Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Sep 25;15(9):e0238500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238500

Exploring the p53 connection of cervical cancer pathogenesis involving north-east Indian patients

Mohammad Aasif Khan 1, Diptika Tiwari 2, Anita Dongre 1, Sadaf 1, Saad Mustafa 1, Chandana Ray Das 3, Sheersh Massey 1, Purabi Deka Bose 4, Sujoy Bose 2, Syed Akhtar Husain 1,*
Editor: Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan5
PMCID: PMC7518589  PMID: 32976537

Abstract

Background

As per WHO, Cervical cancer (CaCx) is a global issue, being the fourth common cancer in women with incidence rate of 13.1 per 1 lakh women globally and accounting for 311000 deaths in the year 2018 itself globally. The molecular pathogenesis in Human papillomavirus (HPV) infected cases is inconclusive. The detection of molecular factors leading to progression of CaCx can be important in the diagnosis and management of the disease. p53 a known tumor suppressor gene having a regulative role in cell cycle has been highlighted as key factor in the prevention of cancer but its significance in CaCx cases has been variably documented. The present study therefore targeted to evaluate the significance of p53 profile in CaCx cases in ethnically distinct northeast Indian population.

Methods

Blood and Tissue samples (N = 85) of cervical cancer patients were collected and screening for HPV was performed using PCR. Thereafter the differential mRNA expression(qPCR), Immunohistochemistry, Mutation (PCR direct sequencing method) of p53 was studied. Further p53 epigenetic profiling was done by Methylation specific PCR (MS-PCR) and western blotting by using p53 acetylation specific antibodies.

Results

Our findings revealed that the downregulation of p53 was associated with the progression of disease and the variation in downregulation based on p53 polymorphism was observed. Further hypermethylation and deacetylation of p53 was also found to be associated with the pathogenesis of CaCx. The downregulated expression and hypermethylation of p53 in lower grade of CaCx, together established its association with the progression of CaCx from lower to severe grade.

Conclusion

Therefore, in CaCx patients of northeast Indian population, malfunctioning of p53 is found to have significant role in cervical cancer progression.

Introduction

In women, cervical cancer (CaCx) ranks as the fourth most common cancer, and among all the cancer it ranks as the seventh most common cancer occurring worldwide [1]. It is a leading cause of cancer related mortality in Indian women of both rural and urban areas [2]. The occurrence of the cervical cancer in woman is increasing annually [3]. The development of cervical cancer has been associated with the HPV infection which is one of the established factors associated with the occurrence of cervical cancer lesion [4]. The difference in the clinical presentation, the progression of the disease as well as response to treatment differs amongst individuals both with and without underlying HPV infection, thereby suggesting the role of specific host genetic factors in the pathogenesis of the disease. Identifying these key factors at molecular level may prove to be a vital link in the approaches required for controlling the disease and/or establishing the significance of molecular markers indicating the prognosis of the disease.

The TP53, a tumor suppressor gene which is also known as the guardian of the genome or the cellular gatekeeper of growth and division, located on chromosome 17pl3.1 is involved in the cell proliferation, regulation of cell cycle, DNA repair, promoting apoptosis, suppressing angiogenesis and migration of tumor cells thus preventing metastasis [57]. The inactivation and malfunctioning of p53 gene are found to be associated with the development and progression of many human cancers including cervical cancer [6]. HPV viral onco-proteins are known to regulate host tumour suppressor proteins such as p53 which result in the malfunctioning of tumor suppressor protein [8]. The data in the role of deregulated p53 in CaCx pathogenesis has been suggested, but differences exists in the data documented from different geographical niches; which underlines the importance of understanding the molecular diversity in the importance of p53 in specific population context [9].

The diversity in the p53 link of any disease pathogenesis including cancers of different aetiologies is dependent on the genetic and epigenetic regulation of p53 gene, which includes transcriptional regulation of p53 gene expression, genetic alterations as well as epigenetic regulations such as its methylation and acetylation profile [6, 10]. In human cancer TP53 is regarded as one of the most common mutated genes which generally involve the single base substitution mutation in the DNA binding domain that changes the function of the protein [11].

Epigenetic changes have been demonstrated to play an important role in cancer pathogenesis. The common epigenetic changes in human being are found to be DNA methylation and posttranslational histone protein modifications such as methylation, acetylation etc. [12]. Inactivation of p53 has been reported to be due to hyper-methylation of the promoter region [13] and it has been associated with human neoplasia [14]. Acetylation occurring in the lysine residue of histone peptides has been found to impart changes in the expression pattern of the genes [15]. Acetylation is known to have critical effects on p53, as it increases p53 protein stability, binding to low affinity promoters, association with other proteins, antiviral activities, and is required for its checkpoint responses to DNA damage and activated oncogenes [10, 16, 17].

Although the importance of genetic alterations in p53 gene has been reported to be associated with cancer of other aetiologies like stomach cancer [18], lung cancer [19] and nasopharyngeal carcinoma [20] in northeast Indian population, but no reports exists for its association with CaCx pathogenesis in the ethnically distinct northeast Indian population majorly comprising population of tribal dominance eg Bodos, Kacharis, Karbis, Dimasas, Tiwa and Lalungs etc. Presented herein is a study involving northeast Indian population for the significance of p53 signatures in the pathogenesis of CaCx.

Materials and methods

Enrolment of patient and sample collection

For the present study the clinically diagnosed cervical cancer patients were enrolled. Both blood (3ml) and tissues were collected from patients (n = 85) with written informed consent by the Gynaecologist of Obstetrics and Gynaecology department, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. The tissue biopsies were obtained from patients for both cancerous and adjacent non-neoplastic region. Cases documented with any pathogenic infection apart from HPV, and any subjects not providing written informed consent were excluded from the present study. This study was approved by the ethical committee of Jamia Millia Islamia, Cotton University, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital Gauhati University. (Reference No. GUIEC-3990/2014, GMCH: MC/06/2014/53)

Processing of samples

The collected tissue samples were snap freezed in liquid nitrogen (for DNA and protein-based work), in RNA later vials stored at -80°C (for RNA based study) and a portion of tissue sample was fixed in 10% formalin and embedded in paraffin for histopathological examination and immunohistochemistry-based analysis at protein level.

DNA extraction

Total DNA was isolated from both affected and the adjacent non-affected region of cervix, by treating the samples with tissue lysis buffer and proteinase K digestion, followed by standard phenol-chloroform based extraction. This cellular DNA was further precipitated with the help of an alcohol and finally suspended in adequate amount of TE buffer.

HPV screening and genotyping by PCR

The established MY09/11 primers (F:5’CGTCCMARRGGAWACTGATC3’ R:5’GCMCAGGGWCATAAYAATGG3’) were used to confirm the presence of HPV DNA. Further HPV 16 and HPV 18 screening for the collected sample was done by PCR analysis using the specific primers for HPV16 and HPV18. The primers sequences used for HPV 16 were: F:5′TCAAAAGCCACTGTGTCCTGA3′ and R: 5′GGTGTTCTTGATGATCTGCAA3′; whereas the primer sequences used for the HPV 18 screening were: F: 5′CCGAGCACGAC AGGAACGACT3′ and R:5′TCGTTTTCTTCCTCTGAGTCGCTT3′.

Further the blood samples were used to screen the presence of any other pathogenic infection such as HIV, Hepatitis’s virus apart from HPV in the collected samples. The screening for HIV, HBV, HCV, HAV and HEV was performed using ELISA kit (Erba Lisa HIV Gen4, ErbaLisa SEN HBsAg, ErbaLisa HCV Gen 3 (v2), MP DIAGNOSTICS (MPD) HAV IgM ELISA 4.0 and MP Diagnostics HEV ELISA 4.0; US)

TP53 expression analysis

The differential expression of p53 was studied both at mRNA and protein level by Real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry respectively. For differential mRNA expression analysis, total RNA was isolated by trizol (Qiagen, US) method using manufacturer protocol, converted to cDNA using commercially available cDNA synthesis kit (Applied Biosystems, US) thereby following the manufacture protocol. The cDNA template was used for the differential expression analysis by Real-time PCR (Applied Biosystem 7500 Fast) using SYBR-Green chemistry and primers specific for p53 (F: 5′ TACTCCCCTGCCCTCAACAA 3′ and R: 5′ CATCGCTATCTGAGCAGCGC 3′]. The β-actin (F: 5′AGATAGTGGATCAGCAAGCAG3′ and R: 5′ GCGAAGTTAGGTTTTGTCA3′) expression was used as internal normalization control for fold change analysis using the 2-ΔΔCt method. The real time PCR master mix was prepared for 20 μl of reaction and PCR cycling condition were set as: initial denaturation at 95ᵒC for 5 minutes followed by 40 cycles of 94ᵒC for 30 secs, 58ᵒC for 30 secs and 72ᵒC for 30 secs. The data was acquired at 72ᵒC for 45 secs.

The p53 differential protein expression was studied by immunohistochemistry analysis using antibody specific for p53 (ab26, Abcam, UK) after deparaffinization, antigen retrieval by boiling in citrate buffer for rounds of 2mins at full power in a microwave oven followed by alcohol dehydration in different grades of alcohol percentage, xylene wash and overnight incubation with antibody specific for p53 at 1:1000 dilution. The detection was done using the super sensitive one-step polymer-HRP detection system (Biogenex, US). The slides were finally examined and graded for P53 expression by a senior pathologist. The expression was graded as strong (+++), moderate (++), low (+) or no expression (-) in all the studied cases and controls.

TP53 mutation analysis

In human cancer p53 is regarded as one of the most commonly altered genes. Although more than 200 single nucleotide polymorphisms have been identified (http://www-p53.iarc.fr/), SNPs within exons 4–9 are of critical relevance because of their positioning in the DNA binding domain, the presence of which can change the function of the protein [11]. Thus, genetic alterations of the p53 gene (exon 4–9) was screened in all the subjects by PCR-direct sequencing method using specific primers (Table 1) for its association with CaCx pathogenesis in ethnically distinct Northeast Indian population. The PCR amplification was done for 30 μl of reaction using readymade PCR master mix 2X (GeneiTM, India) following the manufacturer protocol. PCR cycling condition were set as: initial denaturation at 95ᵒC for 5 minutes followed by 40 cycles of 94ᵒC for 30 secs, Annealing (temperature provided in table for each exon) for 30 secs, extension at 72ᵒC for 30 secs followed by a final extension at 72ᵒC for 7 minutes. The amplified product after confirmation via agarose gel electrophoresis was sent for direct sequencing. The difference in distribution of specific SNP was evaluated statistically using SPSSv13.0 software.

Table 1. List of primer sequence of p53 gene from exon 4–9 and their annealing temperature.

S.No Exon Forward primer 5′-3′ Reverse primer 5′-3′ TmᵒC
1. 4 AATGGATGATTTGATGCTGTCCC GCCAAGTCTGTGACTTGCACG 59
2. 5 GCCAACTCTCTCTAGCTCGC GATAGCGATGGTGAGCAGCT 58
3. 6 CCTCATCTTGGGCCTGTGTT CACCTCTCATCACATCCCCG 61
4. 7 TGGGAGTAGATGGAGCCTGG AGGGAGCACTAAGCGAGGTA 58
5. 8 CCTCTTTCCTAGCACTGCCC GGGCAGTGATGCCTCAAAGA 61
6. 9 CAATGGCTCCTGGTTGTAGC CACCTAATCTAAGGAACATCATA 57

TP53 epigenetic profiling

As the majority of the cases were of underlying HPV etiology, for the epigenetic study we aimed to focus on the paired HPV positive cases (i.e. cases with both cancerous and non-cancerous region) specifically for data specificity.

[A] P53 methylation assay

Difference in p53 Promoter methylation profiling was studied by methylation specific PCR method (MSP method). Briefly, the DNA extracted from the HPV positive paired samples were subjected to bisulphite conversion using EZ DNA Methylation- Gold Kit (Zymo Research, US) following the protocol as instructed in the kit. The bisulphite converted DNA was subjected to MSP amplification using specific sets of TP53 methylated primers (MF:5'-TTGGTAGGTGGATTATTTGTTT-3'; MR 5'-CCAATCCAAAAAAACATATCAC-3') and TP53 unmethylated primers (UF: 5'-TTCGGTAGGCGGATTATTTG-3', UR: 5'-AAATATCCCCGAAACCCAAC-3') separately and evaluated finally in amplification pairs by agarose gel electrophoresis. The methylated primers amplified a product size of 250bp where as the unmethylated primers amplified a product size of 120bp.

[B] P53 acetylation study

The acetylation profile of p53, which is associated with p53 transcript stability and in turn influencing p53 protein expression, was studied for specific acetylation sites K305 (ab109396), K373 (ab62376) and K382 (ab75754) with p53-acetylation specific antibodies (Abcam, UK) by western blot analysis (Ac-305) and by immunohistochemistry (Ac-373 and Ac-382) following standard protocols.

For western blot analysis the protein was isolated from the both cancerous and noncancerous region of the cervix using Magnesium lysis buffer (MLB) and was quantified by BSA (Bovine serum albumin) method. After quantification 50μg of protein was used to perform SDS-PAGE (Sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis). After SDS-PAGE the immunoblotting was perform using nitrocellulose membrane (HYBOND) and the transfer efficiency of protein was checked by visualising Ponceau H stain. Further the membrane was blocked using a blocking reagent followed by washing and overnight incubation with the specific antibody (1:1000 for Antip53, Ac-305). After overnight incubation the membrane was washed thoroughly and developed using Chemiluminescence ECL prime Amersham, UK) developing kit from GE Healthcare following manufacturer’s protocol. The Chemiluminescence based results were captured by exposing the X-ray film to blot for specific time interval. The film were analysed for target protein differential expression in normal light. Total β-actin expression was used as internal control for western blot protein expression analysis.

The immunohistochemistry based assay of p53 acetylation profile Ac-373 and Ac-382) was studied after deparaffinization, antigen retrieval by boiling in citrate buffer for rounds of 2 mins at full power in a microwave oven followed by alcohol dehydration in different grades of alcohol percentage, xylene wash. The slides were incubated overnight with p53 specific acetylation antibodies (1:100 for K373 and 1: 250 for K382). The detection was done using the super sensitive one-step polymer-HRP detection system (Biogenex, US). The slides were finally examined and graded for P53 expression by a senior pathologist.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed by the standard methods using SPSS software v13, (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results were expressed as means± standard deviations (SD). The significance was described as Pearson p-value and tailed p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographical and clinical profile of the enrolled patients

In the present study, cervical tissues and blood samples were collected from women (N = 85) suffering from cervical cancer. The samples were collected from women between the age group of 18–60 years. In our study we found that the majority of collected cases belonged to the age group of 31–40 years followed by 41–50 and 51–60 age groups being same, indicating the higher prevalence of cervical cancer in the early and reproductive age group of females. In cervical cancer patient the mean gravida in all the age group was found to be 4.59. Based on the screening report, out of 85 collected samples, 84.7% (N = 72) of cervical cancer cases were found to be HPV positive (Table 2). All the HPV cases were HPV16 positive, and none of the cases were positive for HPV18. The ELISA based assay for the presence of HIV, HAV, HBV, HCV, and HEV infection showed negative results for all the enrolled cases.

Table 2. Demographical and clinico-pathological profile of cervical cancer subjects in the study.

Characteristics Number of cases [%age]
HPV positive (N = 72) [84.70] HPV negative (N = 13) [15.29]
Age group
    18–30 years 08 [11.11] 01 [7.69]
    31–40 years 26 [36.11] 08 [61.53]
    41–50 years 19 [26.38] 02 [15.38]
    51–60 years 19 [26.38] 02 [15.38]
Menopausal status
    Pre-Menopausal 44 [61.11] 10 [76.92]
    Post-Menopausal 28 [38.88] 03 [23.07]
Histological type
    Well differentiated SCC 43 [59.72] 07 [53.84]
    Moderately differentiated SCC 21 [29.16] 04 [30.76]
    Poorly differentiated SCC 08 [11.11] 02 15.38]
Stage
    IIA 32 [44.44] 05 [38.46]
    IIB 16 [22.22] 04 [30.76]
    IIIA 09 [12.5] 02 [15.38]
    IIIB 11 [15.27] 02 [15.38]
    IV 04 [5.55] 00 [0.00]
Gravida 4.59 (Mean)
HPV genotype NA
HPV16 72 [100.00]
HPV18 00 [0.00]

P53 expression profile analysis

The p53 differential mRNA expression in cancerous area compared to paired non-neoplastic adjacent area was evaluated by Real-time PCR using specific primers and SYBR-Green chemistry and β-actin as internal normalization control. The p53 mRNA expression in affected area was down regulated in both HPV positive cases (fold change = 0.624 ± 0.312 folds) as well as non-HPV infected cases (fold change = 0.463 ± 0.218 folds), underlying the importance of downregulation of p53 in the development of CaCx (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Box plot analysis showing the downregulation of p53 mRNA expression in HPV positive and HPV negative cervical cancer cases.

Fig 1

Since majority of the cases had an underlying HPV infection (84%), therefore the differences in p53 mRNA expression in different stages of CaCx was further compared. The downregulation of p53 mRNA expression was not uniform in CaCx cases of different severity grades. The p53 mRNA expression was downregulated in lower severity stage (stage IIA and IIB) compared to higher stages of CaCx (≥stage III) (Fig 2A). The expression of p53 was significantly downregulated in stage II compared to stage III (p = 0.026) and stage IV (p = 0.049) also p53 expression was downregulated in stage III compared to stage IV (Fig 2B). The p53 mRNA expression was also downregulated in well differentiated CaCx cases compared to both moderately differentiated (p = 0.107) and poorly differentiated cases (p = 0.062).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

[A] Box plot analysis showing differential p53 mRNA expression in HPV positive cases showing downregulation in lower severity stage (stage IIA and Stage IIB) compared to higher stages of Cervical cancer (≥stage III) as per the TNM and FIGO staging of cervical carcinoma. [B] Box plot showing differential p53 mRNA expression analysis in stage II III and IV of HPV positive cervical cancer cases.

The differential p53 protein expression was analysed by immunohistochemistry in HPV positive cases. Histological slides of both cancerous and non-neoplastic control region were analysed, and the data was found to be consistent with the p53 mRNA expression data for HPV cases. The protein level expression of p53 was down-regulated in the cancerous region compared to non-neoplastic adjacent control region in majority of the cases studied (43/72, 59.72%). Similar to mRNA expression the expression of p53 protein was down-regulated in lower severity grade (≤ stage III) compare to higher severity grade (≥stage III) indicating its role in the initial stage of development of cervical cancer (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Representative panel of IHC results showing downregulation of p53 expression in HPV related cervical cancer cases especially in lower grade of CaCx cases (stage II) compared to higher grade (stage III).

Fig 3

Mutational analysis of p53 gene in exons (4–9) and their association with cervical cancer pathogenesis

To evaluate the role of altered p53 gene in the susceptibility to CaCx, the mutation study for six different exons (exon4→9) for p53 gene was done. For the mutation study the PCR amplification for six different exons was performed using the specific primers and then the amplified PCR product was sent for sequencing to assess the presence of mutation in all the six exons (Fig 4A). The analysis result from the sequencing showed changes in only exon4 of the p53 gene in all the enrolled cases (rs1042522: Pro72Arg) (Fig 4B, S1 Table). All the three genotypes i.e. Pro/Pro [HPV+ve = 14/72 (19.44%), HPV-ve = 7/13 (53.84%)], Arg/Pro [HPV+ve = 39/72 (54.16%), HPV-ve = 4/13 (30.77%)], and Arg/Arg genotypes [HPV+ve = 19/72 (26.38%), HPV-ve = 2/13 (15.38%)] were observed in the studied cohort.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

[A] Representative agarose gel electrophoresis photograph showing the PCR amplification of exon 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of p53 gene for mutation analysis in cervical cancer cases. [B] Representative electrophoregrams showing the presence of Arg/Arg, Arg/Pro heterozygous and Pro/Pro genotype based on p53 exon 4 sequencing analysis in the studied Cervical cancer patient population cohort, [C] Box-plot analysis showing the difference in pattern of p53 mRNA expression fold change profile in Arg/Pro heterozygous or Arg/Arg homozygous genotype compared to the Pro/Pro genotype in HPV+ve and HPV-ve cases, thereby signifying the importance of rs1042522 polymorphism in the northeast Indian population.

The changes in mRNA fold change profile based on genotype differences were hence evaluated. The analysed data indicated that there is a difference in the mRNA expression profile pattern in the Pro/Pro vis-à-vis Arg/Pro heterozygous or Arg/Arg homozygous genotype in HPV positive and HPV negative cases. While an upregulation of p53 mRNA fold changes was observed in Arg/Pro heterozygous or Arg/Arg homozygous genotype compared to the Pro/Pro genotype CaCx cases in HPV–ve cases (p = 0.362), it was an opposite scenario in HPV +ve cases where a down-regulated p53 expression was observed in the Arg/Pro heterozygous or Arg/Arg homozygous genotype cases compared to the HPV+ve CaCx cases with Pro/Pro genotype (p = 0.297) (Fig 4C).

Epigenetic profile of p53 gene and its association with cervical cancer pathogenesis

[A] P53 promoter methylation

Difference in p53 Promoter methylation profiling was studied by methylation specific PCR method (MSP method) (Fig 5). The data achieved was heterogeneous with hyper-methylation (N = 20/72, 27.77%), hypo-methylation (N = 19/72, 26.38%) and no alteration (N = 33/72, 45.83%) in methylation levels being observed in the CaCx affected area compared to non-neoplastic adjacent area of the paired HPV infected cases evaluated in the study (Table 3), suggesting that alteration in the promoter methylation profile of p53 may have an influential role to play in the pathogenesis in a sub-cohort of CaCx cases by regulating the p53 mRNA expression (Fig 4). When we considered the cases where changes in p53 promoter methylation was observed, the differences in methylation profile indicated that p53 promoter hyper-methylation was significantly associated lower severity grade (stage IIA and IIB) compared to higher severity grade (≥stage III) of CaCx cases (p = 0.036); which correlates with the expression pattern of P53 at mRNA and protein level, and underlines the significance of methylation in p53 biology in CaCx.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Representative agarose gel electrophoresis photograph showing p53 methylation profile analysis by MSP methods in Cacx (cervical cancer) and Con (non neoplastic control) cases; M represents methylated and UN represents unmethylated based assay.

Table 3. Methylation status in affected area compared to non-neoplastic control area in HPV positive cases.
Staging of Cervical Cancer cases N Hyper-methylation Hypo-methylation No change
Grade II 31 12[38.7] 5 [16.1] 14[45.1]
Grade III 27 7[25.92] 9[33.33] 11[40.74]
Grade IV 14 1[7.14] 5[35.71] 8[57.14]

[B] TP53 acetylation and cervical cancer

Acetylation also plays a key role in p53 protein stabilization and transcriptional regulations. The expression of Ac-305 and Ac-382 p53 protein was consistently downregulated in majority of the HPV infected CaCx cases. Comparatively, in the same cases the p53 K-373 expression showed stable expression (Fig 6). Acetylation of K305 and K382 holds key for the p53 stabilization and transcription activity, and hence the present data underlines the significance of loss of acetylation at key K305 and K382 sites in p53 and suggests that it may play a role in CaCx pathogenesis in northeast Indian population.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

(A) Representative western blot showing the absence of p53 acetylation in HPV positive cervical cancer cases compare to non-neoplastic control at site K305. (B) Representative panel of IHC showing the presence of p53 acetylation in HPV positive cervical cancer at site K373. The positive results were observed in very few cases. (C) Representative panel of IHC showing the absence of p53 acetylation in HPV positive cervical cancer at site K382.

Discussion

In Indian females belonging to both urban as well as rural area, cervical cancer has emerged to be one of the major causes of cancer associated deaths. The poor prognosis, diagnosis and failure to implement primary prevention strategies such as cervical screening and HPV vaccination programs are the major factors involved in mortality due cervical cancer in women in southeast Asia particularly in India [21, 22]. As per the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research [23] based report, the cancer cervix distribution rate [relative proportion %age (AAR)] in Northeast India ranks amongst the highest prevalent areas or districts in India; making it a major health issue amongst females. Although infection with high risk HPV strains has been underlined as the driving force in cervical cancer pathogenesis [24] along with the data from the present studied cohort, but, the heterogeneity in the presentation and progression of the disease strongly indicates the significance of host factors in the susceptibility and severity of the disease. Given the differences in cervical cancer distribution in different geographical subsets of populations with distinct and different ethnicity [25], the understanding of these key molecular and cellular factors becomes relevant and holds clinical significance.

The inactivation or malfunctioning of p53 a tumor suppressor gene has been found to play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of various cancer which also includes cervical cancer [6, 26]. In our study it was observed that both at mRNA and protein level the expression of P53 was downregulated in cervical cancer cases compared to non-neoplastic control thus indicating its significant role in the malignant transformation and occurrence of cervical cancer. Our findings correlate with several studies which demonstrate that in cervical cancer carcinogenesis the downregulation of p53 levels is thought to be a key factor [26]. The data for p53 downregulation in HPV infected cervical cancer cases with different severity grade also showed a variation with significant downregulation in lower severity grades compare to higher severity grades indicating the association of deregulated P53 expression in the early stage of cervical cancer cases leading to the pathogenesis of the diseases which relates with the study of Liu et al. [27], who suggested that p53 is associated in the development and metastasis of cervical cancer by promoting tumor cell infiltration. Thus, data from our study suggests that p53 downregulation may probably a crucial early event in the pathogenesis of CaCx pathogenesis in HPV infected cases. In the present study the majority of cases were HPV infected so it is suggestive that the viral oncogene i.e E6 might have significant contribution in the malfunction and degradation of p53 protein thus resulting in cervical cancer [28].

Mutations in p53 gene are common in carcinomas and it may result in dysregulation of gene expression of p53 or the disrupted functioning of protein [11, 29]. Apart from p53 expression, the p53 mutation is also associated with the cervical neoplasia. There is a significant correlation between p53 mutation and the change in the expression profile of p53 in both HPV positive and HPV negative cervical cancer cases. Missense mutation is the most common type of mutation which occur in tumor associated with alteration in p53 which lead to single amino acid substitution, also in some cases the frameshift or nonsense mutation can cause the loss of expression of p53 protein [30]. In the present study to evaluate the role of p53 mutation in cervical cancer pathogenesis we studied the mutation in p53 for six different exons (Exon 4 to 9) in the enrolled cases and our data showed the change in exon4 of the p53 gene (rs1042522: Pro72Arg, C/G). The p53 Arg genotype (homo or heterozygous state) is known to be targeted by HPV onco-protein E6 and results in deregulated apoptosis [31, 32]. The result obtained for p53 polymorphism for HPV positive cases showed no significant correlation with the risk of developing cervical cancer. Our findings was in consistent with previous report of Yin et al. [33], Tachezy et al. [34], Minaguchi et al. [35] who stated that there was no association between Pro/Pro, Pro/Arg and Arg/Arg residue in the susceptibility of HPV16-postive cervical cancer whereas it was contrary to the report of Helland et al. [36], Josefsson et al. [37], Lanham et al. [38] who reported that an increased risk of cervical cancer was associated with the Arg 72 TP53 allele.

Further we performed an analysis to find if there was any association between the changes in the expression of p53 with the change in genotype. The data so obtained was interesting which showed that in HPV negative cervical cancer the expression of p53 was upregulated for Arg/arg and Arg/Pro genotype compare to Pro/Pro whereas for in HPV positive cervical cancer the results were completely contrasting showing downregulation in p53 expression for Arg/Arg and Arg/Pro compare to Pro/Pro genotype. The data is therefore suggestive of the prognostic significance of the rs1042522 polymorphism in the studied population, and especially the Arg allele in HPV+ve cases. From the findings we can suggest that the expression pattern base on genotype is associated with HPV status thus indicating that person with HPV 16 infection and homozygous proline residues compare to Arg residues are more susceptible to p53 degradation, though the report is contradictory to the findings of Storey et al. [32] who have reported that persons homozygous for arginine at residue 72 of p53 (p53Arg) are about seven times more prone to invasive cervical cancer than those who carry at least one proline at that position (p53Pro). Our findings are related to another study by Josefsson et al. [37] who reported that p53Arg is not associated with an increased risk of preinvasive or invasive cervical neoplasia; indeed, there is a tendency for p53Arg to be associated with a decreased risk of neoplasia. The observation also highlights the fact that viral oncogene also play a critical role in the progression of cervical carcinoma by resulting in malfunctioning of p53 the tumor suppressor protein.

It has been increasingly realized that epigenetic signatures hold key to upholding the genomic integrity of an individual, which may have detrimental consequences. High risk HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins have been reported to increase the activity of De novo DNA methyltransferases [3941]. The risk of developing cancer due to hypermethylation of promoter of p53 has been reported in various cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer and ovarian cancer [13, 42, 43]. The results from the northeast Indian patient cohort showed that the p53 promoter methylation profile were heterogeneous, and also suggested that the hyper-methylation status was associated with the lower severity grade (stage ІІ) in comparison to severe stages (stage ІV). This is contrary to earlier published reports from North Indian population [44] where it was reported that promoter hypermethylation was mainly observed in the serum samples in the higher stages and very rarely in the lower stages. Acetylation is responsible to deliver stability to p53 and enhance its function while the hypo-acetylation of gene is known to represses expression [10, 15]. Eight major acetylation sites in p53 acetylation sites has been documented [17] but few of them like K305, 373 and 382 are of major relevance because of its association with the transcriptional activity of p53 and its interaction with key signalling regulators like p300 and HDAC SirT1 [45]. The acetylated p53 at K373/K382 are reported to enhance the half-life of p53 and decrease its ubiquitination. The acetylation of p53 is also crucial for its binding to downstream target [45, 46]. In the current study we corroborate the previously reported data of the expression of p53, the loss of acetylation at K305 and K382 can be associated with the down regulation of p53 in northeast Indian population. The data is of clinical relevance as the efficiency of several chemo‐ and radiotherapies has been suggested to be principally p53 tumor suppressor gene dependent in many cases [47] which in turn has been proven to be regulated by high‐risk HPV E6 protein expression [48, 49] or dependent of histone deacetylases (HDAC) like SirT1 expression dependent [50]. Indeed the significance of inhibition of HDACs as promising target in cancer therapeutics has been increasingly realized [51]. The results on the p53 acetylation changes and resulting expression in CaCx cases is also important because p53 acetylation in response to virus infection has been documented as an indispensable event for the transcriptional activation of p53-dependent genes in reaction to viral infection and the successive control of virus replication [52] which is mainly mediated by activation of the interferon pathway [53].

Conclusion

Although the number of samples was limited in our study, the present study for the first time highlights the role of deregulated p53 in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer in the ethnically distinct population of Northeast India. Our study indicates that changes in p53 profile such as p53 mutation, down regulation in expression along with the changes in p53 epigenetic profile is associated with the pathogenesis of cervical cancer, though substantial amount of data with large cohort study is necessary to prove the findings. We also observed the significant deregulation in p53 in early stage of cancer thus indicating that, significant role of p53 as tumor suppressor gene in the cervical cancer may establish it as possible biomarker in the future and can play vital role in diagnosis and therapeutic targeting.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Details of p53 exon4 polymorphism based difference in genotype analysis.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOCX)

S2 File

(DOCX)

S3 File

(PDF)

S4 File

(PDF)

S5 File

(PDF)

S6 File

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt. of India, for financially supporting the study. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Mukherjee, New Delhi, for the immunohistochemistry analysis.

Abbreviations

CaCx

Cervical Cancer

WHO

World health Organisation

HPV

Human Papilloma Virus

MS-PCR

Methylation specific PCR

HDAC

Histone deacetylase

qPCR

Quantitative PCR

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

yes This work was supported by the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology (BT/501/NE/TBP/2013).

References

  • 1.https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cervical-cancer/en/
  • 2.Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, Silvia de Sanjosé, Mona Saraiya, Jacques Ferlay, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. The Lancet Global health. 2019; 8 (2), e191–e203 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kaarthigeyan K. (2012). Cervical cancer in India and HPV vaccination. Indian journal of medical and paediatric oncology: official journal of Indian Society of Medical & Paediatric Oncology, 33(1), 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zur Hausen H. (2002). Papillomaviruses and cancer: from basic studies to clinical application. Nature reviews cancer, 2(5), 342 10.1038/nrc798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Finlay C. A., Hinds P. W., & Levine A. J. (1989). The p53 proto-oncogene can act as a suppressor of transformation. Cell, 57(7), 1083–1093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Riley T., Sontag E., Chen P., & Levine A. (2008). Transcriptional control of human p53-regulated genes. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology, 9(5), 402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jiang D., & Attardi L. D. (2013). Engaging the p53 metabolic brake drives senescence. Cell research, 23(6), 739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ferenczy A., & Franco E. (2002). Persistent human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia. The lancet oncology, 3(1), 11–16. 10.1016/s1470-2045(01)00617-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Silva D. C., Gonçalves A. K., Cobucci R. N., Mendonça R. C., Lima P. H., & Cavalcanti G. (2017). Immunohistochemical expression of p16, Ki-67 and p53 in cervical lesions–A systematic review. Pathology—Research and Practice, 213(7), 723–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ito A., Lai C. H., Zhao X., Saito S. I., Hamilton M. H., Appella E., et al. (2001). p300/CBP mediated p53 acetylation is commonly induced by p53 activating agents and inhibited by MDM2. The EMBO journal, 20(6), 1331–1340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Andersson S., Hellström A. C., Ren Z. P., & Wilander E. (2006). The carcinogenic role of oncogenic HPV and p53 gene mutation in cervical adenocarcinomas. Medical Oncology, 23(1), 113–119. 10.1385/MO:23:1:113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li Y., & Seto E. (2016). HDACs and HDAC inhibitors in cancer development and therapy. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 6(10), a026831 10.1101/cshperspect.a026831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kang J. H., Kim S. J., Noh D. Y., Park I. A., Choe K. J., Yoo O. J., et al. (2001). Methylation in the p53 promoter is a supplementary route to breast carcinogenesis: correlation between CpG methylation in the p53 promoter and the mutation of the p53 gene in the progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive ductal carcinoma. Laboratory investigation, 81(4), 573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Virmani A. K., Muller C., Rathi A., Zoechbauer-Mueller S., Mathis M., & Gazdar A. F. (2001). Aberrant methylation during cervical carcinogenesis. Clinical Cancer Research, 7(3), 584–589. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grunstein M. (1997). Histone acetylation in chromatin structure and transcription. Nature, 389(6649), 349 10.1038/38664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gu W., & Roeder R. G. (1997). Activation of p53 sequence-specific DNA binding by acetylation of the p53 C-terminal domain. Cell, 90(4), 595–606. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80521-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tang Y., Zhao W., Chen Y., Zhao Y., & Gu W. (2008). Acetylation is indispensable for p53 activation. Cell, 133(4), 612–626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Malakar M, Devi KR, Phukan RK, et al. p53 codon 72 polymorphism interactions with dietary and tobacco related habits and risk of stomach cancer in Mizoram, India. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: Apjcp. 2014;15(2):717–723. 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.2.717 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saikia BJ, Das M, Sharma SK, Sekhon GS, Zomawia E, Singh YM, et al. Association of a p53 codon 72 gene polymorphism with environmental factors and risk of lung cancer: a case control study in Mizoram and Manipur, a high incidence region in North East India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014; 15(24): 10653–8. 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.24.10653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sahu S., Chakrabarti S., Roy S. Baishya N, Reddy R R, Suklabaidya S, et al. Association of p53 codon72 Arg>Pro polymorphism with susceptibility to nasopharyngeal carcinoma: evidence from a case–control study and meta-analysis. Oncogenesis 5, e225 (2016). 10.1038/oncsis.2016.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kumar P., Gupta S., Das A. M., & Das B. C. (2019). Towards global elimination of cervical cancer in all groups of women. The Lancet Oncology, 20(5), e237 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30170-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sreedevi A., Javed R., & Dinesh A. (2015). Epidemiology of cervical cancer with special focus on India. International journal of women's health, 7, 405 10.2147/IJWH.S50001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. http://www.ncdirindia.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zur Hausen H., Gissmann L., Steiner W., Dippold W., & Dreger I. (1976). Human Papilloma Viruses and Cancer1 In Comparative Leukemia Research 1975 (Vol. 43, pp. 569–571). Karger Publishers; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancers associated with human papillomavirus, United States—2011–2015. United States Cancer Statistics Data Brief; 2018; 4. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tommasino M, Accardi R, Caldeira S, Dong W, Malanchi I, Smet A, et al. The role of TP53 in Cervical carcinogenesis. Human mutation. 2003. March;21(3):307–12. 10.1002/humu.10178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liu L., Li X. D., Chen H. Y., Cui J. S., & Xu D. Y. (2015). Significance of Ebp1 and p53 protein expression in cervical cancer. Genet Mol Res, 14(4), 11860–11866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Scheffner M. (1998). Ubiquitin, E6-AP, and their role in p53 inactivation. Pharmacology & therapeutics, 78(3), 129–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hollstein M., Sidransky D., Vogelstein B., & Harris C. C. (1991). p53 mutations in human cancers. Science, 253(5015), 49–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Muller P. A., & Vousden K. H. (2014). Mutant p53 in cancer: new functions and therapeutic opportunities. Cancer cell, 25(3), 304–317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dumont P., Leu J. J., Della Pietra III A. C., George D. L., & Murphy M. (2003). The codon 72 polymorphic variants of p53 have markedly different apoptotic potential. Nature genetics, 33(3), 357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Storey A., Thomas M., Kalita A., Harwood C., Gardiol D., Mantovani F., et al. (1998). Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of human papilloma-virus-associated cancer. Nature, 393(6682), 229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yin C. M., Yao Y. F., Yan Z. L., & Yang H. Y. (2017). Correlation between mutation of p53 gene 2–4 exons from peripheral blood and HPV16 positive cervical cancer susceptibility and clinical significance. Zhonghuafuchanke za zhi, 52(5), 320–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tachezy R., Mikyšková I., Saláková M., & Van Ranst M. (1999). Correlation between human papillomavirus-associated cervical cancer and p53 codon 72 arginine/proline polymorphism. Human genetics, 105(6), 564–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Minaguchi T., Kanamori Y., Matsushima M., Yoshikawa H., Taketani Y., & Nakamura Y. (1998). No evidence of correlation between polymorphism at codon 72 of p53 and risk of cervical cancer in Japanese patients with human papillomavirus 16/18 infection. Cancer Research, 58(20), 4585–4586. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Helland A., Karlsen F., Due E. U., Holm R., Kristensen G., & Børresen-Dale A. (1998). Mutations in the TP53 gene and protein expression of p53, MDM 2 and p21/WAF-1 in primary cervical carcinomas with no or low human papillomavirus load. British journal of cancer, 78(1), 69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Josefsson A. M., Magnusson P. K., Ylitalo N., Quarforth-Tubbin P., Pontén J., Adami H. O., et al. (1998). p53 polymorphism and risk of cervical cancer. Nature, 396(6711), 531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lanham S., Campbell I., Watt P., & Gornall R. (1998). p53 polymorphism and risk of cervical cancer. The Lancet, 352(9140), 1631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yeung C. A., Tsang T. Y., Yau P. L., & Kwok T. T. (2011). Human papillomavirus type 16 E6 induces cervical cancer cell migration through the p53/microRNA-23b/urokinase-type plasminogen activator pathway. Oncogene, 30(21), 2401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Burgers W. A., Blanchon L., Pradhan S., De Launoit Y., Kouzarides T., & Fuks F. (2007). Viral oncoproteins target the DNA methyltransferases. Oncogene, 26(11), 1650 10.1038/sj.onc.1209950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Leonard S. M., Wei W., Collins S. I., Pereira M., Diyaf A., Constandinou-Williams C., et al. (2012). Oncogenic human papillomavirus imposes an instructive pattern of DNA methylation changes which parallel the natural history of cervical HPV infection in young women. Carcinogenesis, 33(7), 1286–1293. 10.1093/carcin/bgs157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cardoso M. D. F. S., Castelletti C. H. M., de Lima-Filho J. L., Martins D. B. G., & Teixeira J. A. C. (2017). Putative biomarkers for cervical cancer: SNVs, methylation and expression profiles. M utation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 773, 161–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pogribny I. P., & James S. J. (2002). Reduction of p53 gene expression in human primary hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with promoter region methylation without coding region mutation. Cancer letters, 176(2), 169–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jha A. K., Sharma V., Nikbakht M., Jain V., Sehgal A., Capalash N., et al. (2016). A comparative analysis of methylation status of tumor suppressor genes in paired biopsy and serum samples from cervical cancer patients among North Indian population. Russian Journal of Genetics, 52(2), 226–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Reed S. M., & Quelle D. E. (2014). p53 Acetylation: Regulation and Consequences. Cancers, 7(1), 30–69. 10.3390/cancers7010030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhao Y., Lu S., Wu L., Chai G., Wang H., Chen Y., et al. (2006). Acetylation of p53 at lysine 373/382 by the histone deacetylase inhibitor depsipeptide induces expression of p21Waf1/Cip1. Molecular and cellular biology, 26(7), 2782–2790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Beckta J. M., Ahmad S. F., Yang H., & Valerie K. (2014). Revisiting p53 for cancer-specific chemo-and radiotherapy: Ten years after. Cell cycle, 13(5), 710–713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Narisawa‐Saito M., & Kiyono T. (2007). Basic mechanisms of high‐risk human papillomavirus‐induced carcinogenesis: Roles of E6 and E7 proteins. Cancer science, 98(10), 1505–1511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ding M., Zhang E., He R., & Wang X. (2013). Newly developed strategies for improving sensitivity to radiation by targeting signal pathways in cancer therapy. Cancer science, 104(11), 1401–1410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chen H., Zhang W., Cheng X., Guo L., Xie S., Ma Y., et al. (2017). β2‐AR activation induces chemoresistance by modulating p53 acetylation through upregulating Sirt1 in cervical cancer cells. Cancer science, 108(7), 1310–1317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Feng D., Wu J., Tian Y., Zhou H., Zhou Y., Hu W., et al. (2013). Targeting of histone deacetylases to reactivate tumour suppressor genes and its therapeutic potential in a human cervical cancer xenograft model. PLoS One, 8(11), e80657 10.1371/journal.pone.0080657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Muñoz-Fontela C., González D., Marcos-Villar L., Campagna M., Gallego P., González-Santamaría J., et al. (2011). Acetylation is indispensable for p53 antiviral activity. Cell cycle, 10(21), 3701–3705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Muñoz-Fontela C., Macip S., Martínez-Sobrido L., Brown L., Ashour J., García-Sastre A., et al. (2008). Transcriptional role of p53 in interferon-mediated antiviral immunity. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 205(8), 1929–1938. 10.1084/jem.20080383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-32000

Screening the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Husain,

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

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Brief methodologies needed for the conducted experiments and the image quality should be improvised.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 27th Feb 2020. 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,

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

4. 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.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers7010030

https://doi.org/10.1038/25040

https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.10.21.17899

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

7. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines please deposit your sequencing data in a publicly available repository (you can find a list of repositories in the link here : https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories).

8. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

9. Please clarify why ethical approval was not obtained from the ethical committee of Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, where patient samples were collected from

10. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors under age 18, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

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: In the manuscript entitled “Screening the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients” the authors have discussed the mutation and expression aspects of p53 in cervical cancer pathogenesis

Though the study is relevant as well as conceptually and methodologically sound, however suffers from writing and presentation issues, therefore need major revision.

Some of the major and minor points are as follows:

Abstract:

Background: “Cervical cancer (CaCx) is a global issue” how?? Needs clarity

Human papilloma virus should read: Human papillomavirus

Blood was collected but how was it utilized is not mentioned??

Keywords: CaCx should be deleted

Introduction:

It is a leading cause of cancer related mortality in Indian women of both rural and urban areas??

Well breast cancer in India leads! Latest reference/ GLOBOCAN report should be referred

First Para: last sentence “biomarker” to be deleted

Ref. no. 8 and 9 do not relate to the statements made.

The statement “The data in the role of dysregulated p53 in CaCx pathogenesis has been suggested, but differences exists in the data documented from different geographical niches” needs elaboration and citation.

First page: last sentence: Tp53 should read: TP53

The statement “Genetic alterations in p53 gene have seldom been reported in carcinogenesis event [11]” is baffling.

The authors should explain the ration behind this statement or it should be deleted. There is no dearth of reports on the genetic alterations of p53 in cancer.

Last paragraph: Mizoram study??? Cancer of other etiology?? Which cancer?? Reference is missing?? The paragraph is ambiguous

Materials and methods

Enrolment of Patient and sample collection: Authors have discussed the processing of the samples. The title should be modified accordingly.

Statement on ethical approval is missing.

The ethnicity of the population needs clarity, and how the present population is different from the other population of their country.

Did the patient samples (blood and biopsies) were collected by Gynaecologist or by the non-clinicians under the supervision of Gynaecologist. The statement needs to be reframed.

Why blood was collected??

(for RNA bases study) ??

The following statement should be the part of results and not materials and methods

“and based on the screening report, 84% (N=72) of cervical cancer cases were found to be HPV positive.”

TP53 expression analysis

Sybr green should be SYBR Green

IHC: scoring system not mentioned

TP53 Epigenetic profiling:

the paired HPV positive cases (i.e. cases with both cancerous and noncancerous

region) specifically for data specificity.

Above statement is not clear: what about HPV negative cancer cases

At many places Kit nomenclature is incomplete, country of origin is missing

Several sites of TP53 known to be acetylated e. g, C-terminal K370, K372, K373, K381, K382, as well as K120, K164, K305 etc. However, rational of selection K305, K373 and K382 should be discussed.

P53 Acetylation Study

For which type Ab, WB and IHC was used?? Details should be provided here

Results

Demographical and clinical profile of the enrolled patients

Clinical profile is missing.

No association of the results with different stages of CaCx has been made and discussed

Percentage missing in HPV results

How stage III can be common to both low and high stages of cervical cancer: “lower severity stage (≤stage III) compared to higher stages of CaCx (≥stage III)”

“To check the role of altered p53 gene in the susceptibility to CaCx the mutation study for six

different exons (exon4�9) was done by PCR direct sequencing method (Fig 4A)” lacks clarity and should be reframed

“The analysis result from the sequencing showed changes in exon4 of the p53 gene only in the affected region of the studied cases” ??

What is “the affected region of the studied cases”

The following statement should be shifted to the discussion part. “This data suggests that p53 downreglation may probably a crucial early event in the pathogenesis of CaCx pathogenesis in HPV infected cases“

Following statement is the part of results and must be shortened and shifted to the discussion

“Both the two isoforms of p53 due to polymorphism at codon 72 differ in biochemical and

biological properties, especially in reference to its property of inducing apoptosis [19].

Sporadic report also is suggestive of the significance of HPV onco-protein E6 in targeted

degradation of Arg72 p53, thereby altering cellular apoptosis and predisposing individuals to

HPV-related cervical cancers [20]. Secondly, literature suggests that Arg/Pro germline

heterozygotes is retained in squamous cell carcinomas and is more potent in neutralizing p73-

induced apoptosis and also cooperates with other oncogenes to transform cells [21].”

Both the two isoforms of p53??

“The data is therefore suggestive of the prognostic significance of the rs1042522 polymorphism in the studied population, and especially the Arg allele in

HPV+ve cases”

Must go to discussion

When the cases where changes in p53 promoter methylation changes observed were considered ??? Needs clarity

Acetylation also plays a key role in p53 protein stabilization and transcriptional regulations.

Key acetylation sites which is associated with p53 transcript stability which inturn p53

protein expression K305, 373 and 382 was analyzed for differential expression with p53-

acetylation specific antibodies by either western blot analysis (Ac-305) or by immunohistochemistry (Ac-372 and Ac-382).

The above statement cannot be part of the results: half goes to MM and rest to discussion

Discussion:

Josefesson A et al. 1998 should read: Josefesson et al. (1998)

There are many such incorrect citations throughout the manuscript

“In Indian females belonging to both urban as well as rural area, cervical cancer has emerged

to be major cause of cancer associated deaths” OR CaBr.

Following statement is too long and lacks clarity

“As per the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research [24] based report on Cancer Burden in North Eastern States of India, the prevalence of cancer cervix in northeast India stands at 12.3 (10.1) [relative proportion %age (AAR)]; and more importantly, several districts of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam and Nagaland have high to very high distribution of the disease (rate per 100,000) and ranks amongst the highest prevalent areas or districts in India; making it a major health issue amongst females”

“Although infection with high risk HPV strains has been underlined as the driving force in cervical cancer pathogenesis [25]. along with the data from the present studied cohort”

What about high-risk HPV stains’ data in the present cohort. No mention has been made in the present study. Authors should provide data about high-risk HPVs analysed and their association.

If northeast states are Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam and Nagaland of India then from which state patients were recruited. Rational for selecting NE patients is not mentioed?? How this population ethinically differs from the other part of the country. Future comparative studies will other ethnic groups will be required to get a clear picture. This needs to be discussed.

“Given the differences in cervical cancer distribution in different geographical

subsets of populations with distinct and different ethnicity, the understanding of these key

molecular and cellular factors becomes relevant and holds clinical significance”

Reference is missing

“Our findings correlate with several studies which demonstrates that in cervical cancer

carcinogenesis the down-regulation of p53 levels is thought to be a key factor [26]”

In the above statement authors says “several studies”, however only one reference has been cited and this reference is not a review article.

What about p53 expression in HPV negative CaCx cases: No indication in results and discussion

As cancer is known to be a multigene effect, how authors can signify the importance of only p53 and not the other genes. This needs to be argued.

Table 1 . p53 should be italicised

Table 2: Number of cases [%age].

% not calculated

Table 2 and 3: CaCx should read: cervical cancer

At many places figure legends are incomplete., e.g., Fig 4A

What is Con?? Fig A, B,C??

The authors should avoid using “to check” frequencly. Instead, relevant synonyms should be used.

There are innumerable full stops in-between the statements.

e.g., Inactivation of p53 has been reported to be due to hyper-methylation of the promoter region [14]. and it has been associated with human neoplasia [15].

A review of English by a native English speaker or assistance from a professional English editing services is strongly recommended.

Reviewer #2: Comments:

The authors Khan et al. tried to explore the p53 connection of cervical cancer pathogenesis in North-east Indian patients by studying the complete p53 profiling including differential mRNA expression, immunohistochemistry, mutational status of p53 and also epigenetic profiling. In spite of a large number of publications on this subject, this manuscript carries importance as there is still a huge cervical cancer burden on the North-east Indian women which encourages the scientific community and researcher to continue the studies on cervical cancer. This manuscript has tried to find the significant role of p53 which is one of the most important tumor suppressor genes in CaCx patients of North-east Indian women.

Going through the manuscript, I found several major concerns to be addressed by authors -

1. In the title the word ‘Screening’ may be replaced by words like ‘Evaluating’ or ‘Exploring’.

2. According to the statement made by the authors in the Introduction section that “The difference in the clinical presentation, the progression of the disease as well as response to treatment differs amongst individuals both with and without underlying HPV infection”, therefore both HPV positive and HPV negative CaCx cases carry equal significance for exploration of the mRNA expression for p53, however mRNA expression has only been studied for HPV positive CaCx cases by the authors. So what is the inference for HPV negative CaCx cases having downregulation of p53 mRNA expression? Comment.

3. In the Materials and Method section please mention what experiments were conducted with the blood samples collected from the patients.

4. Generally, 10% formalin is used for tissue fixation which contains 4% formaldehyde. So kindly comment on the utility of 4% formalin in tissue fixation.

5. Please provide brief protocol for each of the experiments conducted as per requirement of the journal. Also provide the details of the primary antibody against p53 used for IHC.

6. More rigorous statistical data needs to be furnished.

7. The distribution of the age group mentioned in the results section does not match with the table provided by the authors (Table 2).

8. The half life of the wild type p53 is very short and thus difficult to detect by IHC so the authors are requested to clarify whether the p53 detected by IHC for the study of differential p53 protein expression is wild type or mutated p53.

9. IHC images provided are low in resolution and lacking professional quality for publication. It is advised to include high resolution images containing arrows to mark the area of interest and scaling of the images. Moreover, please recheck the magnification mentioned in the images as it is written 400X and also the figure legends are not clear enough. Western blot images are not satisfactory.

10. The authors should comment on the limitation of the study as definite conclusion cannot be drawn from such small population of cases.

**********

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.doc

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 25;15(9):e0238500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238500.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Feb 2020

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1 Comments:

In the manuscript entitled “Screening the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North- East Indian Patients” the authors have discussed the mutation and expression aspects of p53 in cervical cancer pathogenesis

Though the study is relevant as well as conceptually and methodologically sound, however suffers from writing and presentation issues, therefore need major revision.

Some of the major and minor points are as follows:

Abstract:

� Background: “Cervical cancer (CaCx) is a global issue” how?? Needs clarity

Response: As instructed the clarification is being made and the same has been highlighted in

the text in blue.

� Human papilloma virus should read: Human papillomavirus

Response: The necessary correction has been made in the text and highlighted in blue.

� Blood was collected but how was it utilized is not mentioned??

Response: The blood samples were collected for screening out any other infective pathology like HIV, HBV etc which were used as exclusion criteria in our study.

� Keywords: CaCx should be deleted

Response: CaCx from the keyword has been deleted.

Introduction:

� It is a leading cause of cancer related mortality in Indian women of both rural and urban areas?? Well breast cancer in India leads! Latest reference/ GLOBOCAB report should be referred

Response: The sentence has been mentioned as “a leading cause” and not “the leading cause”. As per recent GLOBOCON data cervical cancer in India is the second most ranked cancer in women (16.5%) accounting for 60,000 death in 2018.

� First Para: last sentence “biomarker” to be deleted

Response: As instructed, the word “biomarker” has been deleted from the text.

� Ref. no. 8 and 9 do not relate to the statements made.

Response: The reference has been corrected and incorporated as per the statement and has been highlighted in blue in the text.

� The statement “The data in the role of dysregulated p53 in CaCx pathogenesis has been suggested, but differences exists in the data documented from different geographical niches” needs elaboration and citation.

Response: As instructed the citation for the above statement has been provided and the same has been highlighted in blue

� First page: last sentence: Tp53 should read: TP53

Response: As instructed the necessary correction has been made and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue

� The statement “Genetic alterations in p53 gene have seldom been reported in carcinogenesis event [11]” is baffling. The authors should explain the ration behind this statement, or it should be deleted. There is no dearth of reports on the genetic alterations of p53 in cancer.

Response: The line as suggested has been deleted and hence corrected.

� Last paragraph: Mizoram study??? Cancer of other etiology?? Which cancer?? Reference is missing?? The paragraph is ambiguous.

Response: As instructed the references pertinent to the association of p53 mutation with different cancer aetiologias has been enlisted and incorporated.

Materials and methods

� Enrolment of Patient and sample collection: Authors have discussed the processing of the samples. The title should be modified accordingly.

Response: As instructed the separate title for processing of sample has been incorporated and the same has been highlighted in blue in the text.

� Statement on ethical approval is missing.

Response: Statement stating “The study was permitted by the institutional ethics committees of all the participating institutes” has been incorporated in the text and highlighted in blue.

� The ethnicity of the population needs clarity, and how the present population is different from the other population of their country.

Response: As instructed the clarity for the ethnicity of the northeast Indian population has been incorporated in the text and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue.

� Did the patient samples (blood and biopsies) were collected by Gynecologist or by the non-clinicians under the supervision of Gynecologist. The statement needs to be reframed.

Response: As instructed the statement has been reframed and the collection of samples by Gynecologist has been incorporated in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� Why blood was collected??

(for RNA bases study)??

Response: : The blood samples were collected for screening out any other infective pathology like HIV, HBV etc which were used as exclusion criteria in our study and the statement stating the reason has been incorporated in the text in materials and methods section and same has been highlighted in blue.

� The following statement should be the part of results and not materials and methods

“and based on the screening report, 84% (N=72) of cervical cancer cases were found to be

HPV positive.”

Response: As instructed the sentence has been removed from the materials and methods

section and has been incorporated in the result section and the same have been highlighted in

blue in the text

TP53 expression analysis

� Sybr green should be SYBR Green

Response: As instructed the word Sybr green has been changed to SYBR Green and the same has been highlighted in text in blue.

� IHC: scoring system not mentioned

Response: The scoring system for IHC has been incorporated in the text in materials and methods section and the same has been highlighted in blue.

TP53 Epigenetic profiling:

� the paired HPV positive cases (i.e. cases with both cancerous and noncancerous region)

specifically, for data specificity.

Above statement is not clear: what about HPV negative cancer cases

Response: Since the number of HPV negative cancer cases were very less in number (n=13

out of 85 cases) compared to HPV positive cases, therefore it would have not been possible

to generate statistically sound relevant data with less number of cases so it was excluded

from the present study.

� At many places Kit nomenclature is incomplete, country of origin is missing

Response: As instructed the missing nomenclature for kit has been incorporated in the text and has been highlighted in the text.

� Several sites of TP53 known to be acetylated e. g, C-terminal K370, K372, K373, K381, K382, as well as K120, K164, K305 etc. However, rational of selection K305, K373 and K382 should be discussed.

Response: We are aware that several sites of TP53 are known to be acetylated but in our study we picked up three site i.e. K373, K381 and K305 because of its relevancy with the transcriptional activity and stability of P53 which is the main focus of our study, and the same has been discussed in our manuscript as “K305, 373 and 382 are of major relevance because of its association with the transcriptional activity of p53 and its interaction with key signaling regulators like p300 and HDAC SirT1. The acetylated p53 at K373/K382 are reported to enhance the half-life of p53 and decrease its ubiquitination. The acetylation of p53 is also crucial for its binding to downstream target.” The other acetylation sites are found to be associated with cellular apoptosis which is not under the preview of our study and so we excluded those sites.

� P53 Acetylation Study

For which type Ab, WB and IHC was used?? Details should be provided here

Response: As instructed the details about the type of antibodies used for WB and IHC for acetylation study has been incorporated in the text in the section- P53 acetylation study, and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue.

Results

� Demographical and clinical profile of the enrolled patients

Clinical profile is missing.

Response: The demographical and clinical profile of CaCx cases have been stated in Table 2 in the text. Additionally we have incorporated the gravida status of enrolled cases.

� No association of the results with different stages of CaCx has been made and discussed

Response: It has been already mentioned in the text as follows “Since majority of the cases had an underlying HPV infection (84%), therefore the differences in p53 mRNA expression in different stages of CaCx was further compared. The downregulation of p53 mRNA expression was not uniform in CaCx cases of different severity grades. The p53 mRNA expression was downregulated in lower severity stage (stage IIA and Stage IIB) compared to higher stages of CaCx (≥stage III) (Fig 2A). The expression of p53 was significantly downregulated in stage II compared to stage III (p=0.026) and stage IV (p=0.049) also p53 expression was downregulated in stage III compared to stage IV (Fig 2B).”

� Percentage missing in HPV results

Response: As instructed the percentage for all the HPV results has been incorporated in the table 2 of the manuscript and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue.

� How stage III can be common to both low and high stages of cervical cancer: “lower severity stage (≤stage III) compared to higher stages of CaCx (≥stage III)”

Response: Only stage IIA and IIB has been considered as lower grade severity and stage III and above were considered as higher grade of severity and the same has been rectified in text and highlighted in blue.

� “To check the role of altered p53 gene in the susceptibility to CaCx the mutation study for six different exons (exon4�9) was done by PCR direct sequencing method (Fig 4A)” lacks clarity and should be reframed.

Response: As instructed the sentence has been reframed and also the figure legend for Fig4A has been modified and incorporated in the text and the changes made have been highlighted in blue in the text.

� “The analysis result from the sequencing showed changes in exon4 of the p53 gene only in the affected region of the studied cases”??

Response: There was a typographical error hence the sentence has been corrected and incorporated as “The analysis result from the sequencing showed changes in only exon4 of the p53 gene in all the enrolled cases” and the correction has been highlighted in text in blue.

� What is “the affected region of the studied cases”

Response: It was typographical error, so it has been removed from the text and the sentence was reframed accordingly. We apologize for the mistake.

� The following statement should be shifted to the discussion part. “This data suggests that p53 downregulation may probably a crucial early event in the pathogenesis of CaCx pathogenesis in HPV infected cases”

Response: As instructed the above-mentioned statement has been shifted to discussion part and the same has been highlighted in text in blue.

� Following statement is the part of results and must be shortened and shifted to the discussion “Both the two isoforms of p53 due to polymorphism at codon 72 differ in biochemical and biological properties, especially in reference to its property of inducing apoptosis [19]. Sporadic report also is suggestive of the significance of HPV onco-protein E6 in targeted degradation of Arg72 p53, thereby altering cellular apoptosis and predisposing individuals to HPV-related cervical cancers [20]. Secondly, literature suggests that Arg/Pro germline heterozygotes is retained in squamous cell carcinomas and is more potent in neutralizing p73- induced apoptosis and also cooperates with other oncogenes to transform cells [21].”

Response: The above mentioned statement was shortened and as instructed was incorporated in the discussion section as “The p53 Arg genotype (homo or heterozygous state) is known to be targeted by HPV onco-protein E6 and results in deregulated apoptosis [19, 20, 21]” .and the same has been highlighted in text in blue.

� Both the two isoforms of p53??

Response: The words ”both the two isoforms of p53 ( Arg/Arg and Arg/Pro) from the sentence has been removed and the sentence was reframed as “The p53 Arg genotype (homo or heterozygous state) is known to be targeted by HPV onco-protein E6 and results in deregulated apoptosis [19, 20, 21]” in discussion section.

� “The data is therefore suggestive of the prognostic significance of the rs1042522 polymorphism in the studied population, and especially the Arg allele in HPV+ve cases” Must go to discussion

Response: As instructed the above statement has been incorporated in discussion section and the same has been highlighted in blue in the text.

� When the cases where changes in p53 promoter methylation changes observed were considered??? Needs clarity

Response: As instructed the sentence has been reframed and corrected as “When we considered the cases where changes in p53 promoter methylation was observed, the differences in methylation profile indicated that p53 promoter hyper-methylation was significantly associated lower severity grade (stage IIA and IIB)” and has been incorporated in the text and same has been highlighted in blue oion the text

� Acetylation also plays a key role in p53 protein stabilization and transcriptional regulations. Key acetylation sites which is associated with p53 transcript stability which inturn p53 protein expression K305, 373 and 382 was analyzed for differential expression with p53- acetylation specific antibodies by either western blot analysis (Ac-305) or by immunohistochemistry (Ac-372 and Ac-382).

The above statement cannot be part of the results: half goes to MM and rest to discussion Response: As instructed the above statement has been removed from the result section section and has been incorporated in materials and methods section. The correction made has been highlighted in blue in the text.

Discussion:

� Josefesson A et al. 1998 should read: Josefesson et al. (1998)

There are many such incorrect citations throughout the manuscript

Response: As instructed all the necessary correction for citation has been made in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� “In Indian females belonging to both urban as well as rural area, cervical cancer has emerged to be major cause of cancer associated deaths” OR CaBr.

Response: As instructed the sentence has been reframed as “In Indian females belonging to both urban as well as rural area, cervical cancer has emerged to be one of the major cause of cancer associated deaths” and has been incorporated in the text.

� Following statement is too long and lacks clarity

“As per the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research [24] based report on Cancer Burden in North Eastern States of India, the prevalence of cancer cervix in northeast India stands at 12.3 (10.1) [relative proportion %age (AAR)]; and more importantly, several districts of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam and Nagaland have high to very high distribution of the disease (rate per 100,000) and ranks amongst the highest prevalent areas or districts in India; making it a major health issue amongst females”

Response: As per the instruction the following sentence has been shortened and reframed and has been incorporated in text as “As per the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research [24] based report, the cancer cervix distribution rate [relative proportion %age (AAR)] in Northeast India ranks amongst the highest prevalent areas or districts in India; making it a major health issue amongst females.” and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� “Although infection with high risk HPV strains has been underlined as the driving force in cervical cancer pathogenesis [25]. along with the data from the present studied cohort”. What about high-risk HPV stains’ data in the present cohort. No mention has been made in the present study. Authors should provide data about high-risk HPVs analysed and their association.

Response: HPV 16 is also one of the high-risk HPV and is the most predominant genotype in the Brahmaputra valley (Northeat India). The prevalence for dominant HPV16 genotype has also been reported previously by Das et al 2013 as well as in our study. So, in the present study our main focus was HPV16 infected cervical cancer cases which was predominant in our collected cervical cancer cases.

� If northeast states are Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam and Nagaland of India then from which state patients were recruited. Rational for selecting NE patients is not mentioned?? How this population ethnically differs from the other part of the country. Future comparative studies will other ethnic groups will be required to get a clear picture. This needs to be discussed.

Response: The samples were collected from Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Assam which is a hub for the patients from different Northeastern India states such as Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland etc belonging to different ethnicity group basically the tribal dominant and those who differ from the other parts of India. As there is no p53 based study in context to cervical cancer from this region, so considering the geographical location and ethnicity of population difference in Northeastern region we undertook the study on cervical cancer pathogenesis in Northeast Indian population. The explanation for the difference in ethnic group has also been provided in the response in Materials and methods section for Enrolment of Patient and Sample Collection.

� “Given the differences in cervical cancer distribution in different geographical subsets of populations with distinct and different ethnicity, the understanding of these key molecular and cellular factors becomes relevant and holds clinical significance” Reference is missing

Response: As instructed the reference for the above statement has been incorporated in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� “Our findings correlate with several studies which demonstrates that in cervical cancer carcinogenesis the down-regulation of p53 levels is thought to be a key factor [26]”.

In the above statement authors says, “several studies”, however only one reference has been cited and this reference is not a review article.

Response: As instructed, for the above statement the reference of a review article have been incorporated in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� What about p53 expression in HPV negative CaCx cases: No indication in results and discussion.

Response: We did mention in the result about P53 expression for HPV negative cases but as mentioned in previous response in material and method section that due to the less number of HPV negative cancer cases (n=13 out of 85 cases ) compared to HPV positive cases, it would have not been possible to generate statistically sound relevant data and so it was excluded from the present study.

� As cancer is known to be a multigene effect, how authors can signify the importance of only p53 and not the other genes. This needs to be argued.

Response: The p53 protein is recognized as the most frequently inactivated tumor suppressors in human cancers as its has been documented in affecting many important cellular processes including proliferation, DNA repair, programmed cell death (apoptosis), autophagy, metabolism, and cell migration. The p53 protein is the centre of many crosstalk’s with critical signaling transducers thereby effecting cell cycle, apoptosis and other hall marks of cancer. The p53 has been stated to be an early hit during cancer pathogenesis of multiple etiologies. Although cancer is a multi-step event, but the role of p53 in cellular homeostasis augments its significance to be studied in cancer contexts includingHPV16 linked cervical cancer as done in the present study.

� Table 1 . p53 should be italicised

Response: As instructed the necessary correction has been made and is highlighted in text in blue.

� Table 2: Number of cases [%age].

% not calculated

Response: As instructed % has been calculated and incorporated in the Table 2 and the same has been highlighted in blue in the table 2.

� Table 2 and 3: CaCx should read: cervical cancer

Response: As instructed the word CaCx has been replaced with cervical cancer in both Table 2 and 3 and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� At many places figure legends are incomplete., e.g., Fig 4A

Response: As instructed the figure legends have been elaborated and rectified accordingly and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue.

� What is Con?? Fig A, B, C??

Response: In the figure Con represents the non-neoplastic control samples and as instructed in previous query the same has been incorporated in the figure legend. Also, the Figure ^ has been modified and proper designation as A, B, C has been incorporated. The modification has been highlighted in the text as blue.

� The authors should avoid using “to check” and instead relevant synonyms should be used.

Response: As instructed we have removed the use of “to check” and instead have used

relevant synonyms in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue.

� There are innumerable full stops in the text in-between the statements.

e.g., Inactivation of p53 has been reported to be due to hyper-methylation of the promoter

region [14]. and it has been associated with human neoplasia [15].

Response: As instructed we have checked the manuscript thoroughly and have remove

innumerable full stops in the text in-between the statements.

A review of English by a native English speaker or assistance from profession English

editing services is strongly recommended.

Reviewer #2: Comments:

The authors Khan et al. tried to explore the p53 connection of cervical cancer pathogenesis in North-east Indian patients by studying the complete p53 profiling including differential mRNA expression, immunohistochemistry, mutational status of p53 and also epigenetic profiling. In spite of a large number of publications on this subject, this manuscript carries importance as there is still a huge cervical cancer burden on the North-east Indian women which encourages the scientific community and researcher to continue the studies on cervical cancer. This manuscript has tried to find the significant role of p53 which is one of the most important tumor suppressor genes in CaCx patients of North-east Indian women.

Going through the manuscript, I found several major concerns to be addressed by authors -

1. In the title the word ‘Screening’ may be replaced by words like ‘Evaluating’ or ‘Exploring’.

Response: As suggested we have replaced the word “Screening” by word “Exploring”

and the same has been highlighted in the text in Blue.

2. According to the statement made by the authors in the Introduction section that “The difference in the clinical presentation, the progression of the disease as well as response to treatment differs amongst individuals both with and without underlying HPV infection”, therefore both HPV positive and HPV negative CaCx cases carry equal significance for exploration of the mRNA expression for p53, however mRNA expression has only been studied for HPV positive CaCx cases by the authors. So, what is the inference for HPV negative CaCx cases having downregulation of p53 mRNA expression? Comment.

Response: The similar query were raise by the reviewer1, and in the response we have stated “We did mention in the result about P53 expression for HPV negative cases but as mentioned in previous response in material and method section that due to Since the number of HPV negative cancer cases (n=13 out of 85 cases ) compared to HPV positive cases, it would have not been possible to generate statistically sound relevant data with less number of cases so it was excluded from the present study.” So, our response for the above query will be same as previous one.

3. In the Materials and Method section please mention what experiments were conducted with the blood samples collected from the patients.

Response: As instructed we have mentioned the use of blood sample in our study, in the material and method section and the same has been highlighted in blue in the text.

4. Generally, 10% formalin is used for tissue fixation which contains 4% formaldehyde. So kindly comment on the utility of 4% formalin in tissue fixation.

Response: The tissues were fixed in 10%formalin. There was a typographical error and the error has been corrected in the text as 10% formalin instead of 4% formalin and the same has been highlighted in blue in processing of sample section. We apologize for the mistake.

5. Please provide brief protocol for each of the experiments conducted as per requirement of the journal. Also provide the details of the primary antibody against p53 used for IHC.

Response: As instructed we have provided the brief protocol for each of the experiment at the best possible way, as per the requirement of the journal. We have also provided the details of the primary antibody against p53 used for IHC. The correction has been highlighted in text in blue.

6. More rigorous statistical data needs to be furnished.

Response: The data has been presented in a best possible manner from our end, and the same was acceptable at another Reviewer’s end. If any specific changes are required then it will be easier at our end to rectify our limitations.

7. The distribution of the age group mentioned in the results section does not match with the table provided by the authors (Table 2).

Response: As instructed the distribution of age group have been corrected in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue. Our apologies for the mistake at our end.

8. The half life of the wild type p53 is very short and thus difficult to detect by IHC so the authors are requested to clarify whether the p53 detected by IHC for the study of differential p53 protein expression is wild type or mutated p53.

Response: Although the half life of p53 is noted to be short under normal conditions, but the role of p53 signifies its expression in altered cellular stress conditions, including those under viral assaults. The expression positivity was noticed in both wildtype and mutated p53 cases. The antibody used i.e. ab26 (Abcam, UK) is anti-p53 monoclonal antibody capable of recognizing both mutant forms and wild-type human p53.

9. IHC images provided are low in resolution and lacking professional quality for publication. It is advised to include high resolution images containing arrows to mark the area of interest and scaling of the images. Moreover, please recheck the magnification mentioned in the images as it is written 400X and also the figure legends are not clear enough. Western blot images are not satisfactory.

Response: As instructed we have incorporated the better resolution images with the incorporation of arrow marks. We have rectified the figure legends and all the necessary changes in the manuscript has been incorporated and the same has been highlighted in the text in blue.

10. The authors should comment on the limitation of the study as definite conclusion cannot be drawn from such small population of cases.

Response: As suggested we have incorporated the limitation of the study and also have modified our conclusion accordingly and the same has been highlighted in blue in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Final Response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

7 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-32000R1

Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Husain,

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 22 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,

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #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: In the manuscript entitled “Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients” the authors have discussed the mutation and expression aspects of p53 in cervical cancer pathogenesis

The authors have satisfactory modified the manuscript. However, few minor concerns need to be addressed before final acceptance.

Materials and methods:

In: HPV screening and genotyping by PCR

“using the specific primers for HPV16 1nd HPV” ???..Please clarify… “1nd”

I am failing to understand that, when authors have performed HPV16 and 18 detection using type specific primers, then why the results pertaining to HPV16 and 18 frequencies have not been incorporated the results section. If at all cases were HPV16 positive than it should be highlighted in the results

Moreover, the screening results of HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc in the blood samples should be also highlighted. Further, the authors should clarify “etc” pathogens.

A brief mention of methods of detection of “HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc” should be made.

Again the spelling of “Josefesson” is wrong in the text. It should read “Josefsson”.

Authors should rigorously check the spelling of all the citations made in the text and reference list.

Reviewer #2: Review Comments

Response to query 2

I feel that the results which are not statistically significant should also be mentioned with p-values in the manuscript or else the information seems incomplete.

Response to query 3

As mentioned by the author in the manuscript “Further the blood samples were used to screen the presence of any other pathogenic infection such as HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc apart from HPV in the collected samples.” As per the above statement I would like to know whether HPV was tested from the blood samples. If so, please mention how one could assess the presence of HPV infection from blood samples.

Response to query 6

Please include all the results with their statistical value in a single table format for better visualization and understanding.

Response to query 8

As mentioned by the author the antibody used for immunohistochemistry was ab26 (abcam) however in the datasheet of the company it is mentioned that this antibody was not tested for IHC by the company. So, if you could kindly clarify and justify why this antibody was chosen for immunohistochemistry?

Author has mentioned in the response 8 that “The antibody used i.e. ab26 (Abcam, UK) is anti-p53 monoclonal antibody capable of recognizing both mutant forms and wild-type human p53.” So I would like to know how you can differentiate which expression is due to mutant form and which is due to wild type human p53.

**********

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 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 25;15(9):e0238500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238500.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 May 2020

PONE-D-19-32000R1

Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Husain,

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 22 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,

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscripts 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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1 Comment:

In the manuscript entitled “Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients” the authors have discussed the mutation and expression aspects of p53 in cervical cancer pathogenesis

The authors have satisfactory modified the manuscript. However, few minor concerns need to be addressed before final acceptance.

Materials and methods:

� In: HPV screening and genotyping by PCR

“using the specific primers for HPV16 1nd HPV” ???..Please clarify… “1nd”

Author Response: It was typographical error. Instead of “1nd” it should have been “and” and the necessary correction has been made in the text and the same has been highlighted in blue. We apologize for the mistake

� I am failing to understand that, when authors have performed HPV16 and 18 detection using type specific primers, then why the results pertaining to HPV16 and 18 frequencies have not been incorporated the results section. If at all cases were HPV16 positive than it should be highlighted in the results

Author Response: The table has been modified as per the Reviewer’s kind suggestion. As a part of an initial screening process we performed the genotype analysis for both HPV16 and HPV18 and the data showed the presence of HPV16 genotype only in the studied cohort. The line stating the same was previously missing but is now included in the text. The modified table including the details of HPV genotype data has also been included, and the same may kindly be considered at your end.

� Moreover, the screening results of HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc in the blood samples should be also highlighted. Further, the authors should clarify “etc” pathogens.

A brief mention of methods of detection of “HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc” should be made.

Author Response: As suggested we have provided the brief description for detection method for pathogenic screening, as well the screening results in the materials and methods and result section of the manuscript.

� Again the spelling of “Josefesson” is wrong in the text. It should read “Josefsson”.

Authors should rigorously check the spelling of all the citations made in the text and reference list.

Author Response: We apologize for the mistake. As suggested the necessary correction has been made in the manuscript and the same has been highlighted in blue.

Reviewer #2: Review Comments

Response to query 2

I feel that the results which are not statistically significant should also be mentioned with p-values in the manuscript or else the information seems incomplete.

Author response: As suggested, we have incorporated the p-values for the statistically insignificant result as well and the same have been highlighted in blue in text.

Response to query 3

As mentioned by the author in the manuscript “Further the blood samples were used to screen the presence of any other pathogenic infection such as HIV, Hepatitis’s virus etc apart from HPV in the collected samples.” As per the above statement I would like to know whether HPV was tested from the blood samples. If so, please mention how one could assess the presence of HPV infection from blood samples.

Author response: No, the presence of HPV infection was not assessed from blood samples, it was determined from the cervical tissues. The blood samples were used to rule out the presence of any other pathogenic infections (as mentioned in the results section) as the exclusion criteria of our study.

Response to query 6

Please include all the results with their statistical value in a single table format for better visualization and understanding.

Author response:

The difference in the relevant p53 data at all levels and their statistical differences have been either illustrated in the figures 1, 2A, 2B and 4C as well as in Table 3, or have been encrypted in the text under different results sections. So we feel that compiling the data set under one common table will be a duplication of data representation, and also make the data set quite complex (as different parameters results have been discussed under different sub-sections under the results. But based on the suggestion, we have now tabulated the p53 exon 4 genotyping data as supplementary table for ready reference and consideration at your end.

Supplementary Table: Details of p53 exon4 polymorphism based difference in genotype analysis

Stages HPV +ve (N=72) HPV -ve (N=13)

N Pro/Pro Arg/Pro or Arg/Arg P value ODDs ratio N Pro/Pro Arg/Pro or Arg/Arg P value ODDs ratio

IIA and IIB 48 9 [18.75] 39 [81.25] ref 0.877 (0.258-2.979) 09 5 [55.55] 4 [44.45] ref 1.250 (0.118- 13.240

IIIA, IIIB

and IV 24 5 [20.83] 19 [79.17] 0.834 04 2 [50.00] 2 [50.00] 0.859

Response to query 8

As mentioned by the author the antibody used for immunohistochemistry was ab26 (abcam) however in the datasheet of the company it is mentioned that this antibody was not tested for IHC by the company. So, if you could kindly clarify and justify why this antibody was chosen for immunohistochemistry?

Author has mentioned in the response 8 that “The antibody used i.e. ab26 (Abcam, UK) is anti-p53 monoclonal antibody capable of recognizing both mutant forms and wild-type human p53.” So I would like to know how you can differentiate which expression is due to mutant form and which is due to wild type human p53.

Author response: In total two anti-p53 antibodies were used for p53 expression studies based on IHC. The first antibody was specifically for IHC, but didn’t yield the expected acceptable results. The second anti-p53 antibody (ab26, Abcam) was chosen for its capabilities to recognize both mutant and wild type conformational forms of p53. Although Abcam (Abpromise guarantee) states that it covers the use of ab26 in IP, ICC/IF, WB; but didn’t specified that it cannot be used for other applications like IHC. We therefore experimentally performed and validated the results with the ab26 p53 antibody by IHC under the supervision of a senior pathologist. Henceforth, the utility of the ab26 p53 antibody for IHC was also demonstrated experimentally. Unfortunately, one cannot claim directly that the p53 protein expression was based on which conformational form of p53 (as ab26 detects both the conformations), but it could be done in association with the genotype data. But, as the post-transcriptional modifications and regulations of p53 are now been realized as an important aspect and complex (outside the purview of the present work), therefore we have not commented on the association of p53 protein expression with the p53 genotype data (only the association of p53 mRNA data with the p53 genotype data was analyzed and documented).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

19 Aug 2020

Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients

PONE-D-19-32000R2

Dear Dr. Husain,

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,

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Response to query 8 is not satisfactory.

As mentioned in the datasheet of the Antibody ab26 (abcam) under specificity that this antibody “recognizes an epitope that is structurally hidden in the wild type conformation of p53 but becomes exposed by denaturation or in mutant conformations of p53 where point mutations in the TP53 gene alter the structure of the protein”. Thus, I feel that the following author’s statement in result section “Similar to mRNA expression the expression of p53 protein was down-regulated in lower severity grade (≤ stage III) compare to higher severity grade (≥stage III) indicating its role in the initial stage of development of cervical cancer” is a bit controversial as this protein expression result by IHC with this antibody could also be interpreted as that the p53 mutation was more in higher severity grade and less in lower severity grade. So I think mRNA expression in this case cannot be supported by IHC with this antibody as stated in this paper rather it makes the result and discussion controversial.

I would rather recommend omitting the IHC part or rewriting the result and discussion accordingly or redo the IHC part with more appropriate antibody.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed all the issues raised by other reviewer and the manuscript is suitable for publication.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Divya Uppala

Reviewer #4: Yes: Amit Kumar Pandey

Acceptance letter

Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

9 Sep 2020

PONE-D-19-32000R2

Exploring the p53 Connection of Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis Involving North-East Indian Patients

Dear Dr. Husain:

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. Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan

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 Table. Details of p53 exon4 polymorphism based difference in genotype analysis.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    S3 File

    (PDF)

    S4 File

    (PDF)

    S5 File

    (PDF)

    S6 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Final Response to reviewer.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES