action of the Hypotensive Effect of Peperomia pellucida and Interactions between Human Cytochrome P450 Enzymes. Medicinal & Aromatic Plants. 2012;1(4):1–5. 10.4172/2167-0412.1000105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

John M Streicher

2 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-04760

Pellucidin A promotes antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms inhibiting COX-2 and NOS:  In Vivo, and In Silico Study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Bastos,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 09 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,

John M. Streicher, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission. The comments of the reviewers did not suggest additional experiments, but rather changes to the editing and writing of the manuscript. As such, in your revision you should focus on the writing changes requested without concern for additional experiments, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript!

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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the Methods section of your manuscript, please ensure you have reported:

-the geographic coordinates where sample collection took place;

-what time of year the collection took place;

-whether you had all required permits from local authorities or landowners to perform collection;

-detailed descriptions of all preparation steps (including times and temperatures), especially for the leaf drying and grinding steps;

-how quality assurance was carried out on the extraction process;

-what other ingredients were present in the extract that was administered to the animals; and

-whether (and how) mice were euthanised at the end of the experiment.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: Summary: The authors present an investigation of one of the active ingredients in the plant, Peperomia pellucida, apparently widely used in the tropics for the treatment of a variety of ailments. Their goal is to identify the mechanism of action of the compound, Pellucidin A, in several models of pain. They demonstrate no increase in locomotor activity of Pellucidin A in the Open Field test, a dose-dependent decrease in number of writhes in the acetic acid model, no effect in the first phase of the formalin model but an effect at high doses in the second (inflammatory) phase. This study provided insights into the antinociceptive application of Pellucidin A.

Major comments:

- It is unclear why the authors believe that the hot plate test is a measure of supraspinal antinociception. Which pain model did they use in this test?

- The results shown in Figure 8 are confusing. If PA has a synergistic effect with L-NAME doesn’t that imply that it does not work through the same mechanism (i.e. does not act on iNOS?). If PA works through COX1 or COX2 inhibition, then the combination with L-NAME may enhance the effect by suppressing two different inflammatory pathways that promote writhing. It is possible that the effect of COX1 or COX2 inhibition is already at its maximum with indomethacin and NS-398 and therefore there is no additional effect of combining with PA. This needs to be re-considered and discussed because the conclusions made are not supported by the data presented.

Minor comments:

- What is an ARC2 compound? Can this be defined up front?

- While CFA causes a biphasic response, I have never seen it called a “biphasic stimulus”. Would suggest referring to this as CFA to avoid confusion.

- Given that readers outside of the tropics may not have ever seen this plant, would recommend that an image/photo is provided.

- Were there 6 mice per group per dose for Pellucidin? Or did each mouse receive all three doses?

- In the Open Field Methods the language suggests that mice received diazepam AND Pellucidin. Please clarify that diazepam was used as a control to decrease locomotor activity in the Methods (this is nicely explained in the Results already).

- Would suggest re-ordering the figures in order to keep all of the acetic acid writhing experiments together (Figure 8 should follow Figure 4)

- Please correct “sintase” in line 162, page 8 to “synthase”. Please add the drugs mentioned in 2.7 to 2.5 with the vendor names of each drug.

- The title of 3.2 should be changed to “Locomotor activity assessment”.

- We suggest combining Figures 5 and 6.

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper that attempts to determine the antinociceptive activity of Pellucidin A, a potential bioactivity compound from Prperomia genus. The authors extracted this compound from the crude extract and characterized using appropriate methodology. Then they performed several behavioral assays to determine the antinociceptive effect of Pellucidin A. They found that treatment with Pellucidin A reduced acidic acid- and formalin (phase II)-induced pain, but very little impact on thermal pain (hot-plate test). By co-treatment with the inhibitors for COX2 and NOS, they demonstrated that the NO pathway might be the potential mechanism for the antinociceptive activity of Pellucidin A. At the end, the authors performed the molecular docking analysis and found that this compound showed good affinity to bind the NOS and COX-2 binding sites.

This study did demonstrate some significance and novelty. However, this manuscript is poorly written and lacks several key details. The data presented in this study prevents solid conclusions from being drawn and the title they are using. Several key information is missing in the methods session.

Major compulsory revisions

1) It would be great to indicate the gender of mice used in this study.

2) How was the Pellucidin A solution prepared? If there was a stock solution made for all the experiments, what was the solvent?

3) Based on the information from 2.5, the indomethacin was dissolved in 5% NaHCO3 and Tween 80 plus 0.9% NaCl. In the Formalin Test (2.8), the drugs/compounds used in this experiment were in different solvents (Pellucidin A was in saline, unknown solvent for morphine, and indomethacin was in a mixed solution).

4) The dosages of Pellucidin A through the whole paper were not consistent (mg/kg in most of the places, % in some of the places).

5) Provide the time points when the behavior tests were conducted for Phase I and Phase II in the formalin assay. Why were mice treated with drugs/compounds before the induction of pain?

6) In the Hot-plate test, 30 seconds is the normal cut-off to avoid tissue damage. However, the data in Fig. 7 indicated that the authors used a much longer time (morphine group) for this assay. Please provide a rationale.

7) For the mechanistic experiments, provide a rationale for why mice were co-treated with the inhibitors for NOS or COX-2 with Pellucidin A (inhibitor + inhibitor). It is necessary to conduct another set of experiments using the activators for NOS or COX-2 with or without Pellucidin A.

8) Please clarify the statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA or two-way ANOVA? It is also very difficult to follow the statistical analysis results in the figures. It would be helpful to indicate the p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 differently in the figures. In Fig. 7, it is very confusing how the data were analyzed, and what does the “*” mean. In Fig. 8, the data should be compared between the groups with and without Pellucidin A.

9) Are “Pellucidin A” and “Pellucidina A” the same?

10) In general, the whole paper was poorly written. There are many sentences sound non-scientific, such as sentences start in Lines 50, 55, 170, 223, 247,271,280, …. The numbers were presented without units (Lines 270 and 295), which are meaningless. The manuscript has to be edited by a native speaker of English.

Minor essential revisions

There a lot of minor essential revisions through the paper. Spell out abbreviations when they are shown for the first time, such “NO” in Line 58, i.p., and s.c..

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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 Sep 17;15(9):e0238834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238834.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 May 2020

Reviewer #1: Summary: The authors present an investigation of one of the active ingredients in the plant, Peperomia pellucida, apparently widely used in the tropics for the treatment of a variety of ailments. Their goal is to identify the mechanism of action of the compound, Pellucidin A, in several models of pain. They demonstrate no increase in locomotor activity of Pellucidin A in the Open Field test, a dose-dependent decrease in number of writhes in the acetic acid model, no effect in the first phase of the formalin model but an effect at high doses in the second (inflammatory) phase. This study provided insights into the antinociceptive application of Pellucidin A.

Major comments:

- It is unclear why the authors believe that the hot plate test is a measure of supraspinal antinociception. Which pain model did they use in this test?

Response:

The hot plate test has been widely used as a measure of supraspinal antinoception in several studies (Lamberts, 2013, Pasternak, 2001). The main features that support to use of the hotplate test as a measure of antinocipection are:

First, in the hotplate test there is a clear increase in morphine antinociception which is associated with supraspinal activity. As showing by Lamberts et al, 2013, mutants mice para Gαo subunits, exhibited a naltrexone-sensitive enhancement of baseline latency in both the hot-plate and warm-water tail-withdrawal tests. In the hot-plate test, a measure of supraspinal nociception, morphine antinociception was increased, and this was associated with an increased ability of opioids to inhibit presynaptic GABA neurotransmission in the periaqueductal gray.

Second, systemic morphine acts at both spinal and supraspinal sites, including the periaqueductal gray (PAG), and so activates a variety of µ -opioid receptor (MORs). Such MORs may represent different receptor variants (Pasternak, 2001), and them morphine is usually the drug used as control as our data. Therefore, based on these factors, we used the hotplate test as a reliable a reproducible test for assessing supraspinal antinocicpetion.

- The results shown in Figure 8 are confusing. If PA has a synergistic effect with L-NAME doesn’t that imply that it does not work through the same mechanism (i.e. does not act on iNOS?). If PA works through COX1 or COX2 inhibition, then the combination with L-NAME may enhance the effect by suppressing two different inflammatory pathways that promote writhing. It is possible that the effect of COX1 or COX2 inhibition is already at its maximum with indomethacin and NS-398 and therefore there is no additional effect of combining with PA. This needs to be re-considered and discussed because the conclusions made are not supported by the data presented.

Response:

1) PA+L-NAME act on same mechanism (iNOS)

The reviewer suggests that a possible synergistic effect of PA and L-NAME would imply a similar mechanism. We agree, our paper is the first paper evaluating the isolated compound of Peperomia pellucida, Pellucidin A. in in silico methods. De Fatima, 2004; Alves NSF, 2019 Bayma JD, 2000 have study the Peperomia pellucida extract, showing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities.

2) PA works via COX1 or COX2, then adding indomethacin or NS 398 there could be enhancement of suppression of these pathways

The reviewer suggests that a possible synergistic effect of PA and COX-1 and COX-2 would imply a similar mechanism. The Figure 8 was our major question, because PA could be presenting a synergistic effect. This data, induced the in-silico experiment with COX-2, iNOS and eNOS. The in-silico, also demonstrate which COX-2, iNOS and eNOS are potential pharmacologicals targets of Pellucidin A. Thereby, we have three action pathways which Pellucidin A may be acting together or no. Our paper is the first paper evaluating the isolated compound of Peperomia pellucida, Pellucidin A. in in silico methods and also, correlating with in vivo methods.

Minor comments:

- What is an ARC2 compound? Can this be defined up front?

Response: According to Bayma (2000) and Ayafor (1987), ArC2 dimers are considered products of a Diels-Alder reaction between two 2,4,5-trimethoxystyrene units, which is also reported in the literature as occurring in this plant. Differently, Ayafor (1987), names ArC2 dimers as bisnorlignans, which contrasts with what was suggested in his work because bisnorlignan is formed by the loss of two C1 units from a lignan (ArC3 dimer). Therefore, in our study, this substance is considered as an ArC2 dimer and not bisnorlignans.

- While CFA causes a biphasic response, I have never seen it called a “biphasic stimulus”. Would suggest referring to this as CFA to avoid confusion.

Response: We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed to: In the biphasic response (p.3, line 50).

- Given that readers outside of the tropics may not have ever seen this plant, would recommend that an image/photo is provided.

Response: According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we included a phototgraph to illustrate this plant (p.5, line 104).

- Were there 6 mice per group per dose for Pellucidin? Or did each mouse receive all three doses?

Response: we confirm that there were 6 mice per group andTo improve clarity, we corrected the sentence to (Male Swiss mice, n=6/group) were treated with different doses of Pellucidin A (0.5; 1; or 5 mg/kg, i.p.) (p.8, line 157)

- In the Open Field Methods the language suggests that mice received diazepam AND Pellucidin. Please clarify that diazepam was used as a control to decrease locomotor activity in the Methods (this is nicely explained in the Results already).

Response: We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was inserted: Diazepam was used as a control to decrease locomotor activity (Crawley, 1985) (p.8, line 159 and p. 11, line 245).

- Would suggest re-ordering the figures in order to keep all of the acetic acid writhing experiments together (Figure 8 should follow Figure 4)

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions, but we chose to keep figure 8 (Now Figure 7) before the silico figures (Figures 8 and 9), because it provides a framework for understanding the mechanism.

- Please correct “sintase” in line 162, page 8 to “synthase”. Please add the drugs mentioned in 2.7 to 2.5 with the vendor names of each drug.

Response: We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed to: nitric oxide synthase (L-NAME 5 mg/kg) (p.8, line 168). The drugs mentioned in 2.7 to 2.5 with the vendor names of each drug were added (p.7, line 142).

- The title of 3.2 should be changed to “Locomotor activity assessment”.

Response: We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed to change to Locomotor activity assessment (p.11, line 240).

- We suggest combining Figures 5 and 6.

Reply: We agree. We combine the Figure according to the reviewer’s suggestion, now is Figure 5A and B

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper that attempts to determine the antinociceptive activity of Pellucidin A, a potential bioactivity compound from Prperomia genus. The authors extracted this compound from the crude extract and characterized using appropriate methodology. Then they performed several behavioral assays to determine the antinociceptive effect of Pellucidin A. They found that treatment with Pellucidin A reduced acidic acid- and formalin (phase II)-induced pain, but very little impact on thermal pain (hot-plate test). By co-treatment with the inhibitors for COX2 and NOS, they demonstrated that the NO pathway might be the potential mechanism for the antinociceptive activity of Pellucidin A. At the end, the authors performed the molecular docking analysis and found that this compound showed good affinity to bind the NOS and COX-2 binding sites. This study did demonstrate some significance and novelty. However, this manuscript is poorly written and lacks several key details. The data presented in this study prevents solid conclusions from being drawn and the title they are using. Several key information is missing in the methods session.

Major compulsory revisions

1) It would be great to indicate the gender of mice used in this study.

Response: We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed to adult male mice (p.7, line 132)

2) How was the Pellucidin A solution prepared? If there was a stock solution made for all the experiments, what was the solvent?

Response: As requested by the reviewer, we included details on the preparation of the Pellucidin A solution. We added the sentence “Finally, the Pellucidin A solution was prepared before each experiment Tween 80 plus 0.9% NaCl. The final concentration of Tween 80 did not exceed 5% and did not cause any effect per se.” (p.7, line 147)

3) Based on the information from 2.5, the indomethacin was dissolved in 5% NaHCO3 and Tween 80 plus 0.9% NaCl. In the Formalin Test (2.8), the drugs/compounds used in this experiment were in different solvents (Pellucidin A was in saline, unknown solvent for morphine, and indomethacin was in a mixed solution).

Response: We clarified the drug solutions (p.7, line 147)

4) The dosages of Pellucidin A through the whole paper were not consistent (mg/kg in most of the places, % in some of the places).

Response: We agree. We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

5) Provide the time points when the behavior tests were conducted for Phase I and Phase II in the formalin assay. Why were mice treated with drugs/compounds before the induction of pain?

Response: Usually, the administration of anti-inflammatory drugs is performed before the phlogistic agent (Formalin solution). This method enables one to distinguish the site of action of analgesics at time point: whether it is central, peripheral or both central and peripheral. Our results show close agreement with the classification of analgesics by the inflamed foot method as described by Sawada, 2014 or Shibata, 1989.

6) In the Hot-plate test, 30 seconds is the normal cut-off to avoid tissue damage. However, the data in Fig. 7 indicated that the authors used a much longer time (morphine group) for this assay. Please provide a rationale.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the cut-off time for the hot plate test can also be lower than the used in our study as within the range of 20-40s at 48 and 55C as shown in Woolfe and Macdonald, 1944. However, in our study we used a cut-off of 60s as shown in Lamberts et al. 2013.

The hot plate test, first described in 1944, can be used to determine heat thresholds in mice and rats (Woolfe and Macdonald, 1944). That methodology has two steps:

1- The mice are tested to first cut-off. In this test the animals are submitted a temperature between 48 and 55 ºC, mice usually respond within 20-40s (That is the first cut-off before the test). Thus, all animals that will be tested have the same pain threshold before drug test injection.

2- The mice are tested to drug test cut-off. The methodology used here was the same, used in lamberts 2013, normally the cut-off used is 60s. That time is standard, because Morphine cut-off is 60s, and that time is the point to take out animals from thermal stimuli. Since morphine is the standard drug it is important to compare the results of the new drug with the effects of morphine (See Fig 6)

7) For the mechanistic experiments, provide a rationale for why mice were co-treated with the inhibitors for NOS or COX-2 with Pellucidin A (inhibitor + inhibitor). It is necessary to conduct another set of experiments using the activators for NOS or COX-2 with or without Pellucidin A.

Response: We agree. That moment we could not have NOS or COX-2 agonist or a western blotting setup to quantify these proteins.

As demonstrated in the figure 7, the data did not show difference between COX- inhibitor and COX-2 inhibitor plus PA. Probably, for the COX-2 system, Pellucidin A shows strong interaction on uncompetitive binding sites, on the same tendency of IMN crystal inhibitor (Figure 9) or COX-inhibitor in vivo in the same binding sites (Figure 7). New experiments must be carried out in the future. We would need to do an enzymatic kinetic study. We are looking to new collaborations to do.

On the other hand, in figure 7, treatment with Pellucidin A showed a synergetic effect with L-NAME treatment, inhibiting the contractions by 96%, when compared to control. Mice treated only with L-NAME presented 48% of contraction inhibition. This result follows our molecular docking model, which showed that Pellucidin A could bind to NOS, showing less energy demand to bind to iNOS (Figure 8 and Table 2).

8) Please clarify the statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA or two-way ANOVA? It is also very difficult to follow the statistical analysis results in the figures. It would be helpful to indicate the p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 differently in the figures. In Fig. 7, it is very confusing how the data were analyzed, and what does the “*” mean. In Fig. 8, the data should be compared between the groups with and without Pellucidin A.

Response: We agree. We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

9) Are “Pellucidin A” and “Pellucidina A” the same?

Response: We corrected Pellucidina A to Pellucidin A.

10) In general, the whole paper was poorly written. There are many sentences sound non-scientific, such as sentences start in Lines 50, 55, 170, 223, 247,271,280,… The numbers were presented without units (Lines 270 and 295), which are meaningless. The manuscript has to be edited by a native speaker of English.

Response: We have made corrections to improve the readability of the manuscript. Moreover, as suggested by the reviewer, the manuscript has been edited by a native speaker of English.

Minor essential revisions

There a lot of minor essential revisions through the paper. Spell out abbreviations when they are shown for the first time, such “NO” in Line 58, i.p., and s.c..

Response: We corrected the abbreviations as indicated by the reviewer. (p.8, line 157)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

John M Streicher

12 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-04760R1

Pellucidin A promotes antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms inhibiting COX-2 and NOS:  In Vivo, and In Silico Study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bastos,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 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,

John M. Streicher, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your resubmission. If you can quickly address the minor revisions requested by Reviewer 1, I will accept the manuscript without further rounds of review.

[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: (No Response)

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: While the authors have addressed some of the comments, there remain a few important corrections that need to be made:

1. I still don't see any mention of which pain model was used in the mice in the hot plate test. Are these mice uninjured? formalin-treated? please specify.

2. Page 14, line 304. it still states "insert p value here"

3. The Discussion is extremely long and confusing. It would benefit from reorganization for clarity. For example, iNOS is mentioned in multiple different paragraphs that are not linked. Please go through and make sure there is a logical flow to the Discussion in order to highlight only the most salient points of the paper.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the original submission. There is no further comments.

**********

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 Sep 17;15(9):e0238834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238834.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Jul 2020

Response Letter

Reviewer #1: While the authors have addressed some of the comments, there remain a few important corrections that need to be made:

1. I still don't see any mention of which pain model was used in the mice in the hot plate test. Are these mice uninjured? formalin-treated? please specify.

Response:

The hot plate test has been widely used as a measure of supraspinal antinoception in several studies (Lamberts, 2013, Pasternak, 2001). The thermal or chemical agents just induce pain without injure mice . The time between the placement of the mouse on the platform and shaking, licking of the paws or jumping was recorded as the hot-plate latency, to clarify in Hot-plate test (2.9), Materials and Methods, line 200, you can read “Licking or jumping is a rapid response to painful thermal stimuli that is a direct indicator of nociceptive threshold”, page 09. Also, was explain in formalin test.

2. Page 14, line 304. it still states "insert p value here"

Response:

We corrected the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed and values were insert

3. The Discussion is extremely long and confusing. It would benefit from reorganization for clarity. For example, iNOS is mentioned in multiple different paragraphs that are not linked. Please go through and make sure there is a logical flow to the Discussion in order to highlight only the most salient points of the paper.

Response:

We corrected the discussion according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the original submission. There is no further comments.

Response:

Thanks

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter July.docx

Decision Letter 2

John M Streicher

26 Aug 2020

Pellucidin A promotes antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms inhibiting COX-2 and NOS:  In Vivo, and In Silico Study.

PONE-D-20-04760R2

Dear Dr. Bastos,

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,

John M. Streicher, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

John M Streicher

31 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-04760R2

Pellucidin A promotes antinociceptive activity by peripheral mechanisms inhibiting COX-2 and NOS: In Vivo and In Silico Study.

Dear Dr. Bastos:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. John M. Streicher

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter July.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES