Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0260131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260131

Inhibition of endogenous ouabain by atrial natriuretic peptide is a guanylyl cyclase independent effect

Gulay Tegin 1, Yonglin Gao 1, John M Hamlyn 2, Barbara J Clark 3, Rif S El-Mallakh 1,*
Editor: Luis Eduardo M Quintas4
PMCID: PMC8601428  PMID: 34793577

Abstract

Background

Endogenous ouabain (EO) and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) are important in regulation of sodium and fluid balance. There is indirect evidence that ANP may be involved in the regulation of endogenous cardenolides.

Methods

H295R are human adrenocortical cells known to release EO. Cells were treated with ANP at physiologic concentrations or vehicle (0.1% DMSO), with or without guanylyl cyclase inhibitor 1,2,4 oxadiazolo[4,3-a]quinoxalin-1-one (ODQ). Cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), the intracellular second messenger of ANP, was measured by a chemiluminescent immunoassay and EO was measured by radioimmunoassay of C18 extracted samples.

Results

EO secretion is inhibited by ANP treatment, with the most prolonged inhibition (90 min vs ≤ 60 min) occurring at physiologic ANP concentrations (50 pg/mL). Inhibition of guanylyl cyclase with ODQ, also reduces EO secretion. The inhibitory effects on EO release in response to cotreatment with ANP and ODQ appeared to be additive.

Conclusions

ANP inhibits basal EO secretion, and it is unlikely that this is mediated through ANP-A or ANP-B receptors (the most common natriuretic peptide receptors) or their cGMP second messenger; the underlying mechanisms involved are not revealed in the current studies. The role of ANP in the control of EO synthesis and secretion in vivo requires further investigation.

Introduction

Endogenous cardenolides (ECs) are groups of steroid back-boned chemicals that include ouabain, digoxin, bufodienolides, and their metabolites [15]. These chemicals were originally identified from plants and non-mammalian sources including the foxglove (Digitalis species) [6], climbing oleander (Strophantus gratus and other Apocynaceae) [7], and in toads (Bufo) and frogs (Atelopus) [8]. More recently, it has become clear that these compounds or very similar mammalian counterparts are synthesized and released from adrenal gland and hypothalamus [2, 912]. In the human body, they are thought to play important roles in sodium and fluid homeostasis by affecting sodium- and potassium-activated adenosine triphosphatase (Na+-K+-ATPase) activity, and in cellular signaling pathways [1317]. Their role in blood pressure control has been more extensively examined.

Endogenous ouabain (EO) has been implicated in many cellular mechanisms and physiologic pathologies [17], including modulation of cellular or organ size [18, 19], sodium homeostasis [20], hypertension [21, 22], mood disorders [23, 24], and possibly cancer [25]. This is accomplished via regulation of sodium pump activity [1317] and cellular signaling pathways [2628].

The natriuretic peptide family mainly consists of Atrial Natriuretic Peptide (ANP), Brain or B-type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP), and C-type Natriuretic Peptide (CNP). Each natriuretic peptide in this family appears to induce diuresis, natriuresis, vasodilation, and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system [2931]. Recent research suggests multiple interactions between cardiotonic steroids (CTS) and ANP [32]. Both ANP and ECs are thought to play important roles in sodium and fluid homeostasis. In cardiac tissue, both endogenous cardenolides and ANP were increased in similar pathological conditions [32]. For example, in a study to test possible interactions between ANP and ouabain in the heart it was found that ANP antagonizes stimulation of the Na+-K+-ATPase by low concentrations of ouabain [33]. However, ANP when used alone stimulated Na+-K+-ATPase activity [33].

There are three known natriuretic peptide receptors: Natriuretic Peptide Receptor-A (NPR-A), NPR-B, and NPR-C. ANP and BNP preferentially bind to NPR-A [34], while NPR-C has 50-fold greater affinity to CNP than either ANP or BNP [35]. Both NPR-A and NPR-B are coupled with guanylyl cyclase [34]. In contrast, NPR-C has no guanylyl cyclase activity [36] and has long been thought to act as a natriuretic peptide clearance receptor because it is primarily found in the kidney, has similar affinity for two of the three natriuretic peptides [35, 37], and its elimination in transgenic mice increases the half-life of ANP by 66% [38]. NPR-C appears to be coupled with the G protein and other intracellular signals, but not cGMP [39]. Activation of this receptor with a ring deleted ANP analogue, cANF4-23, which blocks natural ANP and does not increase cGMP, results in natriuresis and reduction of blood pressure in conscious rats [40]. The NPR-C is widely distributed [36] including in the adrenal gland, where it is 5-fold less abundant than NPR-A [41].

The vasodilatory effects of ANP appear to be mediated by stimulation of guanylyl cyclase, elevation of intracellular cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), and activation of cGMP-dependent protein kinase [4244]. ANP increases cGMP production and attenuates agonist-stimulated aldosterone synthesis in adrenal zona glomerulosa cells [42]. Over 30 years ago, ANP was demonstrated to reduce synthesis of a Na+-K+-ATPase inhibitor by brain tissue both in vivo and in vitro [45].

In the present study, we investigated whether ANP is involved in the secretion of EO in H295R human adrenocortical cells, which have previously demonstrated to spontaneously excrete endogenous cardenolides [12] and which have functional ANP receptors [46]. We examined the roles of guanylyl cyclase (using 1H-[1,2,4]oxadiazolo[4,3-a] quinoxaline-1-one {ODQ} to inhibit the enzyme) and cGMP in mediating an inhibitory effect of ANP on EO synthesis.

Methods

Cell culture

Human adrenocortical cells (H295R) were from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). NCI-H295R was adapted from the NCI-H295 pluripotent adrenocortical carcinoma cell line (ATCC CRL-10296). While the original cells grew in suspension, the adapted cells were selected to grow in a monolayer with a 2 day doubling time.

The cells were grown and maintained in DMEM/F12 medium (GIBCO, Grand Island, NY) containing 25 mL/L NuSerum type I, 10 g/L ITS culture supplements (Corning, NY), and antibiotics in 75 cm2 flasks at 37 °C under a humid atmosphere of 5% CO2−95% air.

Treatments

For the experiments, flasks were seeded with H295R cells and grown to ~80% confluent density at 37°C in air containing 5% CO2 (~1 x 106 cells). Culture medium was removed and discarded; 3.0 mL of Trypsin-EDTA solution (HyClone, Cytiva, Marlborough, MA) were added until the cell layer dispersed (usually within 5 min). Then, 6 mL of complete growth medium were added, and the cell suspension was centrifuged at 125 x g for 5 min. The cell pellet was re-suspended in fresh growth medium. The subculture ratio was 1:3 to 1:4. The media was replaced every 3 days.

H295R human adrenocortical cells were treated with: 1) 0.1% DMSO or ANP (5, 50, 200 pg/mL; California Peptide Research, Inc, Salt Lake City, UT) dissolved in 0.1% DMSO for 30 min, 60 min and 90 min; 2) 0.1% DMSO, 50pg/mL ANP, 10 μM of guanylyl cyclase inhibitor 1,2,4 oxadiazolo[4,3-a]quinoxalin-1-one (ODQ; Cruz Biotechnology, Inc Santa Cruz, CA) for 90min; and 3) pretreated with ODQ for 30min followed by 50 pg/mL ANP for 60 min. Normal serum ANP levels are frequently reported in the mid 30s pg/mL with a range up to 200 pg/mL in renal failure [4749]. The culture media was collected after different time points and different treatment for EO measurements. We only used no treatment controls, and did not examine the effect of adding other non-ANP peptides to the cell cultures. All experiments had 3–6 replicates.

Measurements

H295R human adrenocortical cells were treated with ANP at various concentrations (0, 5, 50, 200 pg/mL) for 30, 60 and 90 min in serum-free medium. The culture media were collected for assay of endogenous ouabain (EO) by radioimmunoassay of C18 extracted samples [50]. In brief, 200 mg Bond Elut C18 columns (Varian) were preconditioned by sequential passage of 3 mls each of 100, 50, 25, and 5% CH3CN in water. Thereafter, each column was washed twice with 3 ml water. For the samples, 10–12 ml of the conditioned cell culture fluid was centrifuged at 2,500 x g for 20 min. The supernatants were applied to the columns which were then washed sequentially with 2 x 3 ml water and 3 ml 5% CH3CN. Differential elution was then used to elute the desired bound steroids as follows: Bound EO was eluted by a 20% CH3CN wash, while less polar steroids including endogenous digoxin-like immunocrossreactive materials [9, 51] and aldosterone, that remained bound after the 20% CH3CN wash were eluted with a 50% CH3CN wash. Sample blanks were run in parallel. In some experiments, the recovery of EO as well as the success of the differential elution was assessed by inclusion of tracer amounts of 3H-ouabain and 3H-digoxin. For immunoassay, all eluates of interest were dried by vacuum centrifugation (Savant) and reconstituted at 60–120 x their original concentration in water. For analysis of the efficiency of steroid recoveries, aliquots of the eluates were taken directly for liquid scintillation counting. The radioimmunoassay was performed in a manner similar to that previously described using the R8 ouabain-antiserum [50] with the exception that a micro format was employed wherein the total assay volume was 50 μL. In this assay, 30 μL was the reconstituted sample and the remainder was comprised of 3H-ouabain (final concentration = 1.35 nM) and buffer. The reaction was incubated at room temperature for one hour and terminated by rapid filtration over glass fiber filters (Whatman GF/B) using a 24 well cell harvester (Brandel). The filters were soaked in scintillation cocktail (Ultima Gold, Perkin Elmer) for 40 hours and then counted (Beckman TA3000) with quench correction. Non-specific binding was determined by inclusion of excess ouabain in the reaction and typically was < 4% of the total bound count. The antiserum exhibits no meaningful crossreactivity (<0.01%) with the vast majority of common adrenocortical, ovarian, or testicular steroids (see Table 1 in [51]). In addition, the immuno-crossreactivities for dihydro-ouabain, digoxin, digitoxin, and aldosterone were 0.16, 5.2, 28 and 0.012%, respectively. The crossreactivity of the latter three steroids is of no concern; the use of a differential elution process excludes the vast majority of digoxin, digoxin-like materials, and aldosterone from the eluates used for EO measurement. The low crossreactivity for dihydro-ouabain, i.e., 625-fold less than for ouabain, makes it unlikely that any dihydro-ouabain that may have been secreted [11, 12] contributed significantly to the EO measurement. All measurements were made with an operator blinded to the study design.

We did not assay intracellular EO concentrations because previous work revealed that the intracellular EO concentrations in H295R cells was below assay detection [12]. Four mL PBS were added to the remaining cells that were scratched twice, and then transferred to a centrifuge and spun at 125x g for 5 minutes. The cell pellet lysates of were used for intracellular cGMP assay using a chemiluminescent immunoassay kit (Arbor assay, Ann Arbor, Michigan) based on the product manual. Protein was determined by the BCA method (Pierce, Grand Island, NY). Samples were stored at -80°C.

Statistics

Student’s T-test was used to examine differences in response. The data were presented as mean ± SE.

Results

Fig 1 shows the integrity of the C18 extraction with respect to ouabain and digoxin. Essentially all of the 3H-ouabain added to samples appeared in the 20% eluate with a yield approaching 100%. The small amount of label detected in the flow through (i.e., unbound label) for both ouabain and digoxin likely represents free 3H in water. In contrast, the vast majority of the 3H-digoxin was detected in the 50% eluate, there being minimal cross contamination (~ 6%) in the 20% eluates.

Fig 1. Elusion of ouabain and digoxin.

Fig 1

A: Extraction and differential elution of 3H-ouabain 9upper panel) and 3H-digoxin (lower panel) from C18 columns. Labelled steroids were introduced into conditioned cell culture medium and applied to preconditioned C18 columns as described. The flow through (FT) as well as the eluates from the 0, 20, 50 and 70% CH3CN washes were collected and counted. Results are shown as the average of duplicate experiments.

Fig 2 shows the standard curve for the ouabain radioimmunoassay. The data were fitted by a standard sigmoidal four parameter Hill equation of the form: f = y0+a*xb/(cb+xb). The slope of the relationship was -1.069 consistent with a single class of specific binding sites with minimal apparent negative or positive cooperativity under the conditions used. The EC50 was 4.83 +/- 0.27 nM. The threshold sensitivity of the assay, defined as 5% displacement of the label from the control value, ranged from 2–5 femtomoles. The coefficient of error for the EO measurement expressed as a % variance of the mean value from three replicates for each sample ranged between 0.42 and 5.2%. The assay precision ranged from 94–99% in the working range of the samples.

Fig 2. ouabain standard curve.

Fig 2

Radioimmunoassay standard curve for ouabain. Each point is the mean ± SEM for triplicate determinations. Error bars are obscured where the symbol diameter > sem. The data were fitted iteratively to the equation described in the text and the resultant parameters including coefficients (a = Bmax, b = slope, c = EC50, d = nonspecific binding), standard errors, t statistics, and probability values for the fit are shown below the figure.

Human H295R adrenocortical cells grown in culture spontaneously secrete EO at low rates, especially when compared to aldosterone. The concentration in the supernatant spontaneously increases over time, and nearly doubles in 90 minutes (Fig 3). Addition of ANP inhibited the appearance of EO at 60 minutes and 90 minutes of treatment compared to untreated cells (Fig 3). At 60 minutes, all concentrations of ANP tested inhibited EO secretion with no obvious dose-effect (Fig 3). However, at 90 minutes, the inhibitory effect of ANP persisted at the physiological concentration of 50 pg/mL. In contrast, the significant effects of subphysiologic ANP concentrations (5 pg/mL) or supraphysiologic ANP concentrations (200 pg/mL) that were apparent at 60 minutes had waned by 90 minutes (0.014 ± 0.003 vs 0.062 ± 0.006, t = 6.58, P = 0.03; 0.014 ± 0.003 vs 0.053 ± 0.003, t = 8.70, P <0.001, respectively) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. EO content in culture media.

Fig 3

The EO content in the culture media of H295R human adrenocortical cells increased significantly at 90 min. in the absence of ANP treatment. ANP concentrations of 5, 50, 200 pg/mL reduced EO secretion at 60 and 90 min. The inhibitory effect of 50 pg/mL ANP was significantly lower compared to lower (ANP5) and higher (ANP200) at 90 min. Error bars represent standard error. (*P < 0.05, compared to 30 min untreated, **P < 0.05, compared to untreated at corresponding time point, ***P < 0.05, compared to ANP5 and ANP200 at 90 min. Y axis units are pM/mg protein).

The ANP-A receptor mediates its effect through activation of guanylyl cyclase that generates cGMP. However, the generation of cGMP by ANP in H295R cells was muted and dose-dependent. Specifically, cyclic GMP levels increased significantly when the cells were treated with ANP at 50 pg/mL for 60 min (0.084 ± 0.008 vs 0.050 ± 0.011, t = -2.65, P < 0.05), but this effect was transient, returning to baseline after 90 min (Fig 4). Based on this result, ANP 50 pg/mL was selected for the following experiments that explored the role of guanylyl cyclase.

Fig 4. cGMP Levels.

Fig 4

Intracellular cGMP levels following ANP treatment for 30, 60, and 90 min in H295R human adrenocortical cells. A significant increase in cGMP was observed only with 50 pg/mL at 60min. Error bars represent standard errors. (*P < 0.05 compared to control; Y axis units are pM/mg protein).

EO secretion by human H295R adrenocortical cells was significantly reduced after treatment with ANP 50 pg/mL for 60 min (untreated 0.145 ± 0.003 vs ANP 50 pg/mL 0.067 ± 0.004 pM/mg protein; P < 0.05) and to a similar degree when 10 μM of the guanylyl cyclase inhibitor, ODQ, was used alone (untreated 0.145 ± 0.003 vs ODQ 10 μM 0.092±0.012 pM/mg protein; P < 0.05) (Fig 5). The combination of the two treatments, pretreatment with ODQ 10 μM for 30 minutes followed by ANP 50 pg/mL for 60 minutes, suppressed EO secretion further when compared with untreated or ANP alone or ODQ alone (to 0.03 ± 0.006 pM/mg protein, P < 0.05 for both) (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Effect of ANP on EO secretion.

Fig 5

Change in EO secretion 60 min following addition of ANP 50 pg/mL, 10 mM ODQ and ODQ+ANP treatment. ANP alone and ODQ alone reduced EO secretion (#P < 0.05 compared to control). Pretreatment with ODQ followed by ANP further decreased secreted EO when compared to ANP or ODQ alone (*P < 0.05). (Error bars represent standard error; Y axis units are pM/mg protein).

While we use the term ‘secretion’, our data does not determine the mechanism involved or the intracellular source of the secreted EO that was measured. The present experiments do not determine whether the spontaneous secretion of EO from the unstimulated cells is derived from de novo synthesis, as seems likely, or is the result of the release of stored EO, or even if there is a degradation of a carrier protein that obscures EO measurements at baseline. Likewise, the ability of ANP to suppress the basal EO secretion may involve one or more of the phenomena mentioned above.

Data has been submitted to Zenodo under the title and authors of this publication (and may be accessed at: https://zenodo.org/record/5594568#.YXRY-S2z3a8).

Discussion

EO is produced in the adrenal and to some limited extent in the hypothalamus [2, 9, 11, 12]. Human H295R adrenocortical cells also produce and secrete small amounts of EO in culture [12]. In the present work, we have replicated earlier observations concerning the spontaneous production of an ouabain-like compound by these cells in culture (Fig 3). We have also demonstrated that ANP at physiologic concentrations inhibits the production of EO (Fig 3). However, our observations are of some surprise because they indicate that the inhibitory effect of ANP on EO secretion is unlikely to be mediated through the ANP-A receptor, which is the most common natriuretic peptide receptor [41], and utilizes cGMP as a second messenger [34]. In our studies, inhibition of generation of cGMP did not prevent the ANP effect, and actually reduced EO production independent of ANP (Fig 5). Further, the effects of ANP and of guanylyl cyclase inhibition appear to be additive (Fig 5), suggesting that they are mediated by independent mechanisms. Nonetheless, there are potential alternative explanations of the data. For example, nitric oxide (NO) is known to activate guanylyl cyclase and sufficient NO can overcome ODQ inhibition [52]. Likewise, confirmation of a guanylyl cyclase component does not exclude other potential mechanisms of ANP, as is the case with NO [44, 53]. This is especially important given the lack of a clear dose response effect of ANP on either EO or cGMP production.

Given that inhibition of guanylyl cyclase does not reverse the EO inhibition caused by ANP and may actually magnify it (Fig 5), the control of EO synthesis may be mediated in part by NPR-C. This conclusion is further supported by the minimal and transient increase of cGMP seen in the cells (Fig 4). Conversely, the transient nature of effects of ANP on both EO and cGMP may be consistent with the apparent tachyphylaxis seen in blood pressure control with ANP [54].

The existence of endogenous cardenolides, like EO, remains controversial to some [55] despite overwhelming evidence of its existence and physiological and pathological roles—some of which has been proven in studies using transgenic animals [21]. Many of the challenges related to the successful measurement of EO have been described elsewhere [21]. Of critical importance is the extraction procedure which must be performed with care. Ouabain is a highly polar steroid; its interaction with C18 is much weaker than all of the known adrenocortical steroids and most of the known CTS. Accordingly, it is critical to fully precondition the C18 columns, bringing them carefully and fully to water before sample application to ensure that all of the sample EO will become bound. The presence of even small amounts of organic solvents such as acetonitrile or methanol will prevent EO from binding and it will be lost to the flow through. Further, the mass of the C18 sorbent must be sufficient to trap all the EO and this is a function of the sample mass, type, and origin. For example, 200 mg of C18 sorbent will typically trap all the EO from 2–3 ml of plasma. With conditioned cell culture medium, up to 20 ml can be extracted per column because this matrix is much less complex than native plasma and the competition of ancillary polar chemical entities with EO for binding to the sorbent is much less. Once the sample has been applied and EO is bound, it is necessary to wash with the appropriate volumes of water and then low concentrations of acetonitrile (2.5 to 5%) or methanol (5–10%) to reduce some of the very highly polar entities that can interfere in the radioimmunoassay and lead to massive suppression of ionization in mass spectrometry. The volume of this organic wash also is critical; overly large wash volumes will eventually elute bound EO, and it will be lost. Similarly, the concentration and volume of acetonitrile used to elute EO is important. Typically, 20–25% acetonitrile is used and the volume is chosen to ensure that all the EO is recovered without significant contamination by e.g., digoxin (Figs 1 and 2) or other less polar eCTS. In validating the extraction method, it is most useful to use 3H labeled steroids of interest using the anticipated sample conditions. For the immunoassay, a highly selective antiserum with affinity for ouabain in the high picomolar to low nanomolar range is required that has minimal crossreactivity with the common classical mammalian steroids. Thus far, this antibody requirement has been met with polyclonal but not monoclonal sources. The final critical factor in the radioimmunoassay method we use concerns the method by which the binding assay is terminated. With the vast majority of high affinity ouabain antibodies, the half time for the dissociation of ouabain or EO from antibody binding sites is surprisingly rapid ranging from 2–15 minutes. Thus, the method used to separate bound from free must be much faster than the dissociation half time if the high sensitivity required to detect EO is to be retained. Among the various options, filtration over glass fiber filters is convenient and very rapid, typically requiring <15 seconds including multiple washes. Another advantage of the method is the very low background binding of the tracer 3H-ouabain to the filters. Other assay formats including ELISA [51, 56], radioimmunoassays that do not require a bound/free separation as well as mass spectrometry [21] can be used with the appropriate modifications.

In the adrenal glands, EO is synthesized in and secreted from the cortex, which also synthesizes cortisol, aldosterone, and a number of other steroids. Like aldosterone, EO biosynthesis requires progesterone [57]. However, in the normal adrenal, the amount of EO secreted is some 20–50 times lower than the amount of aldosterone secreted, and some 10,000-fold lower than the amount of cortisol made [21]. Although H295R cells maintain their aldosterone secretory phenotype in prolonged cell culture, their ability to secrete EO is reduced ~10–20 fold when compared with unstimulated adrenocortical cells in primary cell culture [56]. Hence, when working with H295R cells and when feasible it is helpful to extract large volumes of cell conditioned media and, critically, to concentrate the samples post extraction prior to immunoassay. In the present work, the extracted samples were concentrated between 60–120 fold prior to introduction into the assay. In order to obtain interpretable data under these conditions, EO was differentially eluted from the C18 columns to minimize assay cross-contamination with all of the classical adrenocortical steroids. Of particular relevance to the present experimental conditions, the differential elution minimizes aldosterone, digoxin-like materials and other non-polar eCTS in the samples used for the EO measurement. In addition, a highly selective ouabain antiserum was used to minimize interference from any dihydro-ouabain that may have been present in the EO extract [11, 12]. Under these conditions, it was possible to explore the impact of ANP and its related signaling on basal EO secretion with reasonable confidence.

A number of studies have previously implicated both angiotensin II and ACTH in vitro and more especially ACTH in vivo as stimulants to EO secretion [21]. However, investigation of the hormonal factors that might suppress EO secretion are very few. In particular, there are three reports regarding the influence of ANP on eCTS-like activity and these have led to different conclusions. One study indicated that ANP suppressed the secretion of an eCTS-like factor from brain fragments in vitro [45] while two others suggested that central infusions of ANP in vivo increased eCTS-like activity in the circulation [58]. Further, the latter response was blocked by electrolytic lesions in the anteroventral third ventricular region of the brain [59]. It may be noted that all of these studies used bioassays where the nature of the eCTS-like factor was unknown. The new results from the present study, made with extracted samples and a highly selective ouabain-antiserum, confirm that physiological concentrations of ANP do have a modulatory role and significantly suppress EO secretion from adrenocortical cells in vitro. But the question remains regarding the significance of this phenomenon. Is the suppressive action of ANP on EO secretion sufficiently dramatic to reduce the circulating levels of EO and lower blood pressure in vivo? Various experimental models are available to test this idea including animals transgenic for various ANP receptor subtypes and the rodent model of ACTH induced hypertension. In the latter model plasma EO is elevated and the elevated blood pressure depends upon the ouabain binding site of the sodium pump [60].

The roles of EO and ANP regarding blood pressure and sodium control overlap considerably [20, 34, 41, 6062] and overlap in their role in pathological states [32], so that one would expect that they may play a role in modulating each other [34]. In this study we found evidence that ANP inhibits the production of EO, and that mechanism does not appear to involve activation of NPR-A or NPR-B receptors. The implication, not tested here due to preconceived expectations about NPR-C, is that NPR-C receptors contribute to the control of EO secretion. Accordingly, future work will be needed to determine the inhibitory mechanism of ANP including the specific role of G proteins.

In the present study ANP suppressed the secretion of EO from H295R cells. The effects of ANP we observe could involve an action on the biosynthesis of EO, its secretory mechanism, or both. Our experimental design does not discriminate among these possibilities. However, it is a generally accepted assumption in most all steroid-related studies that secretion occurs by passive diffusion across the plasma membrane and, accordingly, that altered secretion is a simple reflection of corresponding changes in biosynthesis. In the adrenal cortex, it is widely understood that steroids are secreted as they are synthesized and, with the exception of cholesterol esters, are not stored.

As mentioned above, the normal adrenal cortex secretes very little EO when compared with aldosterone. This phenomenon is mirrored also in H295R cells and measurements of EO secretion under basal secretory conditions add further to the challenge. Nevertheless, the suppressive effects of ANP on EO secretion we observed are noteworthy, appear to be independent of intracellular cGMP and are generally consistent with the effects of ANP on the secretion of other adrenocortical steroids. Accordingly, further studies will be needed to further dissect the site of action of ANP on EO secretion under baseline and stimulated conditions and especially when the flow of carbon from cholesterol to aldosterone is blocked.

Data Availability

Data are available on Zenodu under the title and authors of this publication, and may be accessed at: https://zenodo.org/record/5594568#.YXRY-S2z3a8 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5594568).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Goto A, Ishiguro T, Yamada K, Ishii M, Yoshioka M, Eguchi C, et al. Isolation of a urinary digitalis-like factor indistinguishable from digoxin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1990;173(3):1093–1101. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(05)80898-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hamlyn JM, Blaustein MP, Bova S, DuCharme DW, Harris DW, Mandel F, et al. Identification and characterization of a ouabain-like compound from human plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(14):6259–63. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.14.6259 Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991;88(21):9907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ludens JH, Clark MA, DuCharme DW, Harris DW, Lutzke BS, Mandel F, et al. Purification of an endogenous digitalislike factor from human plasma for structural analysis. Hypertension 1991;17(6 Pt 2):923–929. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.17.6.923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mathews WR, DuCharme DW, Hamlyn JM, Harris DW, Mandel F, Clark MA, et al. Mass spectral characterization of an endogenous digitalislike factor from human plasma. Hypertension 1991;17(6 Pt 2):930–935. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.17.6.930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lichtstein D, Steinitz M, Gati I, Samuelov S, Deutsch J, Orly J. Bufodienolides as endogenous Na+, K+-ATPase inhibitors: biosynthesis in bovine and rat adrenals. Clin Exp Hypertens. 1998;20(5–6):573–579. doi: 10.3109/10641969809053235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goldthorp WO. Medical classics: An account of the Foxglove and some of its medicinal uses by William Withering, published 1785. Br Med J. 2009;338:b2189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hollman A. Plants and cardiac glycosides. Br. Heart J. 1985;54(3):258–261. doi: 10.1136/hrt.54.3.258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Flier J, Edwards MW, Daly JW, Myers CW. Widespread occurrence in frogs and toads of skin compounds interacting with the ouabain site of Na+, K+-ATPase. Science 1980;208(4443):503–505. doi: 10.1126/science.6245447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Valdes R, Graves SW, Becker SL. Protein binding of endogenous digoxin-immunoactive factors in human serum and its variation with clinical condition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1985;60:1135–1143. doi: 10.1210/jcem-60-6-1135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Boulanger BR, Lilly MP, Hamlyn JM, Laredo J, Shurtleff D, Gann DS. Ouabain is secreted by the adrenal gland in awake dogs. Am J Physiol. 1993;264(3 Pt 1):E413–9. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1993.264.3.E413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Qazzaz HM, El-Masri MA, Valdes R Jr. Secretion of a lactone-hydrogenated ouabain-like effector of sodium, potassium-adenosine triphosphatase activity by adrenal cells. Endocrinology. 2000;141(9):3200–3209. doi: 10.1210/endo.141.9.7664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.El-Masri MA, Clark BJ, Qazzaz HM, Valdes R Jr. Human adrenal cells in culture produce both ouabain-like and dihydroouabain-like factors. Clin Chem. 2002;48(10):1720–1730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tian J, Li X, Liang M, Liu L, Xie JX, Ye Q, et al. Changes in sodium pump expression dictate the effects of ouabain on cell growth. J Biol Chem 2009;284(22):14921–14929. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M808355200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fedorova OV, Shapiro JI, Bagrov AY. Endogenous cardiotonic steroids and salt-sensitive hypertension. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010. Dec;1802(12):1230–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2010.03.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jaitovich A, Bertorello AM. Salt, Na+/K+-ATPase and hypertension. Life Sci 2010; 86:73–78 doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2009.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hamlyn JM, Manunta P. Endogenous ouabain: a link between sodium intake and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep 2011;13(1):14–20. doi: 10.1007/s11906-010-0161-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.El-Mallakh RS, Brar KS, Yeruva RR. Cardiac glycosides in human physiology and disease: update for entomologists. Insects 2019;10(4): 102. doi: 10.3390/insects10040102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ferrandi M, Molinari I, Barassi P, Minotti E, Bianchi G, Ferrari P. Organ hypertrophic signaling within caveolae membrane subdomains triggered by ouabain and antagonized by PST 2238. J Biol Chem 2004;279: 33306–33314. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M402187200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Skoumal R, Szokodi I, Aro J, Foldes G, Gooz M, Seres L, et al. Involvement of endogenous ouabain-like compound in the cardiac hypertrophic process in vivo. Life Sci 2007;80:1303–1310. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2006.12.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Loreaux EL, Kaul B, Lorenz JN, Lingrel JB. Ouabain-sensitive alpha1 Na,K-ATPase enhances natriuretic response to saline load. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;19:1947–1954. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008020174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hamlyn JM, Blaustein MP. Endogenous ouabain: Recent advances and controversies. Hypertension 2016;68(3):526–532. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Simonini M, Casanova P, Citterio L, Messaggio E, Lanzani C, Manunta P. Endogenous ouabain and related genes in the translation from hypertension to renal diseases. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19(7):pii: E1948. doi: 10.3390/ijms19071948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goldstein I, Levy T, Galili D, Ovadia H, Yirmiya R, Rosen H, et al. Involvement of Na+, K+-ATPase and endogenous digitalis-like compounds in depressive disorders. Biol Psychiatry 2006;60:491–499. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.12.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.El-Mallakh RS, Yff T, Gao Y. Ion dysregulation in the pathogenesis of bipolar disorder. Ann Depres Anxiety 2016;3(1):1076. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Weidemann H, Salomon N, Avnit-Sagi T, Weidenfeld J, Rosen H, Lichtstein D. Diverse effects of stress and additional adrenocorticotropic hormone on digitalis-like compounds in normal and nude mice. J Neuroendocrinol 2004;16: 458–463. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2826.2004.01181.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Aizman O, Uhlén P, Lal M, Brismar H, Aperia A. Ouabain, a steroid hormone that signals with slow calcium oscillations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98(23):13420–13424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.221315298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Harwood S, Yaqoob MM. Ouabain-induced cell signaling. Front Biosci 2005;10:2011–2017. doi: 10.2741/1676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xie Z, Xie J. The Na/K-ATPase-mediated signal transduction as a target for new drug development. Front Biosci 2005;10:3100–3109. doi: 10.2741/1766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.de Bold AJ. Atrial natriuretic factor: a hormone produced by the heart. Science 1985;230:767–770. doi: 10.1126/science.2932797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chandra S, Saluja D, Narang R, Bhatia J, Srivastava K. Atrial natriuretic peptide and aldosterone synthase gene in essential hypertension: A case-control study. Gene 2015;567(1):92–97. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2015.04.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lugnier C, Meyer A, Charloux A, Andrès E, Gény B, Talha S. The endocrine function of the heart: Physiology and involvements of natriuretic peptides and cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases in heart failure. J Clin Med 2019;8(10):1746. doi: 10.3390/jcm8101746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brar K, Gao Y, El-Mallakh RS. Are endogenous cardenolides controlled by atrial natriuretic peptide. Med Hypotheses. 2016;92:21–25. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2016.04.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nesher M., Bai Y., Li D., Rosen H., Lichtstein D., Liu L. Interaction of atrial natriuretic peptide and ouabain in the myocardium. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2012;90(10):1386–1393. doi: 10.1139/y2012-112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Suga S, Nakao K, Hogoda K, Mukoyama M, Ogawa Y, Shirakami G, et al. Receptor selectivity of natriuretic peptide family, atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and C-type natriuretic peptide. Endocrinology 1992;130(1):229–239. doi: 10.1210/endo.130.1.1309330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Koller KJ, Lowe DG, Bennett GL, Minamino N, Kangawa K, Matsuo H, et al. Selective activation of the B natriuretic peptide receptor by C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP). Science 1991;252(5002):120–123. doi: 10.1126/science.1672777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rose RA, Giles WR. Natriuretic peptide C receptor signaling in the heart and vasculature. J Physiol 2008;586(2):353–366. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.144253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Anand-Srivastava MB, Trachte GJ. Atrial natriuretic factor receptors and signal transduction mechanisms. Pharmacol Rev 1993;45(4):455–497. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Matsukawa N, Grzesik WJ, Takahashi N, Pandey KN, Pang S, Yamauchi M, et al. The natriuretic peptide clearance receptor locally modulates the physiological effects of the natriuretic peptide system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96(13):7403–7408. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.El Andalousi J, Li Y, Anand-Srivastava MB. Natriuretic peptide receptor-C agonist attenuates the expression of cell cycle proteins and proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells from spontaneously hypertensive rats: Role of Gi proteins and MAPkinase/PI3kinase signaling. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e76183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Maack T, Suzuki M, Almeida FA, Nussenzveig D, Scarborough RM, McEnroe GA, et al. Physiological role of silent receptors of atrial natriuretic factor. Science 1987;238(4827):675–678. doi: 10.1126/science.2823385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sarzani R, Dessì-Fulgheri P, Paci VM, Espinosa E, Rappelli A. Expression of natriuretic peptide receptors in human adipose and other tissues. J Endocrinol Invest 1996;19(9):581–585. doi: 10.1007/BF03349021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Drewett JG, Garbers DL. The family of guanylyl cyclase-receptors and their ligands. Endocr Rev 1994;15:135–162. doi: 10.1210/edrv-15-2-135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hanke Craig J., Drewett James G., Myers Charles R. Nitric oxide inhibits aldosterone synthesis by a guanylyl cyclase-independent effect. Endocrinology. 1998;139(10):4053–4060. doi: 10.1210/endo.139.10.6252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Thgeilig F, Wu Q. ANP-induced signaling cascade and its implications in renal pathophysiology. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2015;308(10): F1047–F1055. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00164.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Crabos M, Ausiello DA, Haupert GT Jr, Cantiello HF. Atrial natriuretic peptide regulates release of Na+-K+-ATPase inhibitor from rat brain. Am J Physiol 1988;254(6 Pt 2):F912–F917. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1988.254.6.F912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bodart V, Rainey WE, Fournier A, Ong H, De Léan A. The H295R human adrenocortical cell line contains functional atrial natriuretic peptide receptors that inhibit aldosterone biosynthesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 1996;118(1–2):137–144. doi: 10.1016/0303-7207(96)03776-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yuksel MA, Alici Davutoglu E, Temel Yuksel I, Kucur M, Ekmekci H, Balci Ekmekci O, et al. Maternal serum atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(15):2527–30. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1092958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zachariah PK, Burnett JC Jr, Ritter SG, Strong CG. Atrial natriuretic peptide in human essential hypertension. Mayo Clin Proc. 1987. Sep;62(9):782–6. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)62331-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hasegawa K, Matsushita Y, Inoue T, Morii H, Ishibashi M, Yamaji T. Plasma levels of atrial natriuretic peptide in patients with chronic renal failure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1986. Oct;63(4):819–22. doi: 10.1210/jcem-63-4-819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Manunta P, Rogowski AC, Hamilton BP, Hamlyn JM. Ouabain-induced hypertension in the rat: relationships among plasma and tissue ouabain and blood pressure. J Hypertens 1994; 12(5):549–5460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Harris DW, Clark MA, Fisher JF, Hamlyn JM, Kolbasa KP, Ludens JH, et al. Development of an immunoassay for endogenous digitalis-like factor. Hypertension 1991;6 pt 2: 936–943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lies B, Groneberg D, Gambaryan S, Friebe A. Lack of effect of ODQ does not exclude cGMP signalling via NO-sensitive guanylyl cyclase. Br J Pharmacol 2013;170(2):317–27. doi: 10.1111/bph.12275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Edwards TM, Rickard NS. New perspectives on the mechanisms through which nitric oxide may affect learning and memory processes. Neurosci Biohehav Rev 2007;31(3):413–425. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Madhani M, Okorie M, Hobbs AJ, MacAllister RJ. Reciprocal regulation of human soluble and particulate guanylate cyclases in vivo. Br J Pharmacol. 2006;149(6):797–801. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kaaja RJ, Nicholls MG. Does the hormone "endogenous ouabain" exist in the human circulation? Biofactors 2018;44(3):219–221. doi: 10.1002/biof.1421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Laredo J, Hamilton BP, Hamlyn JM. Secretion of endogenous ouabain from bovine adrenocortical cells: role of the zona glomerulosa and zona fasciculata. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;212(2):487–93. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1995.1996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hamlyn JM, Laredo J, Shah JR, Lu ZR, Hamilton BP. 11-hydroxylation in the biosynthesis of endogenous ouabain: Multiple implications. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;986:685–693. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07283.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Songu-Mize E Bealer SL, Hassid AI. Centrally administered ANF promotes appearance of a circulating sodium pump inhibitor. Am J Physiol 1990; 258 (6pt2): H1855–9. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1990.258.6.H1655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Songu-Mize E Bealer SL. Effect of hypothalamic lesions on interaction of centrally administered ANF and the circulating sodium-pump inhibitor. Cardiovasc Res 1993; 22(suppl 2): S4–S6. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199322002-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dostanic-Larson I, Van Huysse JW, Lorenz JN, Lingrel JB. The highly conserved cardiac glycoside binding site of Na,K-ATPase plays a role in blood pressure regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:15845–15850. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507358102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nesher M, Dvela M, Igbokwe VM, Rosen H, Lichtsein D. Physiologic roles of endogenous ouabain in normal rats. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2009;297:H2026–H2034. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00734.2009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bie P. Natriuretic peptides and normal body fluid regulation. Compr Physiol 2018;8(3):1211–1249. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c180002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luis Eduardo M Quintas

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

29 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-16196

Inhibition of Endogenous Ouabain by Atrial Natriuretic Peptide is a Guanylyl Cyclase Independent Effect

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. El-Mallakh,

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. Several comments on the methodology used and the results were raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luis Eduardo M Quintas, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'I have read the journal's policy and Dr. El-Mallakh is on the speakers' bureaus of Eisai, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Lundbeck, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva. The other authors of this manuscript do not have any competing interest.'

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors present an interesting work on endogenous ouabain release in vitro.

The main concern for me is the method used to determine the ouabain concentration. The authors refer to it as radioimmunoassay and cite a paper from 1994. Ouabain is a steroid compound and it is difficult to measure by immune detection.

Let me be very clear; it is not that I don't believe the authors. I do. I also want to say that I think the findings which the authors note are probably "real" and worth communicating. That said, I think the methodology for blood processing and ouabain measurement should be very clearly stated. Specifically, this reviewer would like to see....

1. Information on the antibodies used for the measurements

2. Standard curves for ouabain measurement used in assigning values to plasma values.

3. Method for anticoagulation of blood samples and details regarding the handling of samples prior to measurement.

4. Some analysis of elutation fractions from the C18 columns loaded with pooled samples. This should be done with and without spiking with reference ouabain.

5. Greater discussion of the challenges inherent in the immunoassay of ouabain.

The authors describe that the cells were treated with 0.1% DMSO or ANP. Was the ANP given also in DMSO solution? This sentence suggest otherwise.

Reviewer #2: This study by Tegin et al. describes the effect of ANP on the levels of endogenous ouabain in the media of H295R cells. The possible involvement of Guanylyl cyclase in this effect was addressed by studying the effect of ANP following pretreatment with Guanylyl cyclase inhibitor ODQ.

Although the paper describes interesting observations several key issues have to be addressed prior its acceptance for publication:

Major comments:

1. In this study, the levels of EO were measured in the cell media. As pointed out by the authors (last paragraph of the discussion) it is not clear what is measured, release? biosynthesis? inhibition of degradation (not mentioned)? This has to be clarified at the beginning of the results section explaining that the “release” is used loosely without real evidence that this is the process that is investigated.

2. The description of ANP receptors and second messengers, which is mentioned in the discussion (second paragraph) should be part of the introduction.

3. The additivity in ANP and ODQ effects do not prove exclude the possibility that ANP acts through activation of GC and that under conditions of complete GC inhibition (in the presence of ODQ) other mechanisms are activated. Examples from the literature showing the use of the inhibitor as evidence for GC participation is appropriate.

4. It is stated that serum levels of ANP is 50 pg/ml and ref 37 is cited (Methods, Treatments). This reference does not state that.

5. The lack of concentration-dependence in both, the effect of ANP on EO levels and its effect on cGMP levels raises doubts as to the validity of the data. How many experiments were done? Were the experiments performed in duplicates, triplicates? What are the error bars in the graphs? SD? SE? Do you know of another example in which cGMP levels showed such a response to a stimulant?

6. Control is missing… for example adding another peptide to the cell’s medium. Also, why EO in the cells was not measured?

7. The authors mentioned the original only study that demonstrated the “release” of EO from H295R cells (ref 12). But, in that study, if I understand correctly, no EO was detected in the conditioned media without dB-cAMP. Was dB-cAMP added in the present study? Is there an agreement as to the quantities of EO “released” from the cells in the two studies?

8. The authors claim that the influence of ANP on EO release was not examined previously – this is not accurate – for example, Crabos et al. have shown that ANP injected intravenously, or included in the in vitro in incubation media of brain slices, decreased the release of EO (Am J Physiol 254:F912, 1988). This has to be mentioned already in the introduction.

Minor comments

1. Abstract, line 13- you mean pg/ml

2. Introduction, line 11. The review of Fedorova et al Biochim Biophys Acta. 1802,2010 is appropriate here

3. Introduction, 3rd paragraph- “striking findings”- why is it so striking?

4. Introduction, 4th paragraph- 54 delete

5. Introduction, 5th paragraph- “EO is secreted when… [33]” it may sound that ref 33 shows this- which of course it does not- correct

6. Methods, Treatments, 1st paragraph- delete-

7. Results, 1st paragraph- “following an early burst”- not clear, where is the burst? It is the first measurement with some basal levels.

8. Results, 2nd paragraph- “For example”- this is not an example, this is the only difference you see.

9. In the three figures – delete “ml” from the y abscise

10. Change the title of all the graph to represent the data shown-not the conclusion from the experiment.

11. Reference 34 was not used in the text.

**********

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.]

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 Nov 18;16(11):e0260131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260131.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Oct 2021

3 October 2021

Luis Eduardo M Quintas, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Re: PONE-D-21-16196

Inhibition of Endogenous Ouabain by Atrial Natriuretic Peptide is a Guanylyl Cyclase Independent Effect

Dear Dr. Quintas:

Thank you for the timely and thoughtful review of our above referenced manuscript. We have taken all of the reviewers’ recommendations in the revision which is being submitted herein. This letter outlines all of the changes made in the manuscript.

Editor’s Comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: The corresponding author reviewed the requirements and made all appropriate changes.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'I have read the journal's policy and Dr. El-Mallakh is on the speakers' bureaus of Eisai, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Lundbeck, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva. The other authors of this manuscript do not have any competing interest.'

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: The updated statement has been added at the end of the manuscript:

“Competing Interests

We have read the journal's policy and Dr. El-Mallakh is on the speakers' bureaus of Eisai, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Lundbeck, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva. The other authors of this manuscript do not have any competing interest.”

Reviewer #1

The authors present an interesting work on endogenous ouabain release in vitro.

The main concern for me is the method used to determine the ouabain concentration. The authors refer to it as radioimmunoassay and cite a paper from 1994. Ouabain is a steroid compound and it is difficult to measure by immune detection.

Let me be very clear; it is not that I don't believe the authors. I do. I also want to say that I think the findings which the authors note are probably "real" and worth communicating. That said, I think the methodology for blood processing and ouabain measurement should be very clearly stated. Specifically, this reviewer would like to see....

1. Information on the antibodies used for the measurements

Response: This is now added to the methods and results sections.

2. Standard curves for ouabain measurement used in assigning values to plasma values.

Response: An example of the standard curve used for these experiments is shown in the new figure 1. All data are expressed as a function of the mass of cells in the flask as reflected in total measured protein. There are no measurements using plasma in this article.

3. Method for anticoagulation of blood samples and details regarding the handling of samples prior to measurement.

Response: None of the samples utilized blood. Further, fetal bovine serum was eliminated from the flasks before each experiment. Any additional information of relevance is now included.

4. Some analysis of elutation fractions from the C18 columns loaded with pooled samples. This should be done with and without spiking with reference ouabain.

Response: This information has been added to the methods section. “In brief, 200 mg Bond Elut C18 columns (Varian) were preconditioned by sequential passage of 3 mls each of 100, 50, 25, and 5% CH3CN in water. Thereafter, each column was washed twice with 3 ml water. For the samples, 10-12 ml of the conditioned cell culture fluid was centrifuged at 2,500 x g for 20 min. The supernatants were applied to the columns which were then washed sequentially with 2 x 3 ml water and 3 ml 5% CH3CN. Differential elution was then used to elute the desired bound steroids as follows: Bound EO was eluted by a 20% CH3CN wash, while less polar steroids including endogenous digoxin-like immunocrossreactive materials [9,51] and aldosterone, that remained bound after the 20% CH3CN wash were eluted with a 50% CH3CN wash. Sample blanks were run in parallel. In some experiments, the recovery of EO as well as the success of the differential elution was assessed by inclusion of tracer amounts of 3H-ouabain and 3H-digoxin. For immunoassay, all eluates of interest were dried by vacuum centrifugation (Savant) and reconstituted at 60-120 x their original concentration in water. For analysis of the efficiency of steroid recoveries, aliquots of the eluates were taken directly for liquid scintillation counting. The radioimmunoassay was performed in a manner similar to that previously described using the R8 ouabain-antiserum (38) with the exception that a micro format was employed wherein the total assay volume was 50 µL. In this assay, 30 µL was the reconstituted sample and the remainder was comprised of 3H-ouabain (final concentration = 1.35 nM) and buffer. The reaction was incubated at room temperature for one hour and terminated by rapid filtration over glass fiber filters (Whatman GF/B) using a 24 well cell harvester (Brandel). The filters were soaked in scintillation cocktail (Ultima Gold, Perkin Elmer) for 40 hours and then counted (Beckman TA3000) with quench correction. Non-specific binding was determined by inclusion of excess ouabain in the reaction and typically was < 4 % of the total bound count. The antiserum exhibits no meaningful crossreactivity (<0.01%) with the vast majority of common adrenocortical, ovarian or testicular steroids (see Table 1 in [51]). In addition, the immuno-crossreactivities for dihydro-ouabain, digoxin, digitoxin, and aldosterone were 0.16, 5.2, 28 and 0.012 %, respectively. The crossreactivity of the latter three steroids is of no concern; the use of a differential elution process excludes the vast majority of digoxin, digoxin-like materials, and aldosterone from the eluates used for EO measurement. The low crossreactivity for dihydro-ouabain, i.e., 625-fold less than for ouabain, makes it unlikely that any dihydro-ouabain that may have been secreted [11,12] contributed significantly to the EO measurement.”

5. Greater discussion of the challenges inherent in the immunoassay of ouabain.

Response: An extensive discussion of most of the critical issues has been added to the text. “The existence of endogenous cardenolides, like EO, remains controversial to some [55] despite overwhelming evidence of its existence and physiological and pathological roles - some of which has been proven in studies using transgenic animals [21]. Many of the challenges related to the successful measurement of EO have been described elsewhere [21]. Of critical importance is the extraction procedure which must be performed with care. Ouabain is a highly polar steroid; its interaction with C18 is much weaker than all of the known adrenocortical steroids and most of the known CTS. Accordingly, it is critical to fully precondition the C18 columns, bringing them carefully and fully to water before sample application to ensure that all of the sample EO will become bound. The presence of even small amounts of organic solvents such as acetonitrile or methanol will prevent EO from binding and it will be lost to the flow through. Further, the mass of the C18 sorbent must be sufficient to trap all the EO and this is a function of the sample mass, type, and origin. For example, 200 mg of C18 sorbent will typically trap all the EO from 2-3 ml of plasma. With conditioned cell culture medium, up to 20 ml can be extracted per column because this matrix is much less complex than native plasma and the competition of ancillary polar chemical entities with EO for binding to the sorbent is much less. Once the sample has been applied and EO is bound, it is necessary to wash with the appropriate volumes of water and then low concentrations of acetonitrile (2.5 to 5%) or methanol (5-10%) to reduce some of the very highly polar entities that can interfere in the radioimmunoassay and lead to massive suppression of ionization in mass spectrometry. The volume of this organic wash also is critical; overly large wash volumes will eventually elute bound EO and it will be lost. Similarly, the concentration and volume of acetonitrile used to elute EO is important. Typically, 20-25% acetonitrile is used and the volume is chosen to ensure that all the EO is recovered without significant contamination by e.g., digoxin (Figure 1) or other less polar eCTS. In validating the extraction method, it is most useful to use 3H labeled steroids of interest using the anticipated sample conditions. For the immunoassay, a highly selective antiserum with affinity for ouabain in the high picomolar to low nanomolar range is required that has minimal crossreactivity with the common classical mammalian steroids. Thus far, this antibody requirement has been met with polyclonal but not monoclonal sources. The final critical factor in the radioimmunoassay method we use concerns the method by which the binding assay is terminated. With the vast majority of high affinity ouabain antibodies, the half time for the dissociation of ouabain or EO from antibody binding sites is surprisingly rapid ranging from 2-15 minutes. Thus, the method used to separate bound from free must be much faster than the dissociation half time if the high sensitivity required to detect EO is to be retained. Among the various options, filtration over glass fiber filters is convenient and very rapid, typically requiring <15 seconds including multiple washes. Another advantage of the method is the very low background binding of the tracer 3H-ouabain to the filters. Other assay formats including ELISA [51,56], radioimmunoassays that do not require a bound/free separation as well as mass spectrometry [21] can be used with the appropriate modifications.”

6. The authors describe that the cells were treated with 0.1% DMSO or ANP. Was the ANP given also in DMSO solution? This sentence suggest otherwise.

Response: The sentence was clarified as follows: “H295R human adrenocortical cells were treated with: 1) 0.1% DMSO or ANP (5, 50, 200 pg/ml; California Peptide Research, Inc, Salt Lake City, UT) dissolved in 0.1% DMSO for 30 min, 60 min and 90 min; . . . ”

Reviewer #2

This study by Tegin et al. describes the effect of ANP on the levels of endogenous ouabain in the media of H295R cells. The possible involvement of Guanylyl cyclase in this effect was addressed by studying the effect of ANP following pretreatment with Guanylyl cyclase inhibitor ODQ.

Although the paper describes interesting observations several key issues have to be addressed prior its acceptance for publication:

Major comments:

1. In this study, the levels of EO were measured in the cell media. As pointed out by the authors (last paragraph of the discussion) it is not clear what is measured, release? biosynthesis? inhibition of degradation (not mentioned)? This has to be clarified at the beginning of the results section explaining that the “release” is used loosely without real evidence that this is the process that is investigated.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer pointing out this oversight on our part. We added a paragraph at the end of the Results section to address this: “While we use the term ‘secretion,’ our data does not determine the source of the EO, other than the H295R cells themselves, that was measured. For example, we do not know if the spontaneous appearance of EO in the medium conditioned by the cells is derived from de novo synthesis, release of stored EO, or even if there is a degradation of a carrier protein that obscures EO measurements at baseline. It may be noted that, in the adrenal literature in general, it is almost an invariable and reasonable assumption that the appearance of a steroid in increasing concentrations in the cell culture medium is a reflection of biosynthesis followed by net secretion. In this article, the suppression of EO secretion by ANP may be related to any of the abovementioned phenomena..” However, it may be noted that the ability of ANP to suppress aldosterone secretion is known to be a reflection of diminished biosynthesis. We feel it is most likely that ANP suppresses EO section by the same general phenomenon.

2. The description of ANP receptors and second messengers, which is mentioned in the discussion (second paragraph) should be part of the introduction.

Response: The entire second paragraph was moved to the Introduction.

3. The additivity in ANP and ODQ effects do not prove exclude the possibility that ANP acts through activation of GC and that under conditions of complete GC inhibition (in the presence of ODQ) other mechanisms are activated. Examples from the literature showing the use of the inhibitor as evidence for GC participation is appropriate.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments here and they impact the discussion of point #5 as well. We added the following sentences at the end of the first paragraph of the Discussion: “Nonetheless, there are potential alternative explanations of the data. For example, nitric oxide (NO) is known to activate guanylyl cyclase and sufficient NO can overcome ODQ inhibition [52]. Likewise, confirmation of a guanylyl cyclase component does not exclude other potential mechanisms of ANP, as is the case with NO [43,53]. This is especially important given the lack of a clear dose response effect of ANP on either EO or cGMP production.”

4. It is stated that serum levels of ANP is 50 pg/ml and ref 37 is cited (Methods, Treatments). This reference does not state that.

Response: The paper reports that the normal range of human ANP levels is “75 to 225 pg/ml.” Most reports of ANP levels in normal humans are in the mid 30s with pathological levels having a larger range up to the low 200s. We added multiple primary references and changed the statement as follows: “Normal serum ANP levels are frequently reported in the mid 30s pg/mL with a range up to 200 pg/mL in renal failure [47-49].”

5. The lack of concentration-dependence in both, the effect of ANP on EO levels and its effect on cGMP levels raises doubts as to the validity of the data. How many experiments were done? Were the experiments performed in duplicates, triplicates? What are the error bars in the graphs? SD? SE? Do you know of another example in which cGMP levels showed such a response to a stimulant?

Response: All experiments were done in triplicates to sextuplicates. This was indicated in the ‘Treatments’ section of Methods: “All experiments had 3 – 6 replicates.” And The data were presented as mean ± SE. We added this in the Statistics section: “The data were presented as mean ± SE”

Also all the EO measurements were made blinded. This was also added in the Methods section: “All measurements were made with an operator blinded to the study design.”

There are previous studies that suggest that there is a rapid acclimation (tachyphylactic) to ANP effect in physiologic systems. The transient natures of our dose response curves could reflect that tachyphylaxis. We addressed this at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the discussion: “Conversely, the transient nature of effects of ANP on both EO and cGMP may be consistent with the apparent tachyphylaxis seen in blood pressure control with ANP [54].”

6. Control is missing… for example adding another peptide to the cell’s medium. Also, why EO in the cells was not measured?

Response: We did not have a random peptide control. We had zero treatment controls, i.e., baseline only. We did not measure EO inside cells because intracellular concentrations were beyond the sensitivity of our previous assays. We indicated the former in the ‘Treatments’ section of the ‘Methods’: “We only used no treatment controls, and did not examine the effect of adding other non-ANP peptides to the cell cultures.”

We indicated the latter in the ‘Measurements’ section of the ‘Methods’: “We did not assay intracellular EO concentrations because previous work revealed that the intracellular EO concentrations in H295R cells was below assay detection [12].”

It is certainly possible to measure EO in H295R cells but the number of cells required for reliable measurements would be at least 10-fold greater than we used here.

7. The authors mentioned the original only study that demonstrated the “release” of EO from H295R cells (ref 12). But, in that study, if I understand correctly, no EO was detected in the conditioned media without dB-cAMP. Was dB-cAMP added in the present study? Is there an agreement as to the quantities of EO “released” from the cells in the two studies?

Response: (Bu)2 cAMP is only needed for dihydro-ouabain, EO is secreted without its addition. No changes were made.

We replicated the findings of the previous study but our treatment times were much briefer and we expressed our findings in different units (pg/mL/protein instead of pg/mL/106 cells). No changes were made to the text since we had already mentioned that we replicated the previous study in the first paragraph of the Discussion.

8. The authors claim that the influence of ANP on EO release was not examined previously – this is not accurate – for example, Crabos et al. have shown that ANP injected intravenously, or included in the in vitro in incubation media of brain slices, decreased the release of EO (Am J Physiol 254:F912, 1988). This has to be mentioned already in the introduction.

Response: We very much appreciate the reviewer pointing this out. We added this reference in the Introduction: “Over 30 years ago, ANP was demonstrated to reduce synthesis of a Na+-K+-ATPase inhibitor by brain tissue both in vivo and in vitro [45].”

Minor comments

1. Abstract, line 13- you mean pg/ml

Response: Yes, thank you. That has been corrected.

2. Introduction, line 11. The review of Fedorova et al Biochim Biophys Acta. 1802,2010 is appropriate here

Response: This reference was added.

3. Introduction, 3rd paragraph- “striking findings”- why is it so striking?

Response: The adjective was removed so the sentence now reads: “Both ANP and ECs are thought to play important roles in sodium and fluid homeostasis.”

4. Introduction, 4th paragraph- 54 delete

Response: done

5. Introduction, 5th paragraph- “EO is secreted when… [33]” it may sound that ref 33 shows this- which of course it does not- correct

Response: The reviewer is correct. We deleted the sentence and the reference.

6. Methods, Treatments, 1st paragraph- delete-

Response: We are unclear what the reviewer would like us to delete. We do not think that deleting the entire paragraph is what the reviewer had in mind.

7. Results, 1st paragraph- “following an early burst”- not clear, where is the burst? It is the first measurement with some basal levels.

Response: That appears to have been an oversight. Thank you. The sentence has been corrected: “The concentration in the supernatant spontaneously increases over time, and nearly doubles in 90 minutes (Figure 1).”

8. Results, 2nd paragraph- “For example”- this is not an example, this is the only difference you see.

Response: “For example, . . .” was replaced with “Specifically, . . .”

9. In the three figures – delete “ml” from the y abscise

Response: We added the statement “Y axis units are pM/mg protein.”

10. Change the title of all the graph to represent the data shown-not the conclusion from the experiment.

Response: The Figure legends were all changed as recommended, as follows:

(Note: the original figure numbers shown below have all incremented in the revised version due to the addition of a new figure 1).

“Figure 1. The EO content in the culture media of H295R human adrenocortical cells increased linearly over the time indicated significantly at 90 min. in the absence of ANP treatment. ANP concentrations of 5, 50, 200 pg/mL reduced EO secretion at 60 and 90 min. The inhibitory effect of 50 pg/mL ANP was significantly lower compared to lower (ANP5) and higher (ANP200) at 90 min. Error bars represent standard deviation. (*P < 0.05, compared to 30 min untreated, **P < 0.05, compared to untreated at corresponding time point, ***P < 0.05, compared to ANP5 and ANP200 at 90 min. Y axis units are pM/mg protein.)”

“Figure 2. Intracellular cGMP levels following ANP treatment for 30, 60, and 90 min in H295R human adrenocortical cells. A significant increase in cGMP was observed only with the physiologic concentration of 50 pg/mL at 60min. Error bars represent standard deviations. (*P < 0.05 compared to control. Y axis units are pM/mg protein.)”

“Figure 3. Change in EO secretion 60 min following addition of ANP 50 pg/mL, 10 mM ODQ and ODQ+ANP treatment. ANP alone and ODQ alone reduced EO secretion (#P < 0.05 compared to control). Pretreatment with ODQ followed by ANP further decreased secreted EO when compared to ANP or ODQ alone and their inhibitory effects appeared to be additive (*P < 0.05; Y axis units are pM/mg protein.).”

11. Reference 34 was not used in the text.

Response: The numbering of reference 34 has changed to 43 in this revision, and it has been used in the response to point #3 above.

12. Data is now available on Zenodo a under the title and authors of this publication (and may be accessed at: https://zenodo.org/record/5594568#.YXRY-S2z3a8).

We would greatly appreciate the re-review of our submission for publication in PLoS One.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Rif S. El-Mallakh, MD

(corresponding author)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Luis Eduardo M Quintas

4 Nov 2021

Inhibition of Endogenous Ouabain by Atrial Natriuretic Peptide is a Guanylyl Cyclase Independent Effect

PONE-D-21-16196R1

Dear Dr. El-Mallakh,

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,

Luis Eduardo M Quintas, Ph.D.

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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Luis Eduardo M Quintas

8 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-16196R1

Inhibition of Endogenous Ouabain by Atrial Natriuretic Peptide is a Guanylyl Cyclase Independent Effect

Dear Dr. El-Mallakh:

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. Luis Eduardo M Quintas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES