Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Dec 6;16(12):e0260706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260706

Budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity following double-stranded RNA challenge

Clara Rimmer 1,*, Savas Hetelekides 1, Sophia I Eliseeva 1, Steve N Georas 1,2,*, Janelle M Veazey 2,¤,*
Editor: Mária A Deli3
PMCID: PMC8648122  PMID: 34871316

Abstract

Airway epithelial barrier dysfunction is increasingly recognized as a key feature of asthma and other lung diseases. Respiratory viruses are responsible for a large fraction of asthma exacerbations, and are particularly potent at disrupting epithelial barrier function through pattern recognition receptor engagement leading to tight junction dysfunction. Although different mechanisms of barrier dysfunction have been described, relatively little is known about whether barrier integrity can be promoted to limit disease. Here, we tested three classes of drugs commonly prescribed to treat asthma for their ability to promote barrier function using a cell culture model of virus-induced airway epithelial barrier disruption. Specifically, we studied the corticosteroid budesonide, the long acting beta-agonist formoterol, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for their ability to promote barrier integrity of a monolayer of human bronchial epithelial cells (16HBE) before exposure to the viral mimetic double-stranded RNA. Of the three, only budesonide treatment limited transepithelial electrical resistance and small molecule permeability (4 kDa FITC-dextran flux). Next, we used a mouse model of acute dsRNA challenge that induces transient epithelial barrier disruption in vivo, and studied the effects budesonide when administered prophylactically or therapeutically. We found that budesonide similarly protected against dsRNA-induced airway barrier disruption in the lung, independently of its effects on airway inflammation. Taken together, these data suggest that an under-appreciated effect of inhaled budesonide is to maintain or promote airway epithelial barrier integrity during respiratory viral infections.

Introduction

Airway epithelial cells form a physical barrier to the outside world. They are among the first cells to encounter inhaled pathogens, and contribute to airway inflammation by secreting pro-inflammatory cytokines and other mediators [13]. Airway epithelial cells are normally tightly connected by adheren junctional proteins that join cells together and tight junctional proteins that promote barrier integrity. Regulation of these junctional protein complexes is critical for maintenance of epithelial barrier integrity, and for epithelial differentiation and activation [35]. Epithelial barrier dysfunction is increasingly associated with airway diseases including asthma and COPD, and can be caused by different environmental exposures [1]. Respiratory viruses in particular are notable for their ability to cause marked and sustained perturbation of epithelial barrier integrity [610]. The molecular mechanisms by which respiratory viruses disrupt barrier function include inhibiting the assembly of junctional complexes at the cell surface, which render epithelial monolayers “leaky”, facilitating paracellular movement of macromolecules in and out of the airway lumen [11]. Synthetic double stranded RNA (dsRNA) engages Toll-like Receptor 3 and can mimic the effects of virus-induced epithelial barrier dysfunction, which has been a useful tool to investigate mechanisms of virally-induced pathogenesis [12,13].

The host inflammatory response must maintain the delicate balance between sufficient potency to clear infection but avoid excessive inflammation that can lead to barrier disruption and tissue injury [1416]. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) such as budesonide, are commonly prescribed to attenuate airway inflammation and lessen airway hyperreactivity [1720]. ICS suppress the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in asthma. In asthmatic subjects with neutrophilic airway inflammation, potential targets of ICS include the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the neutrophil-attracting chemokine CXCL1. In addition to their role in suppressing airway inflammation, ICS might also promote epithelial barrier integrity, but this has not been as well studied in asthma or models of airway inflammation.

Although epithelial barrier dysfunction has been observed in asthma, and is associated with asthma severity, [1,21,22] relatively little is known about the effects of therapeutic compounds in regulating or promoting epithelial barrier integrity. Asthma medications are primarily thought to exert anti-inflammatory effects or act as bronchodilators. For instance, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) such as budesonide are the mainstay of anti-inflammatory therapy in asthma, and target many cell types in the lung including pro-inflammatory Th2 cells and eosinophils [17,18]. ICS are frequently combined with long-acting beta agonists (LABA) such as formoterol, which have potential anti-inflammatory effects in addition to their bronchodilation properties [20,23]. The leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast is frequently used to treat subjects with allergic asthma, and works to block the pro-inflammatory effects of leukotrienes [19].

Here we studied the effects of the ICS budesonide, the LABA formoterol, and leukotriene receptor agonist montelukast in a cell culture model of dsRNA-induced barrier dysfunction. We previously demonstrated that double-stranded RNA (polyI:C) is a potent disruptor of barrier integrity in 16HBE cells [12]. Many viruses generate dsRNA during replication and so the dsRNA polyI:C has often been used as simplified model of viral infection [24,25]. We report that budesonide has barrier protective effects, limiting dsRNA-induced paracellular permeability of a model epithelial monolayer. We also used a mouse model of acute dsRNA inhalation that leads to barrier disruption, and studied the effects of inhaled budesonide on barrier function in vivo. We report that budesonide protects against dsRNA-induced barrier dysfunction in vivo, independently of its effects on airway inflammation.

Materials and methods

16HBE TEER and small molecule flux assay

Monolayers of human 16HBE bronchial epithelial cells passage 17–20 (a gift from Dr. D. C. Gruenert, University of California San Francisco, CA) were grown on Transwell inserts (Corning; polyester inserts with 0.4 um pores and 0.33 cm2 growth area) then exposed to low-dose poly I:C (0.05 or 0.5 μg/ml, InvivoGen Cat#tlrl-pic; Version#11C21-MM), a synthetic analog of viral double stranded RNA. Barrier function was measured with trans-epithelial electrical resistance (TEER) at 6, 24, and 48 hrs after polyI:C treatment using a voltometer (World Precision Instruments EVOM2). At 48 hrs after treatment, 4 kDa fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) dextran (Sigma, used at 10 μg/ml) was applied apically and accumulation of FITC-dextran into the basal chamber was quantified with a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 Multimode fluorescent plate reader 2 hrs later. To assess the effects of selected medications on cell permeability, monolayers were treated with 1–10 μM budesonide (Sigma), montelukast (Sigma), or formoterol (Sigma) 18 hrs prior to polyI:C challenge.

Western Blot

Monolayers of human 16HBE bronchial epithelial cells passage 17–20 were grown on 6 well plates (Corning), treated with 0.1–1 μM budesonide 18hr prior to addition of low-dose poly I:C (0.5 μg/ml) for an additional 24hrs. Cells were lysed in RIPA buffer containing protease inhibitors (). 40μg protein was loaded onto a 10% SDS-PAGE gel and the gel run at 100V. The protein was transferred to PVDF membranes via TurboBlot semi-dry transfer (BoiRad) and blocked in 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA from Sigma). Primary antibodies were diluted as noted below and incubated with membranes overnight. Secondary antibodies were diluted as noted below and incubated with membrane 1hr. Bands were developed with Clarity Chemiluminescence (BioRad), visualized with BioBlot BXR film (Laboratory Product Sales) and densitometry was assessed with ImageJ.

Primary antibodies

  • Anti-occludin (Invitrogen OC-3F10), 1:1000 dilution in 5% BSA

  • Anti-claudin-4 (Invitrogen ZMD.306), 1:1000 dilution in 5% BSA

  • Anti-E-cadherin (ThermoFischer 20874-1-AP), 1:1000 dilution in 5% BSA

  • Anti-GAPDH (AbCam 8245), 1:50,000 dilution in 5% milk

  • Anti-mouse-HRP (GE Healthcare NA934V), 1:10,000 in 5% milk

  • Anti-rabbit-HRP (GE Healthcare NA931V), 1:10,000 in 5% milk

Mice and polyI:C inhalation challenge

Wild-type C57BL/6 were obtained from the National Cancer Institute. All animals were age and sex matched, and treated according to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Institutional Review Board approval. Mice were administered 10 μg high molecular weight polyI:C (InvivoGen Cat#tlrl-pic; Version#11C21-MM, oropharyngeally (o.p.) daily for three days to induce airway inflammation. This procedure is well-tolerated and results in no overt signs of distress or weight loss. Budesonide (Sigma CAS51333-22-3) was dosed o.p. at 350 or 700 μg/kg for 1–5 days (depending on the experiment). Twenty-four hours after the last instillation, mice were euthanized and the trachea was cannulated. Bronchioalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed with two instillations of 750 μL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The type and approximate quantity of cells was analyzed by hemacytometry. The bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was then spun down onto glass slides, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (FisherBrand 122–911), and leukocytes were quantified. Cell-free supernatants were analyzed for total protein (via Bradford assay), albumin levels (Abcam ab108792 ELISA), and CXCL1 levels (R&D DuoSet DY453 ELISA) according to manufacturer instructions.

Outside/In leak assay

At 23 hrs post final instillation and 1 hr prior to harvest, 0.2 mg 4kDa FITC-dextran (Sigma#46944) was administered o.p. to mice. BALF was collected as above. Blood was collected via cardiac puncture, and centrifuged for 12 min at 12,000 rpm at 4°C to separate serum from cellular component. FITC-dextran levels were assessed using a fluorescent plate reader (Beckman Coulter DTX 880 Multimode plate reader).

Statistical analysis

All values are expressed as means ± 95% standard deviation. Statistical analyses were performed using an unpaired t-test for two groups and ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple groups. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant. All data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 5.

Results

Double-stranded RNA disrupts barrier in 16HBE cells

Before testing the ability of different drug classes to promote barrier integrity, we optimized the dose of polyI:C that transiently disrupts barrier integrity as measured by both TEER and small molecule permeability in 16HBE cells culture. We demonstrate that polyI:C TEER and increases permeability to 4 kDa FITC-dextran in a dose-dependent manner across a monolayer of 16HBE cells (Fig 1A and 1B). We further found that barrier integrity began to recover by 24hrs post-polyI:C treatment with a low dose (0.05μg/ml polyI:C) (Fig 1A). As 0.05μg/ml polyI:C only mildly disrupted barrier, we chose to proceed with 0.5μg/ml polyI:C for our investigation into whether asthma controller medications can prevent barrier disruption and/or promote more rapid barrier recovery.

Fig 1. Double-stranded RNA (polyI:C) disrupts barrier integrity of 16HBE cells in dose-dependent manner.

Fig 1

16HBE cells were grown to confluency (over 800 ohm) and treated with either vehicle, 0.5, or 0.05 μg/ml polyI:C. A) TEER was monitored at 6, 24, 30, and 48hrs post polyI:C addition. B) At 48hrs post polyI:C, 10 μg/ml 4kDa FITC-dextran was applied apically and the amount of FITC-dextran translocation to the basal chamber was quantified 2hrs later using a fluorescent plate reader. Data are mean ± standard deviation. One way ANOVA followed by unpaired Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. **** p<0.0001.

Budesonide, but not formoterol or montelukast promotes barrier integrity in 16HBE cells

We assessed the ability of three asthma medications to prevent/promote barrier recovery following polyI:C-mediated barrier disruption. 16HBE cells were treated with budesonide, formoterol or montelukast 18hrs prior to 0.5μg/ml polyI:C challenge. At concentrations thought to approximate those achieved in epithelial lining fluids in vivo, none of the drugs tested had a measurable effect on TEER (Fig 2A). However, the steroid budesonide limited polyI:C-mediated barrier disruption as assayed by small molecule flux (1.983e-6±3.676e-7 vs. 1.429e-6±2.504e-7 cm/sec in 0.5μg/ml polyI:C vs. 0.5μg/ml polyIC+0.1 μM budesonide treated cells; p<0.01). The LABA formoterol, and the leukotriene receptor agonist montelukast, failed to mitigate polyI:C-mediated barrier disruption (Fig 2B). To further assess the barrier promoting effect of budesonide, we quantified levels of junctional proteins in 16HBE cells following treatment with polyI:C ± budesonide. Budesonide treatment promoted the maintenance of tight junctional proteins Occludin and Claudin-4 following polyI:C treatment, while the adhesion protein E-cadherin was not altered by either polyI:C or budesonide treatment (Fig 2C).

Fig 2. Budesonide, formoterol or montelukast do not impact TEER, but budesonide attenuates small molecule flux.

Fig 2

16HBE cells were grown to confluency (over 800 ohm) and treated with vehicle or 0.5 μg/ml polyI:C and 0.1–1μM drug. A) TEER was monitored at 6, 24, 30, 48, and 72hrs post polyI:C addition. B) At 48hrs post polyI:C, 10 μg/ml 4kDa FITC-dextran was applied apically and the amount of FITC-dextran translocation to the basal chamber was quantified 2hrs later using a fluorescent plate reader. C) 16HBE cells were treated as in A and B, but lysed in RIPA buffer for protein analysis by Western Blot. Band intensity was quantified with ImageJ and values normalized to the loading control GAPDH. Data are mean ± standard deviation. One way ANOVA followed by unpaired Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. ***p<0.01, **** p<0.0001.

Budesonide limits outside/in leak, but not inside/out leak in vivo

We next asked if budesonide could similarly promote barrier integrity in vivo. Pre-treatment of mice with 700 μg/kg inhaled budesonide attenuated polyI:C-mediated outside/in barrier break as seen by less 4kDa FITC-dextran leak out of the airspace and into serum (59.0±9.6 vs. 80.4±14.0 percent change over vehicle-treated in BAL of polyI:C vs. polyIC+700 μg budesonide treated mice; p<0.01) (Fig 3A and 3B). However, budesonide did not limit inside/out leak as the amount of total protein and albumin in the BAL fluid was not significantly changed with budesonide treatment (Fig 3C and 3D).

Fig 3. Budesonide treatment promotes outside/in barrier integrity in vivo.

Fig 3

C57B/6 mice were given vehicle or 350–700 μg/kg budesonide (Bud) oropharyngeally (o.p.) on days -2-2, and 10 μg polyI:C o.p. on days 0–2. On day 3, 0.2 mg 4kDa FITC-dextran was instilled o.p. and 1hr later BALF and blood were collected. A-B) BALF and serum were analyzed for FITC-dextran levels using a fluorescent plate reader. C-D) Total protein and albumin levels in BALF were assessed via Bradford and ELISA respectively. Data are mean ± standard deviation. One way ANOVA followed by unpaired Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. ** p< 0.01; ***p<0.001; **** p<0.0001.

Budesonide does not limit neutrophil accumulation or pro-inflammatory cytokines in vivo

Mice challenged with inhaled polyI:C also developed neutrophilic airway inflammation, as previously reported [13]. Budesonide treatment did not alter levels of the neutrophil chemoattractant CXCL1 (Fig 4A), but levels of IL-6 and interferon-lambda were reduced with budesonide pre-treatment (Fig 4B and 4C). Furthermore, budesonide did not attenuate polyI:C-induced neutrophil recruitment, but in fact enhanced neutrophil accumulation at the highest dose used (Fig 4D).

Fig 4. Budesonide treatment does not attenuate neutrophils and reduces IL-6 and interferon levels.

Fig 4

C57B/6 mice were given vehicle or 350–700 μg/kg budesonide oropharyngeally (o.p.) on days -2-2, and 10 μg polyI:C o.p. on days 0–2. On day 3, 0.2 mg 4kDa FITC-dextran was instilled o.p. and 1 hr later BALF was harvested. A-C) CXCL1, IFN-lambda and IL-6 levels were quantified via ELISA, and D) neutrophils were assessed via cytospin and hematoxylin and eosin staining. Data are mean ± standard deviation. One way ANOVA followed by unpaired Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *p<0.05, ** p< 0.01; ***p<0.001; **** p<0.0001.

Budesonide given at the time of polyI:C challenge limits barrier disruption in vivo

We next interrogated the therapeutic potential of budesonide given after polyI:C challenge to mitigate barrier disruption in vivo. Budesonide given the same day as (Group A), or after (Groups B-C), polyI:C inhalation attenuated outside/in leak, as seen by less FITC-dextran leak out of the airspace (Fig 5A and 5B). Same day budesonide similarly limited inside/out leak (Fig 5C and 5D). Finally, therapeutic dosing of budesonide (administered after polyI:C challenge) did not attenuate neutrophil accumulation or CXCL1 levels following polyI:C inhalation, consistent with finding from prophylactic dosing (Fig 5E and 5F).

Fig 5. Therapeutic budesonide treatment promotes barrier integrity without hampering neutrophil accumulation.

Fig 5

C57B/6 mice were given 10 μg polyI:C o.p. on days 0–2. On either days 0–2 (group A), days 1–2 (group B) or day 2 (group C), mice were also given vehicle or 700 μg/kg budesonide o.p.. On D3, 0.2 mg 4kDa FITC-dextran was instilled o.p. and 1hr later BALF and blood were harvested. A-B) Total protein and albumin levels in BALF were assessed via Bradford and ELISA respectively. C-D) FITC-dextran levels in BALF and serum were analyzed using a fluorescent plate reader. E-F) Neutrophils were assessed via cytospin and H&E staining, and CXCL1 was quantified via ELISA. Data are mean ± standard deviation. One way ANOVA followed by unpaired Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. * p <0.05, **p<0.01, *p<0.001.

Discussion

While the anti-inflammatory effects of asthma medications are well known, less is known about the ability of these medications to directly promote epithelial barrier integrity. Using dsRNA as a model of acute inflammation and barrier disruption, we show that budesonide, but not formoterol or montelukast, is able to promote barrier integrity in both a human bronchial epithelial cell monolayer, as well as an in vivo mouse model. Specifically, budesonide given before polyI:C challenge (mimicking long-term asthma controller medication) in 16HBE cells, or in an in vivo mouse model, limits the degree of barrier break (reduced FITC-dextran flux in vitro, as well as reduced outside/in leak in vivo). Importantly, budesonide treatment did not attenuate neutrophil accumulation or inside/out leak in vivo- suggesting normal ability to control pathogens remains un-impaired when barrier is enhanced. Further study is needed to determine the mechanism by which budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity.

Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for asthma, and exert multiple beneficial anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects to counter allergic airway inflammation [26]. As these medications are often taken long-term as maintenance therapies, we investigated treatment with budesonide, formoterol or montelukast administered prior to polyI:C challenge. With this model we found budesonide significantly enhances outside/in barrier integrity (Fig 3), suggesting that one of the beneficial effects of maintenance inhaled corticosteroids might be their ability to promote epithelial barrier integrity following respiratory viral infections. Airway barrier function is challenging to study in human subjects, but future studies using non-invasive approaches will provide new insights into how asthma therapeutics impact this important aspect of airway dysfunction in asthma.

Our results confirm and extend the results of Heijink et al who found that 16 nM budesonide attenuated polyI:C-induced airway epithelial barrier dysfunction in vitro, as determined by electrical cell-surface impedance sensing [27]. Importantly we show that a lower dose of budesonide protects against polyI:C-induced increase in epithelial permeability to small molecule flux (Fig 2). Prophylactic dosing with inhaled budesonide in vivo also significantly attenuated polyI:C-induced barrier disruption, as reflected by reduced translocation of inhaled FITC-dextran out of the airspaces and into serum (outside/in leak, Fig 3). Interestingly, this barrier protective effect of budesonide was apparent despite an increase recovery of BAL neutrophils from budesonide-treated mice. Increased neutrophils and no change in BAL CXCL1 levels, are consistent with the known effects of glucocorticoids in potentiating neutrophil survival [28] and argue that the pro-barrier integrity effects of budesonide on the epithelial barrier in vivo are not simply due to overall reduced levels of airway inflammation. Taken together, we conclude that budesonide promotes barrier integrity without hindering normal leukocyte accumulation to the site of injury or promoting inflammation.

We observed that prophylactic budesonide attenuated the translocation of FITC-dextran out of the airspaces and into serum (outside/in leak), without significantly inhibiting BAL protein or albumin levels (inside/out leak). This difference in outside/in vs. inside/out leak highlights that small molecule flux is not a simple opening of a hole in the barrier, but is a highly regulated process with directionality. One potential caveat to these findings is that total protein/albumin leak into the BALF quantifies what has leaked over the 4 days of treatment, whereas the FITC-dextran leak out of BALF measures leak over only 1hr. It is therefore possible that budesonide treatment attenuates acute leak but has less effect on long-term leak. This seems unlikely as the last budesonide treatment is 24 hrs prior to FITC-dextran administration thereby minimizing any "acute" effects of the drug at the time of FITC-dextran administration. Furthermore, budesonide given after polyI:C inhalation attenuated inside/out leak as well as outside/in leak (Fig 5), indicating budesonide is capable of limiting inside/out barrier integrity in specific contexts. Future work is needed to understand the mechanism by which budesonide promotes inside/out barrier integrity when given after, but not prior to, polyI:C challenge.

Ideally, promoting barrier integrity would not come at the expense of hindering immune cell infiltration during an infection. Budesonide is well known as a steroid that does not increase risk of severe viral infections [18]. In alignment with this, here we report budesonide treatment did not prevent neutrophil accumulation into the airspace following polyI:C challenge, and may even promote leukocyte accumulation (Fig 4). However, the boost in immune cells is not accompanied by elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines as budesonide treatment did not lower CXCL1 levels. Therefore, budesonide promotes barrier integrity without hindering normal leukocyte accumulation to the site of injury or promoting inflammation. Future work aims to extend these studies by investigating the mechanism by which budesonide promotes barrier integrity during virally-induced asthma exacerbations.

Supporting information

S1 File. Detailed protocol information.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Uncropped Western Blots.

(PDF)

S1 Rawdata. Raw data files.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. Patrick Donohue, Kristie Stiles and Traci Pressley for their help with conducting experiments.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The work reported here was supported by the following grants: R01 HL12424 (SG) from National Institute of Health/ National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/) R01 AI144241 (SG) from National Institute of Health/ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/) F31 HL14079501 (JV) from National Institute of Health/ National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/) T32AI007285 (JV) from National Institute of Health/ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Georas SN, Rezaee F. Epithelial barrier function: at the front line of asthma immunology and allergic airway inflammation. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(3):509–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.049 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ganesan S, Comstock AT, Sajjan US. Barrier function of airway tract epithelium. Tissue Barriers. 2013;1(4):e24997. doi: 10.4161/tisb.24997 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schleimer RP, Kato A, Kern R, Kuperman D, Avila PC. Epithelium: at the interface of innate and adaptive immune responses. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(6):1279–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.046 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shen L, Weber CR, Raleigh DR, Yu D, Turner JR. Tight Junction Pore and Leak Pathways: A Dynamic Duo. Annual Review of Physiology. 2011;73(1):283–309. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-012110-142150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rusu AD, Georgiou M. The multifarious regulation of the apical junctional complex. Open Biology. 2020;10(2):190278. doi: 10.1098/rsob.190278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walters RW, Freimuth P, Moninger TO, Ganske I, Zabner J, Welsh MJ. Adenovirus Fiber Disrupts CAR-Mediated Intercellular Adhesion Allowing Virus Escape. Cell. 2002;110(6):789–99. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00912-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sajjan U, Wang Q, Zhao Y, Gruenert DC, Hershenson MB. Rhinovirus disrupts the barrier function of polarized airway epithelial cells. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(12):1271–81. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200801-136OC . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Comstock AT, Ganesan S, Chattoraj A, Faris AN, Margolis BL, Hershenson MB, et al. Rhinovirus-Induced Barrier Dysfunction in Polarized Airway Epithelial Cells Is Mediated by NADPH Oxidase 1. 2011;85(13):6795–808. doi: 10.1128/jvi.02074-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rezaee F, DeSando SA, Ivanov AI, Chapman TJ, Knowlden SA, Beck LA, et al. Sustained protein kinase D activation mediates respiratory syncytial virus-induced airway barrier disruption. J Virol. 2013;87(20):11088–95. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01573-13 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Smallcombe CC, Linfield DT, Harford TJ, Bokun V, Ivanov AI, Piedimonte G, et al. Disruption of the airway epithelial barrier in a murine model of respiratory syncytial virus infection. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2019;316(2):L358–L68. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00345.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rezaee F, Georas SN. Breaking barriers. New insights into airway epithelial barrier function in health and disease. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2014;50(5):857–69. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2013-0541RT . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rezaee F, Meednu N, Emo JA, Saatian B, Chapman TJ, Naydenov NG, et al. Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid induces protein kinase D-dependent disassembly of apical junctions and barrier dysfunction in airway epithelial cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(6):1216–24.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.08.035 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Veazey JM, Chapman TJ, Smyth TR, Hillman SE, Eliseeva SI, Georas SN. Distinct roles for MDA5 and TLR3 in the acute response to inhaled double-stranded RNA. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0216056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Veazey J, Smyth T, Georas SN. Epithelial barrier dysfunction in asthma. In: Koval M, Sidhaye V, editors. Sidhaye/Koval -Lung Epithelial Biology in the Pathogenesis of Pulmonary Disease: Elsevier; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saatian B, Rezaee F, Desando S, Emo J, Chapman T, Knowlden S, et al. Interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 cause barrier dysfunction in human airway epithelial cells. Tissue Barriers. 2013;1(2):e24333. doi: 10.4161/tisb.24333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pulendran B, Maddur MS. Innate Immune Sensing and Response to Influenza. 386. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol: Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 23–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pelaia G, Vatrella A, Busceti MT, Fabiano F, Terracciano R, Matera MG, et al. Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of budesonide in asthma. Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2016;40:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2016.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kim S-R, Song J-H, Ahn J-H, Lee G-S, Ahn H, Yoon S-I, et al. Antiviral and anti-inflammatory activity of budesonide against human rhinovirus infection mediated via autophagy activation. Antiviral Research. 2018;151:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2018.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Peng W-S, Chen X, Yang X-Y, Liu E-M. Systematic Review of Montelukast’s Efficacy for Preventing Post-Bronchiolitis Wheezing. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014;25(2):143–50. doi: 10.1111/pai.12124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lötvall J. The Long and Short of β2-agonists. Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2002;15(6):497–501. doi: 10.1006/pupt.2002.0400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xiao C, Puddicombe SM, Field S, Haywood J, Broughton-Head V, Puxeddu I, et al. Defective epithelial barrier function in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(3):549–56 e1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.05.038 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Boer WId, Sharma HS, Baelemans SMI, Hoogsteden HC, Lambrecht BN, Braunstahl GJ. Altered expression of epithelial junctional proteins in atopic asthma: possible role in inflammation. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;86(3):105–12. doi: 10.1139/y08-004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sindi A, Todd DC, Nair P. Antiinflammatory effects of long-acting beta2-agonists in patients with asthma: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Chest. 2009;136(1):145–54. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-2149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Slater L, Bartlett NW, Haas JJ, Zhu J, Message SD, Walton RP, et al. Co-ordinated role of TLR3, RIG-I and MDA5 in the innate response to rhinovirus in bronchial epithelium. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6(11):e1001178. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001178 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Guillot L, Le Goffic R, Bloch S, Escriou N, Akira S, Chignard M, et al. Involvement of toll-like receptor 3 in the immune response of lung epithelial cells to double-stranded RNA and influenza A virus. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(7):5571–80. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M410592200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Heffler E, Nascimento L, Madeira G, Ferrando M, Puggioni F, Racca F, et al. Inhaled Corticosteroids Safety and Adverse Effects in Patients with Asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;6(3):776–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.01.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Heijink IH, Jonker MR, De Vries M, Van Oosterhout AJM, Telenga E, Ten Hacken NHT, et al. Budesonide and fluticasone propionate differentially affect the airway epithelial barrier. Respiratory Research. 2016;17(1). doi: 10.1186/s12931-015-0318-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liles W, Dale D, Klebanoff S. Glucocorticoids inhibit apoptosis of human neutrophils. Blood. 1995;86(8):3181–8. doi: 10.1182/blood.v86.8.3181.3181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mária A Deli

18 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-13593

Budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity following double-stranded RNA challenge

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Veazey,

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 all the points raised during the review process.

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

Two experts have evaluated the manuscript. Amendments are needed, as suggested by the reviewers. The paper would be greatly strengthened by the addition of immunohistochemistry for tight junction preoten(s).

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 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,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

3. 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. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 author investigated the effect of virus infection on airway epithelium focusing on the changes of barrier integrity. Three classes of anti-asthmatic drugs were tested (budesonide, formoterol and montelukast). The efficiency of these molecules was studied on 16HBE airway epithelial cell line in vitro and on wild-type C57BL/6 mice in vivo. It was confirmed that corticosteroid budesonide can promote the airway epithelial barrier integrity during respiratory viral infections on both models. Although the present study is of interest for the field, the novelty of the results should be better highlighted. The research data are convincing, but the preparation of the manuscript seems to be careless.

Comments:

1. The direct effect of budesonide alone on barrier integrity was investigated in vivo; this result is missing from the in vitro studies. On Figure 1 only medium control is shown, but not data on budesonide without virus treatment. These data would be very important for the verification of the barrier integrity inducing effect.

2. It would be important to examine the direct effect of budesonide on the barrier forming tight junction proteins. I suggest the authors to complete their work with TJ protein immunocytochemistry.

3. More information about airway inflammation and the investigated inflammatory mediators (CXCL1, IL6) should be given in the Introduction.

4. At the beginning of the result section there is a sentence referring literature data, please put it to the Introduction.

5. In case of Fig. 2 the groups do not separate well from each other, this way it is hard to see the treatment groups. To help the readers I suggest another labelling of the TEER curves (e.g. colours).

6. FITC-dextran permeability is given as % change. Author should calculate and give apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) values in the text (at least).

7. The proper unit of measurement of TEER is Ω × cm2 please give data multiplied with growth surface area of the culture inserts (line 120).

8. The passage number of the 16HBE cell line should be added to the Material and methods section.

Minor:

9. Please check and correct the usage of abbreviations:

TEER is abbreviated in line 73, no need to repeat it in line 112

please add abbreviation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in line 89

10. In Material and methods please add the (commercial) source of reagents, plasticware and instruments

give all the details for the Transwell insert type in the main text (line 71)

please add the source of FITC-dextran in line 75

please add the source of the investigated three drugs in lines 77-78)

please specify the type of plate reader in line 76

11. The usage of metric units is not consistent:

for “micron” use µ instead of u

for litre: use either l or L but not both

12. the expression “in vitro” should be written in italic (line 64 and 218)

13. The word “challenge” is used 19 times in this work. In some of the sentences please use synonyms (e.g. treatment).

Reviewer #2: This is an excellent manuscript - well-written, concise and easy to understand and really topical. I only have a few minor comments and suggestions.

1. Paraphrase lines 40-41 in the abstract. As is, makes it sound like tight junctions are adhesion junctions.

2. This is really the only respectful concern that's stopping me from accepting this wonderful paper as is - no ion flux was directly measured in the paper, so references to ion flux need to be removed from figure titles and manuscript text. What was measured was TEER - TEER has many components and any charge separation across the cell layer will alter it. Unless ion flux is measured directly, calling any data in the paper ion flux is misleading.

Congratulations on an excellent manuscript and as long as you're able to remove references to ion flux from the manuscript, I do not need to see the edited version - please accept after both of my comments have been incorporated.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Dennis Kolosov

[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 Dec 6;16(12):e0260706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260706.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-13593: Response to reviewers

Budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity following double-stranded RNA challenge

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Comments:

1. The direct effect of budesonide alone on barrier integrity was investigated in vivo; this result is missing from the in vitro studies. On Figure 1 only medium control is shown, but not data on budesonide without virus treatment. These data would be very important for the verification of the barrier integrity inducing effect.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We analyzed the effects of budesonide alone (0.1 �M) on 16HBE cells in the absence of polyI:C, and did not observe a significant effect on baseline permeability (relative permeability 1.5+/-0.8, n=7 wells, p>0.05).

¬2. It would be important to examine the direct effect of budesonide on the barrier forming tight junction proteins. I suggest the authors to complete their work with TJ protein immunocytochemistry.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. In order to study the effects of budesonide on tight junction proteins, we repeated cell culture experiments and analyzed junctional protein expression by Western blot. In revised Figure 2, we now show that budesonide reduced polyIC-induced decreases in the tight junctional proteins occludin and claudin-4. In future experiments, we plan to study tight junction protein expression by immunocytochemistry.

3. More information about airway inflammation and the investigated inflammatory mediators (CXCL1, IL6) should be given in the Introduction.

Response: Lines 61-68 have been added (copied here). The host inflammatory response must maintain the delicate balance between sufficient potency to clear infection but avoid excessive inflammation that can lead to barrier disruption and tissue injury [14-16]. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) such as budesonide, are commonly prescribed to attenuate airway inflammation and lessen airway hyperreactivity [17-20]. ICS suppress the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in asthma. In asthmatic subjects with neutrophilic airway inflammation, potential targets of ICS include the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the neutrophil-attracting chemokine CXCL1. In addition to their role in suppressing airway inflammation, ICS might also promote epithelial barrier integrity, but this has not been as well studied in asthma or models of airway inflammation.

4. At the beginning of the result section there is a sentence referring literature data, please put it to the Introduction.

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

5. In case of Fig. 2 the groups do not separate well from each other, this way it is hard to see the treatment groups. To help the readers I suggest another labelling of the TEER curves (e.g. colours).

Response: We relabeled the TEER data in Figure 2 with different colors, but the data are still very similar and remain difficult to distinguish. We could re-make this figure as a bar graph if requested by the Reviewer.

6. FITC-dextran permeability is given as % change. Author should calculate and give apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) values in the text (at least).

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected

7. The proper unit of measurement of TEER is Ω × cm2 please give data multiplied with growth surface area of the culture inserts (line 120).

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

8. The passage number of the 16HBE cell line should be added to the Material and methods section.

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

Minor:

9. Please check and correct the usage of abbreviations:

TEER is abbreviated in line 73, no need to repeat it in line 112

please add abbreviation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in line 89

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

10. In Material and methods please add the (commercial) source of reagents, plasticware and instruments

give all the details for the Transwell insert type in the main text (line 71)

please add the source of FITC-dextran in line 75

please add the source of the investigated three drugs in lines 77-78)

please specify the type of plate reader in line 76

Response: Thank you- these errors have been corrected.

11. The usage of metric units is not consistent:

for “micron” use µ instead of u

for litre: use either l or L but not both

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

12. the expression “in vitro” should be written in italic (line 64 and 218)

Response: Thank you- this error has been corrected.

13. The word “challenge” is used 19 times in this work. In some of the sentences please use synonyms (e.g. treatment).

Response: Thank you again for bringing this to our attention. We have varied the word choice.

Reviewer #2:

1. Paraphrase lines 40-41 in the abstract. As is, makes it sound like tight junctions are adhesion junctions.

Response: The wording of lines 40-41 has been changed. It’s now lines 48-49 and reads “Airway epithelial cells are normally tightly connected by adherens junctional proteins that join cells together and tight junctional proteins that promote barrier integrity”.

Ion flux has now been replaced with TEER throughout the paper. Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-PLOSONE.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mária A Deli

16 Nov 2021

Budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity following double-stranded RNA challenge

PONE-D-21-13593R1

Dear Dr. Veazey,

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,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., 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: Thank you for addressing all of my comments!

Congratulations on your excellent study!

Best regards.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Dennis Kolosov

Acceptance letter

Mária A Deli

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-13593R1

Budesonide promotes airway epithelial barrier integrity following double-stranded RNA challenge

Dear Dr. Veazey:

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. Mária A. Deli

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 File. Detailed protocol information.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Uncropped Western Blots.

    (PDF)

    S1 Rawdata. Raw data files.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-PLOSONE.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES