Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 26;16(7):e0254657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254657

Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned canine AT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase

Su-Min Park 1, Ju-Hyun An 1, Jeong-Hwa Lee 1, Kyung-Bo Kim 1, Hyung-Kyu Chae 1, Ye-In Oh 1, Woo-Jin Song 2,*, Hwa-Young Youn 1,*
Editor: Nazmul Haque3
PMCID: PMC8312919  PMID: 34310627

Abstract

Background

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) are effective therapeutic agents that ameliorate inflammation through paracrine effect; in this regard, extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been frequently studied. To improve the secretion of anti-inflammatory factors from MSCs, preconditioning with hypoxia or hypoxia-mimetic agents has been attempted and the molecular changes in preconditioned MSC-derived EVs explored. In this study, we aimed to investigate the increase of hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α)/cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in deferoxamine (DFO)-preconditioned canine MSC (MSCDFO) and whether these molecular changes were reflected on EVs. Furthermore, we focused on MSCDFO derived EVs (EVDFO) could affect macrophage polarization via the transfer function of EVs.

Results

In MSCDFO, accumulation of HIF-1α were increased and production of COX-2 were activated. Also, Inside of EVDFO were enriched with COX-2 protein. To evaluate the transferring effect of EVs to macrophage, the canine macrophage cell line, DH82, was treated with EVs after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. Polarization changes of DH82 were evaluated with quantitative real-time PCR and immunofluorescence analyses. When LPS-induced DH82 was treated with EVDFO, phosphorylation of signal transducer and transcription3 (p-STAT3), which is one of key factor of inducing M2 phase, expression was increased in DH82. Furthermore, treated with EVDFO in LPS-induced DH82, the expression of M1 markers were reduced, otherwise, M2 surface markers were enhanced. Comparing with EVDFO and EVnon.

Conclusion

DFO preconditioning in MSCs activated the HIF-1α/COX-2 signaling pathway; Transferring COX-2 through EVDFO could effectively reprogram macrophage into M2 phase by promoting the phosphorylation of STAT3.

Introduction

Among the secretomes of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs), extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been studied frequently for playing an important role in transmitting signals across cells [1]. EVs are small membrane vesicles that are 40–100 nm in diameter. They are released from cell membrane after fusion with multivesicular endosome and cell membrane, and contain proteins, metabolites, and nucleic acids [2]. Studies have shown the cells to be modified via transmission of mRNA, RNA, and protein via EVs [3,4].

Further studies are being conducted on how to increase the productivity and efficacy of EVs [5]. Some studies have been conducted using hypoxia-preconditioned methods to improve anti-inflammatory effect of MSC-derived EVs [6]. Several studies have shown deferoxamine (DFO), a hypoxia mimetic agent, to be usable in hypoxia preconditioning [7] and improve angiogenesis effect of MSC-derived EVs [8]. DFO inhibits hydroxylation of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) and chelates the iron necessary for prolyl-4 hydroxylase, owing to which, HIF-1α is accumulated in the cell nucleus similar to that in hypoxic condition [9]. Although some previous papers had reported the modification of stem cells in hypoxic culture [10,11], there have not been many studies reporting the changes in MSC-derived EVs when treated with DFO.

Hypoxic stimulation induces HIF-1α accumulation in the nucleus, and control various signal pathways, such as inflammation, energy deprivation, or proliferation [12]. We focused on the activation of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)/prostaglandin E2 (PGE 2) synthase axis [13] by HIF-1α, since the former has anti-inflammatory function in stem cells [14]. Moreover, COX-2 and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) are linked to macrophages polarization [15], which is the main signal molecule in M2 polarization [16,17].

Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate a hypoxic culture method using DFO in order to increase the anti-inflammatory efficacy of MSC-derived EVs. Moreover, we investigated the association of HIF-1α/COX-2 anti-inflammatory pathway in DFO preconditioned canine adipose tissue derived MSC (cAT-MSC). Further, we revealed the molecular changes of MSCs to be reflected on the derived EVs, the latter then transferring the molecules to macrophages and reprogramming them into M2 phase.

Materials and methods

Cell preparation and culture

Canine adipose tissues (cAT) were obtained using a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Seoul National University (SNU; protocol no. SNU-180621-27). Briefly, Canine adipose tissue was obtained from a healthy dog < 1 year old during routine spay surgery. The tissue was washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; PAN Biotech, Aidenbach, Germany) which was contained 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 g/ml streptomycin. Then the tissues were cut into small pieces and digested for 1 h at 37°C by collagenase type IA (1 mg/ml; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). After 1 hour, the collagenase was inhibited with Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM; PAN Biotech) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS; PAN Biotech). To remove debris, the cell pellet was obtained after centrifugation at 1200 × g for 5 min and filtered through a 70-μm Falcon cell strainer (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Then cells were incubated in DMEM containing 10% FBS at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2.

cAT-MSCs were characterized as described in Supporting information. Cells were differentiated into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteocytes to confirm their multilineage features. They were also characterized by detecting stem cell markers with flow cytometry. After characterization, cAT-MSCs at passages 3–4 were used for subsequent experiments.

Cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM; PAN Biotech, Aidenbach, Germany) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS; PAN Biotech) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (PS; PAN Biotech) at 37°C in 5% CO2 atmosphere. The culture medium was changed every 2–3 days, and cells were sub-cultured at 70–80% confluency. When cAT-MSCs were approximately 70% confluent, 100 μM DFO was added for 48 h in DMEM with 10% exosome-depleted FBS (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Massachusetts, USA) and 1% PS (PAN Biotech).

The canine macrophage cell line DH82 was purchased from the Korean Cell Line Bank (Seoul, Korea) and cultured in DMEM with 15% FBS at 37°C in 5% CO2 atmosphere until they reached 70–80% confluency.

Transfection of cAT-MSCs with siRNA

When the confluency of cAT-MSC was approximately 40%, they were transfected with COX-2 siRNA or control siRNA (sc-29279 and sc-37007, respectively; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) for 48 h using Lipofectamine RNAiMAX (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), following the manufacturers’ instructions. COX-2 knockdown was confirmed by qRT-PCR before further experiments.

Isolation and characterization of EVs derived from canine adipose tissue-derived (cAT)-MSCs

cAT-MSCs were cultured for 48 h in DMEM with 10% exosome-depleted FBS (Thermo Fischer Scientific) and 1% PS (PAN Biotech). The medium from each cultured cAT-MSC sample was collected and centrifuged at 2600 × g for 20 min to remove cells and cell debris. Each supernatant was transferred to a fresh tube and appropriate volume of ExoQuick-CG (System Biosciences, USA) added. EVs were isolated according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Protein markers of isolated EVs were identified by western blotting using antibodies against CD81 (Aviva system biology, CA, USA) and CD9 (GeneTex, Irvine, CA, USA). Morphology of the EVs was characterized using transmission electron microscopy. Briefly, 10 μl of EV suspension was placed on a 300-mesh formvar/carbon-coated electron microscopy grid with the coated side facing the suspension. Distilled water was placed on the mesh for washing and a 10-μl drop of uranyl acetate was placed on the mesh for negative staining for 1 min, followed by observation under a transmission electron microscope (TEM; LIBRA 120, Carl Zeiss, Germany) at 120 kV. Size distribution of the particles was determined using a zeta-potential and particle size analyzer (ELSZ-1000ZS, Otsuka Electronics, Osaka, Japan).

RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)

Total RNA was extracted from cAT-MSCs preconditioned with DFO or from control group, and from DH82 cells using the Easy-Blue total RNA extraction kit (Intron Biotechnology, Sungnam, Korea). cDNA was synthesized using the CellScript All-in-One 5× first strand cDNA synthesis master mix (CellSafe, Seoul, Korea). Samples were analyzed using AMPIGENE qPCR green mix Hi-ROX with SYBR Green dye (Enzo Life Sciences, Farmingdale, NY, USA) and 400 nM forward and reverse primers (Table 1) in the qRT-PCR thermal cycler (Bionics, Seoul, Korea). The expression level of each gene was normalized to that of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), and relative expression calculated against the contrasting control group.

Table 1. Sequences of PCR primers used in this study.

Target gene Primer Sequence Size
Canine Forward ACT GAT GAC CAA CAA CTT GAG G 122
HIF-1α Reverse TTT GGA GTT TCA GAA GCA GGT A
Canine Forward TTC CTG CGA AAT ACA ATT ATG AAA T 149
COX-2 Reverse GCC GTA GTT CAC ATT ATA AGT TGG T
Canine Forward TTA ACT CTG GCA AAG TGG ATA TTG T 85
GAPDH Reverse GAA TCA TAC TGG AAC ATG TAC ACC A
Canine Forward AGT TGC AAG TCT CCC ACC AG 177
IL-1b Reverse TAT CCG CAT CTG TTT TGC AG
Canine Forward GGC TAC TGC TTT CCC TAC CC 243
IL-6 Reverse TGG AAG CAT CCA TCT TTT CC

Protein extraction, cell fractionation, and western blotting

Protein was extracted from preconditioned cAT-MSC-derived exosomes and DH82 using the Pro-Prep protein extraction solution (Intron Biotechnology). Concentration of the protein samples was analyzed using the DC Protein Assay Kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Nuclear proteins were isolated using the Cell Fractionation Kit-Standard (Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA). For western blot assays, 25 μg of proteins were loaded and separated by SDS-PAGE. Bands from SDS-PAGE were transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (EMD Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA), which were then blocked with 5% non-fat dry milk and Tris-buffered saline. Membranes were incubated with primary antibodies against HIF-1α (1:500; LifeSpan BioSciences, Seattle, WA, USA), COX-2 (1:500, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, TX, USA), STAT3 (1:500, LifeSpan BioSciences), phosphorylated (Tyr705) STAT3 (1:500, LifeSpan BioSciences), lamin A (1:500, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and β-actin (1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) at 4°C overnight. The membranes were subsequently incubated with the appropriate secondary antibody for 1 h. Using an enhanced chemiluminescence detection kit (Advansta, Menlo Park, CA, USA), immunoreactive bands were detected and normalized to the housekeeping protein (β-actin).

IF analyses

DH82 cells were cultured at 2 × 105 cells in cell-culture slide (SPL, Korea), and 200 ng/ml lipopolysaccharides (LPS; Sigma-Aldrich) were stimulated for 24 h. After LPS stimulation, DH82 cells were treated with EVs at concentrations of 50 μg/well for 48 h. The slide was fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and blocked with a blocking buffer containing 5% bovine serum albumin and 0.3% Triton X-100 (both from Sigma-Aldrich) for 1 h. They were then incubated overnight at 4°C with antibodies against FITC-conjugated CD206 (1:200; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and phycoerythrin-conjugated CD11b (1:100; Abcam). After three washes, the slides were mounted in a VECTASHIELD mounting medium containing 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA). The samples were observed under a EVOS FL microscope (Life Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany). Immunoreactive cells were calculated with 20 random fields per group as per the ratio of DAPI/CD206-positive cells.

Statistical analyses

Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation. Mean values from the different groups were compared by Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance using GraphPad Prism v.6.01 software (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA). P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Characterization of cAT-MSC EVs

cAT-MSCs were characterized by flow cytometry and differentiation (Fig 1A–1G). EVs were separated from stem cell culture media by Exo-quickTM. They were round in shape, with diameter ranging from 50 nm to 100 nm, as per electron microscopic analysis (Fig 1H). Using a particle-size analyzer, the diameter of EVs was confirmed to be approximately 100 nm (Fig 1I). To identify the surface markers of exosomes, CD81 and CD 9 were confirmed as positive while β-actin was negative in western blotting (Fig 1J).

Fig 1. cAT-MSC characterization and cAT-MSC derived EV characterization.

Fig 1

To identify multilineage differentiation, cAT-MSC were differentiated into (a) adipocyte, (b) osteocyte and (c) chondrocyte. Differentiated cells were stained each specific dye. (d-g) To immunotype, the markers of cAT-MCS were analyzed with CD29, CD44 as positive and CD45, CD 34 as negative. (h) In electron microscopic analysis, EVs were measured as 50-100nm. (i) Through a particles-size analyzer, the diameter of EVs was confirmed as around 100nm. (j) CD81 and CD 9, surface marker of EV, were confirmed as positive and β-actin was confirmed as negative in western blotting.

Elevation of HIF-1α/COX-2 expression in DFO-preconditioned MSCs

In CCK assay, the viability of cAT-MSCs was found to be decreased upon treatment with 1 mM DFO; therefore, we decided to use DFO < 1 mM in further experiments (Fig 2A). We confirmed that HIF-1α accumulated in DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs (cAT-MSCDFO) at both 100 μM and 500 μM of DFO concentration (Fig 2B). Considering the previous report, which found no significant difference between 100 μM and 500 μM DFO [18], 100 μM DFO was chosen for the current treatment.

Fig 2. The expression levels of COX-2 in cAT-MSCDFO.

Fig 2

(a) The mRNA level of COX-2 is increased in DFO preconditioned and treated with siCTL group. However, COX-2 is not increased in transfected with siCOX-2 group. (b) The protein level of COX-2 is increased in DFO preconditioned and decreased in transfected with siCOX-2 group, same as mRNA result. Results are shown as means ± standard deviation. ***P < 0.001. ns, not significant.

To evaluate the role of COX-2 in cAT-MSCs, siCOX-2 was transfected into the cells before DFO conditioning. RNA levels of COX-2 were significantly increased in cAT-MSCDFO and DFO preconditioning plus control siRNA (cAT-MSCsiRNA) groups; the expression not being significantly different between the two. In DFO-preconditioned group, with COX-2 siRNA (cAT-MSCsiCOX-2), COX-2 expression was not increased (Fig 2C). At protein level, COX-2 was increased in cAT-MSCDFO and cAT-MSCsiRNA, but not in cAT-MSCsiCOX-2 (Fig 2D).

cAT-MSC-derived EVs transport COX-2 to DH82 and activate the phosphorylation of STAT3

When expression of COX-2 protein was evaluated in EVs, it was found increased in cAT-MSCDFO-derived EV (EVDFO) than in non-preconditioned cAT-MSC-derived EV (EVnon).

In cAT-MSCsiCOX-2-derived EV (EVsiCOX-2), COX-2 was not increased, similar to that in cAT-MSCs (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Protein levels of COX-2 in cAT-MSC derived EVs and the effect of DFO preconditioned EV in DH82.

Fig 3

(a) COX-2 level was increased in EVs derived from cAT-MSCDFO (EVDFO). Otherwise, COX-2 was decreased in EVsiCOX-2. The result of COX-2 protein level in EVs was similar with cytosol COV-2 protein level in cAT-MSC. (b) Protein levels of STAT3 and p-STAT3 in DH82 treated with EVs was measured by western blotting to evaluate the effect of DFO preconditioned EVs. In the all EV treated groups, p-STAT3 (Tyr 705) was increased. Compared to EVnon treated group, p-STAT3 is much more increased in EVDFO treated group, but similar in EVsiCOX-2 treated group. Results are shown as means ± standard deviation. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001. ns, not significant.

DH82 cells were treated with EVs to verify their anti-inflammatory effect on macrophages. They were treated with LPS before EV treatment. In the LPS-treated group, expression of p-STAT3 was increased, whereas that of STAT3 decreased compared to that in naïve group. The expression of both STAT3 and p-STAT3 increased in EV-treated groups. In the groups treated with EVDFO, the expression of p-STAT3 was significantly increased than in non-preconditioned group. However, in the group treated with EVsiCOX-2, p-STAT3 was not increased compared to that in the group treated with EVnon (Fig 3B).

Change of polarization of DH82 when treated with preconditioned EVs

When DH82 cells were treated with LPS, the markers of M1 proinflammatory phase, namely IL-1b and IL-6, were significantly increased. However, expression of both cytokines was decreased in the groups with EV treatment. Expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines was decreased in the groups treated with EVDFO, than in the groups treated with EVnon group. The group with EVsiCOX-2 showed no significant difference from that with EVnon (Fig 4A and 4B).

Fig 4. The polarization phase of DH82 is directed into M2 phase when treated with EVs.

Fig 4

(a, b) The mRNA level of IL-1b and IL-6, which is the marker of M1 macrophage phase, was decreased in EV treated groups and significantly decreased in EVDFO treated group compared to EVnon treated group. Conversely, the mRNA levels were similar in EVsiCOX-2 treated group and EVnon treated group. (c-h) CD11b, which is the surface marker of macrophage, was analyzed by immunofluorescence. CD206, which is the surface marker of M2 macrophage phase, was analyzed by immunofluorescence. (e-i) In the EV treated groups, CD 206 with green fluorescence is increased and (f, g) especially more increased in EVDFO group. (h) In the EVsiCOX-2 treated group, CD206 is also increased, but not much compared to EVDFO group. (i) The ratio of CD206/DAPI. Results are shown as means ± standard deviation. ***P < 0.001. ns, not significant.

Using immunofluorescence of CD206, which is a marker of M2 anti-inflammatory phase, we evaluated the polarization phase of DH82 cells. Red staining was against CD11b, which is a marker of macrophage. In naïve DH82 group, red staining was visibly detected and when LPS inducing in DH82, the marker was not changed (Fig 4C and 4D). In EVs treated groups, green stain of CD206 was significantly increased and the red stain was difficult to recognize (Fig 4E–4I). Especially, CD206 was significantly increased in the groups treated with EVDFO (Fig 4F). The group with EVsiCOX-2 showed slight enhancement of CD206, which was not significant compared to that in the group with EVDFO (Fig 4H and 4I).

Discussion

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been studied for their anti-inflammatory therapeutic functions due to paracrine effect [19,20]. Since they interact with immune cells, including macrophages and T cells, MSC secretome is considered to be immunomodulatory and can regulate the anti-inflammatory phase [21,22]. We have recently demonstrated that paracrine effect of cAT-MSCs can significantly reprogram macrophages from M1 pro-inflammatory phase to M2 anti-inflammatory phase [18]. The study proved that secretory function of MSCs plays an important role in cell interaction, especially with inflammatory cells like macrophages. Recently, EVs were reported to play an important role among secretomes, owing to their ability to communicate and deliver substances [2326]. Therefore, we focused on the EVs derived from cAT-MSCs. In the current study, we investigated whether DFO-preconditioned EVs have the potential to direct macrophages to M2 phase. To prove this hypothesis, HIF-1α/COX-2 axis was analyzed in cAT-MSCDFO and EVDFO. After confirming that DFO could effectively increase COX-2 expression in EVs, Canine macrophage cells, DH82, were treated with EVs to confirm the delivery function of EVs and evaluate their effect on macrophage polarization.

First, accumulation of HIF-1α in the nucleus, which is an important indicator of hypoxia, was confirmed by western blot in cAT-MSCDFO (S1B Fig). Some reports had earlier suggested that COX-2 increases significantly with hypoxic culture under HIF-1α signal pathway [27] and is associated with both anti-inflammatory effect and macrophage polarization [28,29]. In cAT-MSCDFO, both RNA and protein expression of COX-2 was increased, implying that DFO preconditioning could increase HIF-1α accumulation, and transcription of COX-2 was activated under HIF-1α pathway (Fig 2A and 2B).

Some reports have revealed that the same proteins may be detected either in MSC cytoplasm or in MSC secretomes and EVs [3032]. In the current study as well, expression change of COX-2 protein in the cytosol of cAT-MSCs were also reflected in the EVs. EVs from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSC were enriched with COX-2 molecules (Fig 3A).

HIF-1α and COX-2/PGE2 pathway are known to be associated with STAT3 activation [33,34], which is an important factor in macrophage M2 anti-inflammatory phase [3537]. Previously published reports had suggested that macrophages are polarized into M2 phase when various molecules, such as miRNA, are delivered through EVs and stimulate STAT3 pathway in the macrophages [3840]. Another study had revealed that not only miRNA, but proteins also can be transmitted into macrophage through EVs, and play their role [37].

The delivery system of EVs has been reported to play an important role in the anti-inflammatory effect of stem cells, especially in relation to macrophages [41]. Reprogramming macrophages from pro-inflammatory M1 phase to anti-inflammatory M2 phase is the most important mechanism in controlling immune homeostasis [42], and EVs regulate this polarization phase by transferring substances from stem cells to macrophages [43,44]. Therefore, we focused on the effect of COX-2 transferred by EVs to STAT3 signaling in macrophages. When the expression of pSTAT3 and STAT3 in LPS-induced DH82 were evaluated, these factors in LPS-induced DH82 treated with EVDFO were increased over than with EVnon (Fig 3B).

The expression change of pSTAT3 in LPS-induced DH82 could be associated with macrophage phase. Thus, we evaluated macrophage phase of LPS-induced DH82 with EVs treating. In LPS-induced DH82 cells treated with EVs, which were increased with pSTAT, the marker of M1 was reduced while that of M2 was increased (Fig 4A–4I). These changes were greater with EVDFO. Considering all the results, EVs could deliver COX-2 to LPS-induced DH82, and might lead to M2 polarization by activating the phosphorylation of STAT3. Moreover, DFO preconditioning in cAT-MSCs enhance the macrophage directing effect through activating HIF-1α/COX-2 axis.

In this study, a limitation was that it was not clear whether substances such as miRNA in EVs could be stimulated to activate STAT3. Therefore, further studies would be required to analyze the changes in miRNA levels in cAT-MSCDFO and EVDFO. However, this study found that preconditioning with DFO could affect COX-2 in cAT-MSCs and acted as anti-inflammatory molecules. EVDFO contained COX-2 protein and could effectively reprogram macrophage polarization into M2 phase via protein delivery system. The findings presented the therapeutic possibility of EVDFO, which could be used in treating inflammatory diseases through macrophage reprogramming.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this report is the first to reveal that DFO preconditioning affects EVs and macrophage polarization via EVs. DFO preconditioning increased anti-inflammatory factors, such as COX-2 in cAT-MSCs, and also increased COX-2 molecules in EVs. EVDFO delivered COX-2 to macrophages, which then led to M2 anti-inflammatory phase by activating STAT3 phosphorylation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(a) Depending on DFO concentration, cell viability was not affected under 500 μΜ and was decreased in 1mM. (b) HIF-1α was accumulated in the nuclear of cAT-MSCDFO, which showed that DFO treatment could accumulate HIF-1α in cAT-MSC nucleus. Results are shown as means ± standard deviation. *P < 0.05. ns, not significant.

(TIF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education in the form of funds granted to WJS [2019R1A6A1A10072987].

References

  • 1.Lai RC, Yeo RWY, Lim SK, editors. Mesenchymal stem cell exosomes. Seminars in cell & developmental biology; 2015: Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hessvik NP, Llorente A. Current knowledge on exosome biogenesis and release. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2018;75(2):193–208. doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2595-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Phinney DG, Pittenger MF. Concise review: MSC‐derived exosomes for cell‐free therapy. Stem cells. 2017;35(4):851–8. doi: 10.1002/stem.2575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sterzenbach U, Putz U, Low L-H, Silke J, Tan S-S, Howitt J. Engineered exosomes as vehicles for biologically active proteins. Molecular Therapy. 2017;25(6):1269–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.03.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hong P, Yang H, Wu Y, Li K, Tang Z. The functions and clinical application potential of exosomes derived from adipose mesenchymal stem cells: a comprehensive review. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2019;10(1):242. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1358-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cui GH, Wu J, Mou FF, Xie WH, Wang FB, Wang QL, et al. Exosomes derived from hypoxia‐preconditioned mesenchymal stromal cells ameliorate cognitive decline by rescuing synaptic dysfunction and regulating inflammatory responses in APP/PS1 mice. The FASEB Journal. 2018;32(2):654–68. doi: 10.1096/fj.201700600R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fujisawa K, Takami T, Okada S, Hara K, Matsumoto T, Yamamoto N, et al. Analysis of metabolomic changes in mesenchymal stem cells on treatment with desferrioxamine as a hypoxia mimetic compared with hypoxic conditions. Stem Cells. 2018;36(8):1226–36. doi: 10.1002/stem.2826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ding J, Wang X, Chen B, Zhang J, Xu J. Exosomes derived from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells stimulated by deferoxamine accelerate cutaneous wound healing by promoting angiogenesis. BioMed research international. 2019;2019. doi: 10.1155/2019/9742765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 9.Wang GL, Semenza GL. Desferrioxamine induces erythropoietin gene expression and hypoxia-inducible factor 1 DNA-binding activity: implications for models of hypoxia signal transduction. 1993. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Basciano L, Nemos C, Foliguet B, de Isla N, de Carvalho M, Tran N, et al. Long term culture of mesenchymal stem cells in hypoxia promotes a genetic program maintaining their undifferentiated and multipotent status. BMC cell biology. 2011;12(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-12-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pezzi A, Amorin B, Laureano Á, Valim V, Dahmer A, Zambonato B, et al. Effects of hypoxia in long‐term in vitro expansion of human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells. Journal of cellular biochemistry. 2017;118(10):3072–9. doi: 10.1002/jcb.25953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zagórska A, Dulak J. HIF-1: the knowns and unknowns of hypoxia sensing. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2004;51(3). doi: 045103563 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee JJ, Natsuizaka M, Ohashi S, Wong GS, Takaoka M, Michaylira CZ, et al. Hypoxia activates the cyclooxygenase-2–prostaglandin E synthase axis. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31(3):427–34. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgp326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yang H-M, Song W-J, Li Q, Kim S-Y, Kim H-J, Ryu M-O, et al. Canine mesenchymal stem cells treated with TNF-α and IFN-γ enhance anti-inflammatory effects through the COX-2/PGE2 pathway. Research in veterinary science. 2018;119:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2018.05.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Han Y, Guo W, Ren T, Huang Y, Wang S, Liu K, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages promote lung metastasis and induce epithelial-mesenchymal transition in osteosarcoma by activating the COX-2/STAT3 axis. Cancer letters. 2019;440:116–25. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nakamura R, Sene A, Santeford A, Gdoura A, Kubota S, Zapata N, et al. IL10-driven STAT3 signalling in senescent macrophages promotes pathological eye angiogenesis. Nature communications. 2015;6(1):1–14. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Roberts J, Fallon PG, Hams E. The Pivotal Role of Macrophages in Metabolic Distress. Macrophage Activation-Biology and Disease: IntechOpen; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Park S-M, Li Q, Ryu M-O, Nam A, An J-H, Yang J-I, et al. Preconditioning of canine adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells with deferoxamine potentiates anti-inflammatory effects by directing/reprogramming M2 macrophage polarization. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 2020;219:109973. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2019.109973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Samadi P, Saki S, Khoshinani HM, Sheykhhasan M. Therapeutic applications of mesenchymal stem cells: A comprehensive review. Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Huang P, Gebhart N, Richelson E, Brott TG, Meschia JF, Zubair AC. Mechanism of mesenchymal stem cell–induced neuron recovery and anti-inflammation. Cytotherapy. 2014;16(10):1336–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2014.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sargent A, Miller RH. MSC therapeutics in chronic inflammation. Current stem cell reports. 2016;2(2):168–73. doi: 10.1007/s40778-016-0044-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kim J, Hematti P. Mesenchymal stem cell–educated macrophages: A novel type of alternatively activated macrophages. Experimental hematology. 2009;37(12):1445–53. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2009.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Riau A, Ong HS, Yam GH, Mehta J. Sustained delivery system for stem cell-derived exosomes. Frontiers in pharmacology. 2019;10:1368. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Baek G, Choi H, Kim Y, Lee HC, Choi C. Mesenchymal stem cell‐derived extracellular vesicles as therapeutics and as a drug delivery platform. Stem cells translational medicine. 2019;8(9):880–6. doi: 10.1002/sctm.18-0226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bruno S, Grange C, Deregibus MC, Calogero RA, Saviozzi S, Collino F, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived microvesicles protect against acute tubular injury. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2009;20(5):1053–67. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008070798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kusuma GD, Carthew J, Lim R, Frith JE. Effect of the microenvironment on mesenchymal stem cell paracrine signaling: opportunities to engineer the therapeutic effect. Stem cells and development. 2017;26(9):617–31. doi: 10.1089/scd.2016.0349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Han KH, Kim AK, Kim MH, Kim DH, Go HN, Kim DI. Enhancement of angiogenic effects by hypoxia‐preconditioned human umbilical cord‐derived mesenchymal stem cells in a mouse model of hindlimb ischemia. Cell biology international. 2016;40(1):27–35. doi: 10.1002/cbin.10519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Luo C, Urgard E, Vooder T, Metspalu A. The role of COX-2 and Nrf2/ARE in anti-inflammation and antioxidative stress: Aging and anti-aging. Medical hypotheses. 2011;77(2):174–8. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jin L, Deng Z, Zhang J, Yang C, Liu J, Han W, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells promote type 2 macrophage polarization to ameliorate the myocardial injury caused by diabetic cardiomyopathy. Journal of translational medicine. 2019;17(1):251. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1999-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Selmani Z, Naji A, Zidi I, Favier B, Gaiffe E, Obert L, et al. Human leukocyte antigen‐G5 secretion by human mesenchymal stem cells is required to suppress T lymphocyte and natural killer function and to induce CD4+ CD25highFOXP3+ regulatory T cells. Stem cells. 2008;26(1):212–22. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schaeffer D, Tsanova B, Barbas A, Reis FP, Dastidar EG, Sanchez-Rotunno M, et al. The exosome contains domains with specific endoribonuclease, exoribonuclease and cytoplasmic mRNA decay activities. Nature structural & molecular biology. 2009;16(1):56–62. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jansen FH, Krijgsveld J, van Rijswijk A, van den Bemd G-J, van den Berg MS, van Weerden WM, et al. Exosomal secretion of cytoplasmic prostate cancer xenograft-derived proteins. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. 2009;8(6):1192–205. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M800443-MCP200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yu X, Wan Q, Cheng G, Cheng X, Zhang J, Pathak JL, et al. CoCl2, a mimic of hypoxia, enhances bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells migration and osteogenic differentiation via STAT3 signaling pathway. Cell biology international. 2018;42(10):1321–9. doi: 10.1002/cbin.11017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liu Q, Ji S, Xia T, Liu J, Liu Z, Chen X, et al. MCP-1 Priming Enhanced the Therapeutic Effects of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells on Contact Hypersensitivity by Activating the COX2-PGE2/STAT3 Pathway. Stem cells and development. 2020. doi: 10.1089/scd.2020.0035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hollander L, Guo X, Velazquez H, Chang J, Safirstein R, Kluger H, et al. Renalase expression by melanoma and tumor-associated macrophages promotes tumor growth through a STAT3-mediated mechanism. Cancer research. 2016;76(13):3884–94. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shiraishi D, Fujiwara Y, Komohara Y, Mizuta H, Takeya M. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) induces M2 polarization of human macrophages via STAT3 activation. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2012;425(2):304–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.07.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhao H, Shang Q, Pan Z, Bai Y, Li Z, Zhang H, et al. Exosomes from adipose-derived stem cells attenuate adipose inflammation and obesity through polarizing M2 macrophages and beiging in white adipose tissue. Diabetes. 2018;67(2):235–47. doi: 10.2337/db17-0356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Heo JS, Choi Y, Kim HO. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells promote M2 macrophage phenotype through exosomes. Stem cells international. 2019;2019. doi: 10.1155/2019/7921760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sun Y, Li Q, Gui H, Xu D-P, Yang Y-L, Su D-F, et al. MicroRNA-124 mediates the cholinergic anti-inflammatory action through inhibiting the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Cell research. 2013;23(11):1270–83. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Haneklaus M, Gerlic M, O’Neill LA, Masters S. miR‐223: infection, inflammation and cancer. Journal of internal medicine. 2013;274(3):215–26. doi: 10.1111/joim.12099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sicco CL, Reverberi D, Balbi C, Ulivi V, Principi E, Pascucci L, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell‐derived extracellular vesicles as mediators of anti‐inflammatory effects: Endorsement of macrophage polarization. Stem cells translational medicine. 2017;6(3):1018–28. doi: 10.1002/sctm.16-0363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Genua M, Ingangi V, Fonteyne P, Piontini A, Yousif AM, Merlino F, et al. Treatment with a urokinase receptor-derived cyclized peptide improves experimental colitis by preventing monocyte recruitment and macrophage polarization. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2016;22(10):2390–401. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lankford KL, Arroyo EJ, Nazimek K, Bryniarski K, Askenase PW, Kocsis JD. Intravenously delivered mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes target M2-type macrophages in the injured spinal cord. PloS one. 2018;13(1):e0190358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Willis GR, Fernandez-Gonzalez A, Reis M, Mitsialis SA, Kourembanas S. Macrophage immunomodulation: the gatekeeper for mesenchymal stem cell derived-exosomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension? International journal of molecular sciences. 2018;19(9):2534. doi: 10.3390/ijms19092534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nazmul Haque

9 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-01800

Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Song,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by April 17, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nazmul Haque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes the effects of DFO preconditioning on the effects of MSC-derived EVs on DH82 cells. The authors find that DFO preconditioning alters composition of EVs by increasing COX-2 levels, and STAT3 phosphorylation in target cells with concomitant M2 transition.

The manuscript has several major issue, namely

(1) Figures are all of very low resolution, which do not allow to interpret most of the results;

(2) The logic of the manuscript lack the order and should be restructured to be more reader-friendly;

(3) Experimental design and methods are poorly described;

(4) Many controls are either lacking or not mentioned:

(5) Effects of EVs on the recipient cells should be analyzed in more detailed, at least at the transcriptome level.

Other comments will be provided when high-resolution images are uploaded. Otherwise, over a half of all the results are not recognizable in the Figures. English language should be checked.

Other minor and major comments with no specific order are provided below:

Abstract:

EVnon and IF are not explained. Please, correct.

The results section in the abstract is vaguely described and does not correspond well with the conclusion. Please, make it more reader-friendly and present the most important results with the most important approaches used.

From the abstract section it is also not clear, what species of MSCs was used (human, canine?). Please, make it evident from the start.

Methods section

Lines 84-85: it is unclear when EVs were isolated and how.

Transfection of cAT-MSCs with siRNA: what is the transfection efficiency?

COX-2 knockdown should be verified by western blotting.

Isolation and characterization of EVs…: it is unclear at which point after DFO treatment EVs were isolated.

Line 173: please, change “100nm” to 100 nm

Results section

All figures have very low resolution. Please, change all images

Figure 1: with the current resolution, it is not possible to interpret this image.

Figure 2

Figure 2(a): please, change the scale to have 100% cell viability. It is the idea; you should show it does not drop significantly below 100%. How cell viability was measured? Please, describe it in detail in the Methods section.

Information about Antibodies for all targets (Lamin A, HIF-1a etc) should be provided.

The authors state that 100 uM of DFO was used for all experiments with a reference to a published manuscript. From this reasoning, experiments at Figure 2a, and b do not add anything to the manuscript. They should be removed or added to the Supplementary with according modification of the manuscript.

Figure 2c and 2d and Figure 3 and Figure 4: These images cannot be adequately interpreted due to low resolution. I will leave my comments here after the authors consider uploading images of higher resolution.

Figure 3a: COX-2 levels in EVs need to be normalized to particle number or to EVs marker. Otherwise, this data does not guarantee that the observed differences in COX-2 are related to higher COX-2 levels, not to the differences in particle numbers

Figure 3b: what are the lines corresponding to the targets? Please, clearly show it with arrows. Quantitative analysis will also be helpful, as by visual inspection the levels do not change dramatically.

Figure 4: the graphs should state the reference control for the targets

Figure 4c: the scale bar is not visible. What is the red fluorescence at all images? Red color is clearly

Figure 4c: the authors should perform quantitative analysis of CD206 staining to understand the differences between the groups. Single images are not sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. For instance, difference between LPS+EVsictl and LPS+EVsiCOX-2 is not readily visible and may just represent arbitrary differences between visual fields.

IF analysis for CD206 measurement is also not the best option. It is necessary to perform FACS analysis and provide information about populations with CD206 intensities.

Supplementary Figure is of low resolution. It is also not structured and is hard to interpret.

Experimental schemes for every experiment is required. From the methods and results section, it is not clear how they were performed, what was the duration of the treatments etc. Please, provide such information.

What was the number of EVs for every experiment? Was it quantified and similar particle numbers added to equal amounts of DH82 cells?

Broader analysis of the DH82 transcriptome with STAT3 targets will be valuable to see the whole picture of EVs effects (altered EVs->molecular changes->functional changes)

In the Discussion section, references to the Figures are necessary.

Reviewer #2: The study by Dr Park and colleagues showed that DFO preconditioning promoted accumulation of HIF-1a in the nuclei and increased expression of COX-2 in both MSCs and MSC-EVs. The authors further suggested that EVs-DFO were able to reprogram M1 macrophages to M2 anti-inflammatory cells. The findings sound interesting, however, several concerns are raised.

Major

1. COX-2 is known as an enzyme involved in various inflammatory conditions, in particular, HIF-1a/COX-2 and its product PG are potent proinflammatory factors. However, the authors claim DFO preconditioned EVs that contain higher COX2 are anti-inflammatory. The authors need to discuss this obvious conflict.

2. LPS used in this study was reported to upregulate expression of COX-2 previously, how was COX-2 expression affected by LPS or LPS+EVs in Figs 3 and 4?

3. In inflammatory conditions, cox-2 inhibitors suppress expression of proinflammatory factors including IL-1b and IL6, however, in the current study, the authors show that DFO EVs abundant in cox-2 protein could reduce expression of these 2 proinflammatory markers in canine macrophages. How to explain these results?

4. The statistical significance was stated in Figures 2 and 4, however, there was no description of biological duplications. How many independent experiments were performed? And the authors claimed “significance” on protein expression based on WB data, however, no quantitative data were presented in figures 2 and 3.

Minor points

5. What is “IF”?

6. In figure 4, what is the red staining?

7. MSC EVs produced upon DFO precondition were reported in Ref 6, the findings should be discussed.

Reviewer #3: Park et al., isolated canine adipose tissue derived-mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and preconditioned with deferoxamine (DFO) in an attempt to promote their anti-inflammatory effect on macrophage M2 polarization via extracellular vesicles, the authors used different approaches to prove their hypothesis. Although the study is interesting; I have major concerns as follows:

Major concerns:

1. In Materials and methods section, isolation of MSCs was not well-described. Please describe briefly the isolation method, as MSCs are the core cells of the study.

2. Suppl figure 1 which represents the successful isolation of MSCs should be moved to Figure 1 not in the supplement.

3. The authors used antibodies against CD29, CD44, CD45, and CD34; are those adequate markers for MSCs? What about CD90, CD105, and CD73 MSC markers? There is no information about the antibodies used, are against human or canine? Is there amino acid sequence homology from human and canine for those markers to use these antibodies? Please discuss.

4. The authors used the human COX2 siRNA or control siRNA (sc-29279 and sc-37007, respectively; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) against canine-COX-2. Please explain.

5. Exosomal marker CD63 should be done to confirm EVs isolation. According to http://exocarta.org/Archive/ExoCarta_top100_protein_details_5.txt, ACTB is a marker for exosomes (faint band appears on the blot). The authors need non exosomal-associated proteins like calnexin or GM-130 to be done.

6. In figure 2b, there is no indication what 100, 500 numbers? Should µM and DFO added on panel

7. In figure 2 legend, '' **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001'' is written, however, significance only *, *** as indicated on panels figure 2a&C.

8. In figure 4c-h, there is red staining, correspond to which staining?

9. To prove polarization of macrophage M1, the authors need to quantitatively quantify at least M1 markers HLA-DR and to prove reprogramming, at least M2 marker CD206 should be done by flow cytometry.

10. An experiment is needed to prove EVs internalization to mediate macrophage polarization.

Overall, the research design is not appropriate, and poor English-written manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript is not suitable to get published in Plos one Journal.

Reviewer #4: the manuscript"Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase" is well written. The experimental data are clear and specific. The discussion of the results appears well discussed and reinforced by the current literature. In my opinion the manuscript can be published without revision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 26;16(7):e0254657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254657.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Nazmul Haque

We are very pleased to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase” for Plos one. We want to extend our appreciation to you and the reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We have carefully considered comments offered by the reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the research based on those comments and recommendations. The manuscript has certainly improved from these revision suggestions. We look forward to working further with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication.

Reviewer #1:

1. COMMENTS: Figures are all of very low resolution, which do not allow to interpret most of the results;

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We corrected all the figures in high resolution.

2. COMMENTS: The logic of the manuscript lack the order and should be restructured to be more reader-friendly; Experimental design and methods are poorly described; Many controls are either lacking or not mentioned:

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We corrected the manuscript to legibly and more easily understand, especially abstract and discussion. We wish this will helps to readers understand.

3. COMMENTS: Effects of EVs on the recipient cells should be analyzed in more detailed, at least at the transcriptome level.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. In this regard, we also think that point is a limitation of our research. However, it is a first report that COX-2 in EVs could modulate p-STAT activation in macrophage and this is involved in reprogramming of M2 phase. The findings also have significant result and based on these results, we will identify transcriptome levels such as mRNA in further study.

4. COMMENTS: [Abstract section] EV non and IF are not explained. Please, correct.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We described about EVnon in page 2, lane 28. Also, we changed “IF” into “immunofluorescence” in abstracts, page 2 lane 36.

5. COMMENTS: [Abstract section] The results section in the abstract is vaguely described and does not correspond well with the conclusion. Please, make it more reader-friendly and present the most important results with the most important approaches used.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We revised the result section in abstract more legibly. We hope it helped you to understand.

6. COMMENTS: [Abstract section] From the abstract section it is also not clear, what species of MSCs was used (human, canine?). Please, make it evident from the start.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We added the “canine” in front of MSC in page 2, lane 27 & 28. We also modified the part of title as “canine AT-MSCs” to improve understanding of readers.

7. COMMENTS: [Methods section] Lines 84-85: it is unclear when EVs were isolated and how.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. 100 �M DFO was treated for 48 hours when the confluency of cAT-MSC was at 70-80%. After the 48 hours, the medium was collected and EVs were isolated as mentioned in page 6 lane 112-117. We corrected the sentence as “When cAT-MSCs were approximately 70% confluent, 100 �M DFO was added for 48 h in DMEM with 10% exosome-depleted FBS (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Massachusetts, USA) and 1% PS (PAN Biotech).” in page 5 lane 97-100.

8. COMMENTS: [Methods section] Transfection of cAT-MSCs with siRNA: what is the transfection efficiency? COX-2 knockdown should be verified by western blotting.

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. In figure 2 c and d, COX-2 knock down in cAT-MSC was confirmed and we added graph that quantitively analyzed figure 2d. In siCOX-2 treating group, the mRNA and protein expression was significantly decreased, so the efficacy was proven.

9. COMMENTS: [Methods section] Isolation and characterization of EVs…: it is unclear at which point after DFO treatment EVs were isolated.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. As we answered in comment 9, we corrected the sentence and this will help to understand when the EVs were isolated after DFO treatment.

10. COMMENTS: [Methods section] Line 173: please, change “100nm” to 100 nm

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We changed to “100 mm”

11. COMMENTS: [Results section] All figures have very low resolution. Please, change all images. Figure 1: with the current resolution, it is not possible to interpret this image.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We corrected all the figures in high resolution.

12. COMMENTS: [Results section] Figure 2(a): please, change the scale to have 100% cell viability. It is the idea; you should show it does not drop significantly below 100%. How cell viability was measured? Please, describe it in detail in the Methods section.

The authors state that 100 uM of DFO was used for all experiments with a reference to a published manuscript. From this reasoning, experiments at Figure 2a, and b do not add anything to the manuscript. They should be removed or added to the Supplementary with according modification of the manuscript.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. As we accepting your comment, Figure 2 a & b were moved into supplementary figure 2. We change the Figure 2a as the scale to have 100% and there was no significant difference in cell viability between control, the groups treated with 10, 100 and 500 �M DFO. We also added the method of cell viability analysis in supplementary information.

13. COMMENTS: Information about Antibodies for all targets (Lamin A, HIF-1a etc) should be provided.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We missed the information about Lamin A antibody. Including Lamin A, all the antibodies used in this experiment were mentioned in page 7, lane 151-154.

14. COMMENTS: Figure 2c and 2d and Figure 3 and Figure 4: These images cannot be adequately interpreted due to low resolution. I will leave my comments here after the authors consider uploading images of higher resolution.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We corrected all the figures in high resolution. We wish that this will helps you to understand and we would appreciate if you could give an additional review. Also, Figure 2, 3 & 4 were corrected in the process of accepting other reviewer’s comment.

15. COMMENTS: Figure 3a: COX-2 levels in EVs need to be normalized to particle number or to EVs marker. Otherwise, this data does not guarantee that the observed differences in COX-2 are related to higher COX-2 levels, not to the differences in particle numbers

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We quantified EVs and 25 μg of EVs were loaded on blot. Therefore, there was more COX-2 protein in EVDFO compared to same amount of EVnon.

16. COMMENTS: Figure 3b: what are the lines corresponding to the targets? Please, clearly show it with arrows. Quantitative analysis will also be helpful, as by visual inspection the levels do not change dramatically.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. The arrow means that LPS and EVs were treated in DH82 and the protein expression results have been analyzed in DH82. We also added the graph that quantified western blot result.

17. COMMENTS: Figure 4: the graphs should state the reference control for the targets.

Figure 4c: the scale bar is not visible. What is the red fluorescence at all images? Red color is clearly

Figure 4c: the authors should perform quantitative analysis of CD206 staining to understand the differences between the groups. Single images are not sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. For instance, difference between LPS+EVsiCTL and LPS+EVsiCOX-2 is not readily visible and may just represent arbitrary differences between visual fields.

IF analysis for CD206 measurement is also not the best option. It is necessary to perform FACS analysis and provide information about populations with CD206 intensities.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. We fixed the scale bar as visible. Red staining was against CD11b which is the marker of macrophage. Red staining was detected in DH82 cell lines and inducing with LPS did not changed CD11b expression. In EV treated groups, the red stain was not significantly detected and difficult to recognize, because of green fluorescence. However, CD206 alone could proves that the macrophages were not spoiled or changed into other cells. We added this description in revised manuscript in page 12, lane 247-249.

In this report, we focused on that EVs could induce macrophage into M2 phase. Although it was analyzed with the immunofluorescence, as we mentioned in manuscript, immunoreactive cells were calculated with 20 random fields per group as per the ratio of DAPI/CD206-positive cells to evaluate objectively. We also added figure 4i which was calculated and analyzed the ratio of DAPI/CD206-positive.

18. COMMENTS: Supplementary Figure is of low resolution. It is also not structured and is hard to interpret.

Experimental schemes for every experiment is required. From the methods and results section, it is not clear how they were performed, what was the duration of the treatments etc. Please, provide such information.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We corrected supplementary figures in high resolution. We also added the figure and figure legend in material and methods that explain about DFO treatment, siRNA treatment and EVs isolation.

19. COMMENTS: What was the number of EVs for every experiment? Was it quantified and similar particle numbers added to equal amounts of DH82 cells?

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. As we mentioned in page 8, lane 163, we quantified amount of EVs and DH82 cells were treated with EVs 50 μg/well for 48 h.

20. COMMENTS: Broader analysis of the DH82 transcriptome with STAT3 targets will be valuable to see the whole picture of EVs effects (altered EVs->molecular changes->functional changes)

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising important point. We also think that broader analysis of EVs transcriptome and molecular changes in DH82 is needed. In this experiment, the possibility of DFO was shown that could improve COX-2 in EVs and these molecular changes could be transported to macrophage. It suggests that further research is very meaningful and we will identify more detailed molecules in further study.

21. COMMENTS: In the Discussion section, references to the Figures are necessary.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We added the references to the Figures in discussion section.

Reviewer #2:

1. COMMENT: COX-2 is known as an enzyme involved in various inflammatory conditions, in particular, HIF-1a/COX-2 and its product PG are potent proinflammatory factors. However, the authors claim DFO preconditioned EVs that contain higher COX2 are anti-inflammatory. The authors need to discuss this obvious conflict.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. COX-2 is previously known as pro-inflammatory cytokine. COX-2 alone may be an inflammatory substance, but a secondary effect through macrophage is an anti-inflammatory pathway. The correlation between COX-2 and macrophage was recently revealed that COX-2 change the macrophage phase into M2 phase. These M2 macrophages activate helper T cells and secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines (Fernando O. M. et al., 2014). Thus, DFO preconditioning to canine MSC increase COX-2 expression and this cytokine could induce macrophage into M2 phase which is anti-inflammatory state.

2. COMMENT: LPS used in this study was reported to upregulate expression of COX-2 previously, how was COX-2 expression affected by LPS or LPS+EVs in Figs 3 and 4?

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. Firstly, COX-2 was detected and analyzed in cAT-MSC and EVs. EVs that contained COX-2 was treated in LPS conditioned macrophages. In macrophage, COX-2 was not measured, but the markers of macrophage phase were analyzed such as IL-1b and IL-6.

LPS also induce elevation of COX-2 and STAT3 expression in macrophage (A. Baldwin Jr. et al., 1996; Xeufang Liu et al., 2018). However, considering that response of STAT3 is different between those treated only with LPS and those treated with EVs, we thought that COX-2 induced by LPS and COX-2 transferred by EVs might behave through different pathway. We are also interested in this difference and are considering further research.

3. COMMENT: In inflammatory conditions, cox-2 inhibitors suppress expression of proinflammatory factors including IL-1b and IL6, however, in the current study, the authors show that DFO EVs abundant in cox-2 protein could reduce expression of these 2 proinflammatory markers in canine macrophages. How to explain these results?

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. COX-2 expressed in immune cells is known as initiating the inflammatory response by production of proinflammatory prostaglandins and proinflammatory cytokines. Because of this, a therapeutic strategy for inflammatory diseases has involved inhibition of COX-2, such as Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, recently, several reports found that COX-2–derived oxidative metabolites in activated macrophages possess anti-inflammatory (Groeger A.G. et al., 2010). COX-2 derived from MSC promote macrophage into M2 anti-inflammatory phase (Vineet K. M. et al., 2020). Thus, COX-2 derived from MSC transfer through EVs and, in this process, several substances such as membrane phospholipid may work together to reprogram macrophage into M2, which has an anti-inflammatory effect. Further research is needed on which substances are involved in M2 reprogramming.

4. COMMENT: The statistical significance was stated in Figures 2 and 4, however, there was no description of biological duplications. How many independent experiments were performed? And the authors claimed “significance” on protein expression based on WB data, however, no quantitative data were presented in figures 2 and 3.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. All experiment was performed three time as duplicate. Each quantitative data is added on Figure 2 and 3.

5. COMMENT: What is “IF”?

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. We changed “IF” into “immunofluorescence” in abstracts, page 2 lane 36.

6. COMMENT: In figure 4, what is the red staining?

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. Red staining was against CD11b which is the marker of macrophage. Red staining was detected in DH82 cell lines and inducing with LPS did not changed CD11b expression. In EV treated groups, the red stain was not significantly detected and difficult to recognize, because of green fluorescence. However, CD206 alone could proves that the macrophages were not spoiled or changed into other cells. We added this description in revised manuscript in page 12, lane 247-249.

7. COMMENT: MSC EVs produced upon DFO precondition were reported in Ref 6, the findings should be discussed.

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. We changed the sentence as “Several studies have shown deferoxamine (DFO), a hypoxia mimetic agent, to be usable in hypoxia preconditioning [7] and improve angiogenesis effect of MSC-derived EVs [8]”. Also the reference number was changed as Ref 8.

Reviewer #3

1. COMMENT: In Materials and methods section, isolation of MSCs was not well-described. Please describe briefly the isolation method, as MSCs are the core cells of the study.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. We added isolation method of canine adipose derived MSC briefly in page 4 lane 78.

2. COMMENT: Suppl figure 1 which represents the successful isolation of MSCs should be moved to Figure 1 not in the supplement.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind comment. Accepting your comment, supplement figures were moved to figure 1 and also the relevant content in manuscript has been revised in page 9, lane 177-182.

3. COMMENT: The authors used antibodies against CD29, CD44, CD45, and CD34; are those adequate markers for MSCs? What about CD90, CD105, and CD73 MSC markers? There is no information about the antibodies used, are against human or canine? Is there amino acid sequence homology from human and canine for those markers to use these antibodies? Please discuss.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. The markers of canine mesenchymal stem cell were revealed as positive in CD 29, CD 44, CD 73, CD 90 and negative in CD 34, CD 45 and MCH-II (Ana I. et al., 2017; Keith A. R. et al., 2016). CD 73 also showed moderate positive expression in canine MSC, but not strong. The antibodies used in this experiment were all for canine specific antibodies, and the antibodies available for purchase were selected and experimented. Specific antibody information is described in supporting information.

4. COMMENT: The authors used the human COX2 siRNA or control siRNA (sc-29279 and sc-37007, respectively; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) against canine-COX-2. Please explain.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your detailed comment. Since there is no commercial siRNA available for canine. However, it was found to be sufficiently useful considering that in present report, mRNA and protein expression of COX-2 was significantly decreased using COX-2 siRNA.

5. COMMENT: Exosomal marker CD63 should be done to confirm EVs isolation. According to http://exocarta.org/Archive/ExoCarta_top100_protein_details_5.txt, ACTB is a marker for exosomes (faint band appears on the blot). The authors need non exosomal-associated proteins like calnexin or GM-130 to be done.

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. As far as we know that currently there is no consensus about general markers of EVs. The several markers were confirmed and in several papers, β-actin is used as negative marker of exosome (Shin L. S. et al., 2020; Lin C. et al., 2020; Hairong W. et al., 2018). Also, we used CD81 and CD9 as positive marker of EVs and these makers are broadly used as typical markers of EVs. Therefore, these markers have already been certified in other papers, and we have also verified by measuring size of EVs. So we determined that EVs, which were separated, have no problem with proceeding experiment. We hope this will help to persuade you.

6. COMMENT: In figure 2b, there is no indication what 100, 500 numbers? Should µM and DFO added on panel

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. We moved the figure 2b to supplementary figure 2 by accepting comments from the other reviewer. Figure was corrected as marking the concentration of DFO.

7. COMMENT: In figure 2 legend, '' **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001'' is written, however, significance only *, *** as indicated on panels figure 2a&C.

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. We moved Figure 2a &b to supplementary figure 1 as accepting the comment of the other reviewer. Thus, we deleted “**P < 0.01” in figure 2 legend and in supplementary figure legend, fixed as *P < 0.05.

8. COMMENT: In figure 4c-h, there is red staining, correspond to which staining?

RESPONSE: Thank you for detailed comment. We fixed the scale bar as visible. Red staining was against CD11b which is the marker of macrophage. Red staining was detected in DH82 cell lines and inducing with LPS did not changed CD11b expression. In EV treated groups, the red stain was not significantly detected and difficult to recognize, because of green fluorescence. However, CD206 alone could proves that the macrophages were not spoiled or changed into other cells. We added this description in revised manuscript in page 12, lane 247-249.

9. COMMENT: To prove polarization of macrophage M1, the authors need to quantitatively quantify at least M1 markers HLA-DR and to prove reprogramming, at least M2 marker CD206 should be done by flow cytometry.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point and thank you for letting me know the important approaches. In this report, we focused on that EVs could induce macrophage into M2 phase. Although it was analyzed with the immunofluorescence, as we mentioned in manuscript, immunoreactive cells were calculated with 20 random fields per group as per the ratio of DAPI/CD206-positive cells to evaluate objectively. We also added figure 4i which was calculated and analyzed the ratio of DAPI/CD206-positive.

10. COMMENT: An experiment is needed to prove EVs internalization to mediate macrophage polarization.

RESPONSE: Thank you for raising the important point. We also thought about internalization, and in this experiment, we thought that the internalization effect of EVs to macrophage could be indirectly inferred through the difference of macrophage phase and p-STAT3 between groups with and without COX-2 in the EVs.

Reviewer #4: the manuscript "Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase" is well written. The experimental data are clear and specific. The discussion of the results appears well discussed and reinforced by the current literature. In my opinion the manuscript can be published without revision.

COMMENT: Thank you for your agreement.

Sincerely yours,

Woo-Jin, Song

Professor, DVM, Ph.D

Laboratory of veterinary internal medicine, College of veterinary medicine,

Jeju National University

Jeju 63243, Republic of Korea

and

Hwa-Young Youn

Professor, DVM, Ph.D

Laboratory of veterinary internal medicine, College of veterinary medicine,

Seoul National University

Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reveision_Letter_Song.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nazmul Haque

1 Jul 2021

Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned cAT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase

PONE-D-21-01800R1

Dear Dr. Song,

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,

Nazmul Haque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed the major concerns and erased points. In its current form, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed. No further concerns do exist. The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Nazmul Haque

15 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-01800R1

Extracellular vesicles derived from DFO-preconditioned canine AT-MSCs reprogram macrophages into M2 phase

Dear Dr. Song:

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. Nazmul Haque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (a) Depending on DFO concentration, cell viability was not affected under 500 μΜ and was decreased in 1mM. (b) HIF-1α was accumulated in the nuclear of cAT-MSCDFO, which showed that DFO treatment could accumulate HIF-1α in cAT-MSC nucleus. Results are shown as means ± standard deviation. *P < 0.05. ns, not significant.

    (TIF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reveision_Letter_Song.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES