Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 17;17(11):e0277036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277036

Pain perception genes, asthma, and oral health: A reverse genetics study

Rosany O Lisboa 1,2,3,#, Raymond F Sekula 4,, Mariana Bezamat 2,#, Kathleen Deeley 2,, Luiz Carlos Santana-da-Silva 1,3,, Alexandre R Vieira 2,*,#
Editor: JJ Cray Jr5
PMCID: PMC9671307  PMID: 36395102

Abstract

Pain is an experience of a subjective nature, interpreted in a personal way and according to an extensive palette of factors unique to each individual. Orofacial pain can be acute or chronic and it is usually the main reason for the patient to seek dental care. Pain perception varies widely among individuals. This variability is considered a mosaic of factors, which include biopsychosocial factors and genetic factors. Understanding these differences can be extremely beneficial for pain management in a personalized and more efficient way. We performed association studies to investigate phenotypes associated with genetic markers in pain-related genes in two groups of patients who received more or less anesthesia during dental treatment. The study group was comprised of 1289 individuals participating in the Dental Registry and DNA Repository Project (DRDR) of the University of Pittsburgh, with 900 participants in the group that received the most anesthesia and 389 constituting the comparison group that received less anesthesia. We tested 58 phenotypes and genotypic data of seven SNPs in genes that are associated with pain perception, pain modulation and response to drugs used in pain treatment: COMT (rs4818 and rs6269), GCH1 (rs3783641), DRD2 (rs6276), OPRM1 (rs1799971), SCN9A (rs6746030) and SCN10A (rs6795970). The analysis revealed a protective effect of rs1799971 on asthma in the total sample. rs3783641 was associated with salivary secretion disorders in females who received more anesthesia. rs1799971 was also associated with periodontitis in Whites who received less anesthesia. rs4818 was associated with disease and other tongue conditions in the group composed of Blacks who received less anesthesia. In conclusion, our study implicated variants in pain-related genes in asthma and oral phenotypes.

Introduction

Pain in the region above the neck, in front of the ears and below the orbitomeatal line, including the oral cavity, are considered orofacial pains [1]. Due to the complexity of these regions, orofacial pain can arise from several sources and represents a challenge for diagnosis and clinical treatment [2].

Nociceptive pain, which is characterized by the acute stimulation of nociceptors found in the skin, intraoral cavity, and dental pulp, is considered the most common type of pain in the orofacial region and the reason why patients usually seek dental care [3].

Despite the discrepancies between studies, most point out that sensitivity to pain is more prevalent in females than males. Possible explanations include the effects of gonadal hormones, genetic factors, and differences in the activation of brain patterns [4]. Some studies also suggest that descending pain inhibitors, such as those that induce opioid and non-opioid analgesia, also appear to be influenced by sex, and gonadal hormones [5,6].

Studies on orofacial pain related to age are usually carried out with patients suffering from chronic orofacial pain. Boggero et al. (2015) [7] demonstrated that disruption of individual’s daily activities caused by the presence of high levels of pain intensity decreased with age, supporting the idea that older adults deal with pain as well or better than younger adults.

The experience of pain is multifactorial, with the influence of genetic factors, sex, socioeconomic status and access to an adequate health system [8,9].

Pain cannot be strongly associated with the degree of damage or inflammation observable by clinicians [3]. Therefore, awareness that different patients might often report completely different degrees of pain perception is essential for a mechanistic understanding of orofacial pain. This knowledge will provide better identification of individuals who are at risk of not responding to conventional interventions to treat pain [4]. Thus, three main factors are involved in minimizing orofacial pain during common dental treatments: 1) increased knowledge in the efficiency of pharmacological agents, 2) improved injection techniques, and 3) the identification of differences inherent to each individual that may indicate the need for more or less anesthesia.

In order to detect associations of distinct oral and systemic diseases, we used individual indication of the need for more anesthesia to define comparators. Then, a “reverse genetics” approach was used and a genotype-phenotype strategy to assess the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and a wide range of phenotypic variables in a high-throughput manner was implemented [10]. Our objective was to search for associations between clinical phenotypes and genetic markers in genes related to pain.

Materials and methods

Subjects

From 5,025 individuals, part of the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine Dental Registry and DNA Repository (DRDR) project, a total of 1,289 subjects were selected for this study. These individuals were selected because they received more than one anesthetic carpule (more than 1.8 cc of volume per tube) and constituted the first group (n = 900), or received a smaller amount of anesthesia that varied from half to one tube, forming the second group (n = 389). Those two groups were matched by sex, age, self-reported ethnicity, and dental treatment performed. The sample in terms of sex, ethnicity, and age is summarized in Table 1. The overall study design is illustrated in Fig 1.

Table 1. Description of the study sample.

Variables More Local Anesthetic (n = 900) Less Local Anesthetic (n = 389)
Age in years
(average ± standard deviation, range) 45.5 ± 17.34 (8–85) 45.3 ± 18.24 (10–87)
Sex (n, %)
Female 513 (57%) 206 (53%)
Male 387 (43%) 183 (47%)
Self-reported Ethnicity
White 695 (77%) 297 (77%)
Black 161 (18%) 70 (18%)
Asian 27 (3%) 19 (5%)
Others 17 (2%) 3 (1%)

Fig 1. Overall study design flowchart.

Fig 1

The stages of the study are presented from the selection of groups from the Dental Registry and DNA Repository (DRDR) to the PheWAS analysis.

The University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (IRB # 0606091) approved this project. Written informed consent documents were obtained from all subjects. Age-appropriate assent documents were used for children younger than 14 years of age and signed informed consent documents were obtained from the parents.

This study is characterized as a human observational study that complies with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. We attested that the STROBE checklist was completed.

Phenotypes

This study includes both oral and general health related phenotypes, comprising inflammatory conditions that underlie orofacial pain processes. The internal DRDR diagnostic codes were converted into “phecodes” (high throughput phenotyping tool based on ICD—International Classification of Diseases—codes to make them compatible with the software used). Phenotypes tested are listed below with their respective phecode in parentheses: Phenotypes tested included candidiasis (112), cancer of mouth (145), hemangioma and lymphangioma any site (228), disorders of parathyroid gland (252), lymphadenitis (289.4), sleep related movement disorders (327.7), disorders of lacrimal system (375), varicose veins (454), chronic tonsillitis and adenoiditis (474.2), disorders of tooth development (520), disturbances in tooth eruption (520.2), diseases of hard tissues of teeth (521), dental caries (521.1), diseases of pulp and periapical tissues (522), periapical abscess (522.5), gingival and periodontal diseases (523), gingivitis (523.1), periodontitis (acute or chronic) (523.3), acute periodontitis (523.31), chronic periodontitis (523.32), anomalies of tooth position/malocclusion (524.3), other diseases of the teeth and supporting structures (525), loss of teeth or edentulism (525.1), diseases of the jaws (526), cysts of the jaws (526.1), anomalies of jaw size/symmetry (526.3), temporomandibular joint disorders (526.4), exostosis of jaw (526.8), diseases of the salivary glands (527), disturbance of salivary secretion (527.7), diseases of the oral soft tissues, excluding lesions specific for gingiva and tongue (528), stomatitis and mucositis (528.1), stomatitis and mucositis (ulcerative) (528.11), diseases of lips (528.5), leukoplakia of oral mucosa (528.6), diseases and other conditions of the tongue (529), glossitis (529.1), other specified erythematous conditions (695.8), Diseases of sebaceous glands (706), Congenital anomalies of face and neck (749), epilepsy, recurrent seizures, convulsions (345), cerebral artery occlusion, with cerebral infarction (433.21), asthma (495), tuberculosis (10), other deficiency anemia (281), chronic sinusitis (475), chronic hepatitis (70.4), chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (571), spontaneous ecchymoses (287.1), cardiac dysrhythmias (427), rheumatic fever/chorea (41.21), hypertension (401), nonrheumatic mitral valve disorders (395.1), abnormal heart sounds (396), valvular heart disease/heart chambers (747.12), heart valve replaced (395.6), chronic renal failure [CKD] (585.3), and complication of internal orthopedic device (858).

A PheWAS package, installed into R Studio software was used (Carroll et al., 2014). Phecodes as well as genotypes for each patient were uploaded into the system. The software compares individuals for each phenotype according to their genotypes. An additive genetic model was implemented where allele frequencies were calculated and compared between each group.

SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) selection and genotyping

SNPs were selected from previous studies reporting genes associated with pain perception and/or biological roles related to pain response, or analgesia. Table 2 contains a list of selected genes and SNPs as well as their minor allele frequencies (MAF) and their relationship with pain as previously demonstrated.

Table 2. Characteristics of the selected SNPs.

SNP Gene/Gene Product Chromosome Reference Allele Polymorphic Allele MAF Consequence Effect of pain / analgesia
rs4818 COMT
Catechol-O-methyltransferase
22 C G 0.29 Synonymous Variant Intensity, sensitivity and duration of pain [11,12].
rs6269 COMT
Catechol-O-methyltransferase
22 A G 0.37 Intron Variant Pain sensitivity and opioid efficacy post-surgical pain [12,13].
rs3783641 GCH1
GTP cyclohydrolase 1
14 T A 0.22 Intron Variant Modulates pain sensitivity [14].
rs6276 DRD2
Dopamine Receptor D2
11 C T 0.46 3 Prime UTR Variant Significant association with pain scores [15].
rs1799971 OPRM1
Opioid receptor mu 1
6 A G 0.22 Missense variant Enhanced sensitivity for physical pain perception [16,17].
rs6795970 SCN10A
Sodium voltage-gated channel alpha subunit 10
3 G A 0.25 Missense variant Modulates pain sensitivity [18].
Higher risk for inadequate analgesia [19].
rs6746030 SCN9A
Sodium voltage-gated channel alpha subunit 9
2 G A 0.12 Missense variant Associated with variability of basal pain sensitivity [20].

Participants’ DNA were extracted and genotyped using established protocols previously described [21]. Genotyping of SNPs was performed using end-point analysis and TaqMan chemistry in 3.0 μl volumes on an ABI QuantStudio 6 Flex Real Time PCR System with a software version 1.7 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA).

Statistical methods and power analysis

The standard statistical test in the PheWAS package is uploaded in R studio and performs a logistic regression that calculates odds ratios, p-values and corrects for multiple testing. The additive genomic model was used assuming that each allele contributes a fixed amount of risk that is additive. Covariates such as sex, ethnicity, and age were incorporated into the analysis.

To infer the power of the analysis, the simulation study by Verma et al. (2018) [22] was used as a reference. Thus, the present study contains a total of 900 individuals in the group that received more anesthesia and 389 in the group that required less anesthetic, which reaches an approximate 1:3 ratio. When considering the total sample (n = 1,289) or the group that required more anesthetic for regular dental treatment (n = 900), there was enough power to detect associations if allele frequency was at least 5% and penetrance was at least 20%. For the group that required less anesthetic, there was enough power if allele frequency was 20% and penetrance was 20% or higher [22].

In addition to the plots generated through the R package, the Web-based PheWAS-View was used to visually integrate the PheWAS results [23].

The comparison between the genotypic and allelic frequencies of the SNPs between groups was performed using the chi-square test implemented by R Studio program.

Results

The results of the PheWAS analyses performed in the total sample (n = 1,289), in the group of individuals who received more anesthesia (n = 900) and in the group of individuals who received less anesthesia (n = 389) showed only nominal associations (p values between 0.00025 and 0.05) for nine, ten and five phenotypes, respectively (Table 3 and Fig 2). No associations survived the strict Bonferroni correction for these analyses.

Table 3. Summary of the results of PheWAS analysis of p-values between 0.00025 and 0.05 for the total sample, for the group that received more anesthesia and for the group that received the least amount of anesthesia.

Phenotype Phecode SNP/Allele Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval) P-value Affected Non affected Allele frequency
Total sample
Disorders of tooth development 520 rs4818_G 0.64 (0.43–0.94) 0.02 71 1193 0.37
Temporomandibular joint disorders 526.4 rs6276_T 1.18 (1.01–1.39) 0.04 523 742 0.63
Disturbance of salivary secretion 527.7 rs3783641_A 0.72 (0.53–0.97) 0.03 187 1087 0.2
Periodontitis (acute or chronic) 523.3 rs1799971_G 0.69 (0.46–0.98) 0.05 195 1081 0.13
Asthma 495 rs1799971_G 0.43 (0.26–0.67) 0.0005 154 1118 0.13
Spontaneous ecchymoses 287.1 rs1799971_G 0.52 (0.26–0.93) 0.04 86 1187 0.13
Hypertension 401 rs1799971_G 0.68 (-.48–0.94) 0.02 302 971 0.13
Complication of internal orthopedic device 858 rs1799971_G 1.77 (0.99–3.01) 0.04 50 1220 0.13
Anomalies of jaw size/symmetry 526.3 rs6795970_A 0.51 (0.27–0.89) 0.02 34 1240 0.35
More anesthesia
Disorders of tooth development 520 rs4818_G 0.62 (0.38–0.97) 0.04 50 832 0.37
Asthma 495 rs4818_G 0.72 (0.53–0.97) 0.03 111 770 0.37
Dental caries 521.1 rs6276_T 1.78 (1.16–2.78) 0.009 841 38 0.38
Temporomandibular joint disorders 526.4 rs6276_T 1.22 (1.01–1.47) 0.04 388 491 0.38
Disturbance of salivary secretion 527.7 rs3783641_A 0.64 (0.44–0.92) 0.02 134 755 0.2
Stomatitis and mucositis 528.1 rs3783641_A 1.89 (0.99–3.48) 0.04 23 866 0.2
Asthma 495 rs1799971_G 0.47 (0.26–0.79) 0.007 112 777 0.12
Spontaneous ecchymoses 287.1 rs1799971_G 0.43 (0.18–0.89) 0.04 63 827 0.12
Stomatitis and mucositis 528.1 rs6795970_A 0.41 (0.18–0.84) 0.02 22 868 0.36
Spontaneous ecchymoses 287.1 rs6795970_A 1.54 (1.06–2.25) 0.02 63 827 0.36
Less anesthesia
Other diseases of the teeth and supporting structures 525 rs4818_G 1.49 (1.01–2.19) 0.04 79 303 0.36
Diseases of pulp and periapical tissues 522 rs6276_T 1.39 (1.02–1.9) 0.04 243 143 0.34
Periodontitis (acute or chronic) 523.3 rs1799971_G 0.48 (0.23–0.88) 0.03 86 300 0.13
Asthma 495 rs1799971_G 0.30 (0.09–0.73) 0.02 42 341 0.13
Stomatitis and mucositis 528.1 rs6795970_A 1.85 (1.09–3.15) 0.02 31 353 0.34

Fig 2. PheWAS results stratified across different groups.

Fig 2

The color red represents a group of individuals that received more anesthesia. Blue represents a group that received less anesthesia, and green represents the total sample. The tip direction of the triangles represents the direction of the odds ratio of each association, the upward triangles indicate OR ≥ 1; downward triangles indicate a protective effect (OR < 1.0). Nominal associations are showed under the horizontal red line that indicates threshold of p < 0.002.

When PheWAS was performed for each SNP separately using the total sample, the SNP rs1799971 of the OPRM1 gene was nominally associated with five different phenotypes. Additionally, there was an association that survived Bonferroni correction (p<0.002) between OPRM1 and asthma (phecode 495) as shown in Table 4 and Fig 3. This association was between the polymorphic allele G conferring a protective effect toward asthma.

Table 4. Summary of the PheWAS results of p-values below 0.05 for each SNP separately, using the total sample, and the groups that received more and less anesthesia, considering sex and ethnicity.

* Indicates statistically significant results after correction for multiple testing.

Phenotype Phecode SNP/Allele Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) P-value Affected Non affected Allele frequency
Total sample
Gingival and periodontal diseases 523 rs1799971_G 0.61 (0.35–0.97) 0.05 105 1171 0.13
Periodontitis (acute or chronic) 523.3 rs1799971_G 0.64 (0.44–0.9) 0.01 195 1081 0.13
Leukoplakia of oral mucosa 528.6 rs1799971_G 1.28 (1.02–1.61) 0.03 467 809 0.13
Asthma 495 rs1799971_G 0.44 (0.27–0.69) 0.0006* 154 1118 0.13
Spontaneous ecchymoses 287.1 rs1799971_G 0.47 (0.24–0.83) 0.02 86 1187 0.13
Hypertension 401 rs1799971_G 0.63 (0.46–0.85) 0.003 302 971 0.13
Femalesmore anesthesia
Gingival and periodontal diseases 523 rs3783641_A 1.82 (1.08–3.02) 0.02 40 465 0.21
Chronic periodontitis 523.32 rs3783641_A 0.18 (0.03–0.61) 0.02 20 485 0.21
Disturbance of salivary secretion 527.7 rs3783641_A 0.39 (0.22–0.64) 0.0005* 80 425 0.21
Whitesless anesthesia
Gingival and periodontal diseases 523 rs1799971_G 0.22 (0.04–0.71) 0.04 32 262 0.12
Periodontitis (acute or chronic) 523.3 rs1799971_G 0.17 (0.05–0.43) 0.0008* 69 225 0.12
Blacksless anesthesia
Diseases and other conditions of the tongue 529 rs4818_G 5.08 (1.87–15.97) 0.002* 37 33 0.2

Fig 3. PheWAS result for SNP rs1799971 performed with the total sample.

Fig 3

The blue line indicates p-value <0.05. The horizontal red line indicates the threshold of p < 0.002. The tip direction of the triangles represents the direction of the odds ratio of each association, the upward triangles indicate odds ratio≥1; downward triangles indicate a protective effect (odds ratio<1.0). The different colors of the triangles indicate different disease groups.

Considering that pain can be influenced by factors such as sex and ethnicity, we performed a separate analysis for females and males, considering whether they received a greater or lesser amount of anesthesia. For ethnicity, a similar analysis was also performed considering all individuals who self-reported as White or Black and the amount of anesthesia received. The SNP rs3783641 in GCH1 was associated with disorders of salivary secretion (phecode 527.7) when the PheWAS was performed for the group of all female subjects who received the highest amount of anesthesia (Table 4 and Fig 2).

The PheWAS performed in the group of self-reported Whites who received less anesthesia showed an association between the rs1799971 in OPRM1 and gingival and periodontal diseases (phecode 523) as well as with periodontitis (acute or chronic) (phecode 523.3), the later providing a protective effect toward the phenotype (odds ratio = 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.05–0.42, p = 0.0008) (Table 4 and Fig 2).

The variant rs4818 in COMT and its association with diseases and other conditions of the tongue (phecode 529) in the group consisting of self-reported Black individuals who received less anesthesia is shown in Table 4 and Fig 2. In this analysis, it is observed that the SNP rs4818 confers a five-time increase in risk for the phenotype (odds ratio = 5.07, 95% confidence interval 1.87–15.96, p = 0.002).

The genotypic and allelic distributions for all SNPs studied according to the study groups are shown in Appendix Table 1. We observed statistically significant differences in the genotypic and allelic frequencies for the rs6276 in DRD2. For the rs1799971 in OPRM1, there was a difference between allelic frequencies between groups that received a greater or lesser amount of anesthesia. Furthermore, it can be observed that the C allele (wild) of the SNP rs6276 was associated with the group that received the highest amount of anesthesia with a risk of 1.2 (95% confidence interval 1.01–1.44, p = 0.03). While the G allele of the SNP rs1799971 confers a protective effect on the group that received the least amount of anesthesia (odds ratio = 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.41–0.95, p = 0.02).

Discussion

Our results demonstrated an association between the rs1799971 in OPRM1 and asthma. This finding is consistent with the results from a recent study that assessed asthma severity in outpatients carrying rs1799971 [24]. In this study the authors also used an experimental asthma rodent model harboring the functionally equivalent SNP to investigate the mechanism by which this SNP influences the allergic immune response. They found that patients with asthma carrying the OPRM1 GG genotype exhibited enhanced airway hyperresponsiveness, attributable to enhanced Th2 cell differentiation in the regional lymph node. In our study we found not only asthma associated with the allele G (polymorphic) of rs1799971, but also that patients that carry this allele needed less amounts of anesthesia compared to patients who carried the reference allele for the same dental procedures.

Among the salivary secretion disorders, the prevalence rates for sialorrhea for the general population are unknown, while xerostomia is more frequent in women [25]. The SNP 3783641 of the GCH1 gene showed a protective effect for disturbance of salivary secretion in the group of women who received more anesthesia. Since rs3783641 is an intronic variant, no clinical significance has been reported in the literature. However, a higher pain tolerance has been attributed to a haplotype including the rs3783641 in the GCH1 gene described by [14]. Although a haplotype in GCH1 may be constructed with 15 SNPs [26], 100% sensitivity and specificity can be obtained through the screening of only three variants in untranslated regions, including the rs3783641. In summary, most clinical studies investigating this GCH1 haplotype have confirmed its association with higher pain tolerance [27]. On the other hand, studies investigating rs3783641 are less conclusive [28,29]. GCH1 plays an important role in the biosynthesis of the cofactor Bh4, which is essential for the synthesis of catecholamines, such as norepinephrine, that participate in the neuronal regulation of salivary secretion through its binding with the β-adrenergic receptors.

A protective effect of rs1799971 toward having periodontitis was demonstrated in the group of self-reported Whites who received less anesthesia. Periodontitis is more prevalent in certain ethnic populations, especially non-Hispanic Black individuals. Literature also indicates that individuals of African descent are more prone to periodontitis [30,31]. Although we understand that periodontitis is also influenced by the environment [32], data from different populations in the 1000 Genome show that the frequency of the G allele (polymorphic) for the African population is lower (1%), followed by Europeans (16%), Americans (20%), East Asians (39%), and South Asians (42%). Hence, it is unlikely we had enough power to detect a possible association between this variant and periodontitis in self-reported Black individuals. A mechanism by which this functional SNP could explain the protective effect toward having periodontitis would be through the higher affinity for beta-endorphin, which participates in regulating the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines from periphery immune cells [33]. Furthermore, immune response and inflammation pathways, such as those involving cytokine and chemokine activities, have been reported to be the most upregulated in RNA expression analysis of affected tissues from individuals with periodontitis [34]. Additionally, carriers of the G allele had lower serum concentrations of cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ), and showed a higher quality of life compared to individuals without this allele [35].

Ethnic differences in oral health and orofacial pain have been reported in the literature. Therefore, the association of the rs4818 SNP with disease of the tongue in the African-American group that received less anesthesia should be considered with caution as it may be linked to other disparities, as ethnic groups vary in lifestyle, socioeconomic conditions and access to dental services [8,36]. The rs4818 G allele (polymorphic) was reported to be protective for oral pain [11]. The same allele has been also associated with the risk of developing one of the most common diseases of the tongue, known as benign migratory glossitis, with a risk 4.7 times greater for developing the condition in individuals with the GC genotype [37].

Although a direct relationship between COMT and the phenotype of tongue disease has not been reported to date, the catechol-methyltransferase enzyme encoded by this gene acts on the degradation of catecholamines that play important roles in several physiological processes and consequently also in diseases. As an example, the dopamine responsive burning mouth syndrome, that is characterized by a burning sensation of the oral mucosa in the absence of clinically apparent mucosal changes, mainly affects the tongue [38].

In spite of rs6276 (DRD2) had only nominative associations in the PheWAS analysis, the genotypic and allelic frequencies were significantly different between groups of individuals separated by the amount of anesthetic needed for regular dental procedures (p = 0.02) and the C allele (wild) was associated with the risk of needing more anesthesia (odds ratio = 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.01–1.49; p = 0.03). These results corroborate the study by Qadri et al. (2015) [15], who showed that individuals with two copies of this allele had higher pain scores and also the same allele was positively associated with both opioid analgesic use and pain severity in emergency departments (p = 0.03). The rs6276 occurs in the 3′UTR region, which is important for the stability and regulation of the D2R dopamine receptor mRNA [39].

Lidocaine, articaine, and mepivacaine are the three most used anaesthetics in dentistry. Mepivacaine has the same potency s lidocaine, with milder vasodilating ability. The duration of effect in a maxillary infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine ranges from 60 to 90 minutes in pulp tissue and 170 to 300 minutes in soft tissue, while the duration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine encompasses 60 to 75 minutes in the pulp and 170 to 360 minutes in the soft tissues. To mention another circumstance, palate anesthesia is unpleasant for many patients because it is a very sensitive site, so when the anesthetic used is articaine, it is not necessary to perform infiltration in the palatal location for extraction procedures, as it is very effective only with injection in the region maxillary vestibular. Articaine presents tissue diffusion when compared to the lidocaine in areas other than the place where the anesthetic was deposited, avoiding excessive punctures and patient discomfort [4044]. Therefore, depending on the dental procedure, the type of anesthetic could influence the number of tubetes to be used. To minimize the potential impact of these differences in our study, we matched individuals by the treatment procedure they needed, but still some residual effect of these differences could have influenced the results.

The inclusion of children could be seen as a limitation, since we use weight calculate the maximum amount of anaesthetic to be used for their treatment. In this way, children necessarily must use less tubetes then adults [45]. Since the parameter of “pain perception” was the amount of anesthetic used, these variables involved in metabolization, duration effect, toxicity and others, could impact the interpretation of the results. However, only five children under 12 years of age were included in the study (ages 8, 10.3, 10.6. 11.3, and 11.5 years). The potential impact of these subjects in the results presented here is likely very small or neglectable.

Possible additional limitations of the present study are the lack of a pain measurement model that would allow assessing the pain threshold among participants according to the amount of anesthesia they received. Second, the use of self-reported ethnicity may in certain cases not actually correspond to ancestry, where some self-identified African Americans may have European ancestry and some self-identified European Americans have substantial admixture from African ancestry [46]. Finally, the data studied come from a registry, which may include undetected errors and variation of clinical descriptions.

Nevertheless, our study provides a pioneering approach to the study of pain perception by using “reverse genetics” through the PheWAS methodology (a study design in which the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms or other types of DNA variants is tested across many different phenotypes), considered an unbiased approach to test for associations between a specific genetic variant or combination of variants, and a wide range of phenotypes [47]. It was possible to identify new associations between SNPs in genes related to pain and oral phenotypes in the groups of individuals who received more anesthesia or who received less anesthesia. We are careful to not directly equate receiving anesthesia to feeling more or less pain, since the amount of anesthetic used can be influenced by several factors, such as anatomical variations, metabolism rate, type of anesthetic used, local tissue pH (which can be modified by the presence of inflammation), technique used, and not just pain.

These associations bring promising opportunities to better understand not only pain perception but also the phenotypes that we found associated, such as asthma, disturbance of salivary secretion, periodontitis, and diseases affecting the tongue. Additionally, these results allow for new perspectives regarding the relationship between important pathways related to dopamine (DRD2, COMT, and GCH1) and immune system response pathways (OPRM1). More importantly, we hope that due to the association with risk of needing more anesthesia found in the present study, the SNPs rs6276_C and rs1799971_A are potential candidates to be studied as pain biomarkers, a priori for dental treatment in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Dental Registry and DNA Repository project, which is supported by the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Also, we thank the Graduate Program in Oncology and Medical Sciences at the Federal University of Pará, Brazil, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, for the support to Lisboa, RO, and Bezamat, M, respectively. This manuscript would not be possible without their contributions.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Shephard MK, MacGregor EA, Zakrzewska JM. 2014. Orofacial pain: a guide for the headache physician. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 54(1): 22–39. doi: 10.1111/head.12272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Romero-Reyes M, Uyanik JM. 2014. Orofacial pain management: current perspectives. Journal of pain research, 7, 99. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S37593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dabiri D, Harper DE, Kapila Y, Kruger GH, Clauw DJ, Harte S. 2018. Applications of sensory and physiological measurement in oral-facial dental pain. Special Care in Dentistry, 38(6): 395–404. doi: 10.1111/scd.12323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL III. 2009. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. The journal of pain, 10(5): 447–485. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dao TT, LeResche L. 2000. Gender differences in pain. Journal of orofacial pain, 14(3). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bartley EJ, Fillingim RB. 2013. Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings. British journal of anaesthesia, 111(1): 52–58. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boggero IA, Geiger PJ, Segerstrom SC, Carlson CR. 2015. Pain intensity moderates the relationship between age and pain interference in chronic orofacial pain patients. Experimental aging research, 41(4): 463–474. doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2015.1053770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Riley JL III, Gilbert GH. 2002. Racial differences in orofacial pain. The Journal of Pain, 3(4): 284–291. doi: 10.1054/jpai.2002.124898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fillingim RB. 2017. Individual differences in pain: understanding the mosaic that makes pain personal. Pain, 158(Suppl 1), S11. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pendergrass SA, Ritchie MD. 2015. Phenome-wide association studies: leveraging comprehensive phenotypic and genotypic data for discovery. Current genetic medicine reports, 3(2): 92–100. doi: 10.1007/s40142-015-0067-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Silva EMVM, Lacerda RHW, Farias IL, Cavalcante BGN, Assis IO, Bezamat M, et al. 2021. COMT rs4818, pain sensitivity and duration, and alveolar bone grafting of oral clefts. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 25(2): 253–256. doi: 10.1007/s10006-020-00912-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sadhasivam S, Chidambaran V, Olbrecht VA, Esslinger HR, Zhang K, Zhang X, et al. 2014. Genetics of pain perception, COMT and postoperative pain management in children. Pharmacogenomics, 15(3): 277–284. doi: 10.2217/pgs.13.248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khalil H, Sereika SM, Dai F, Alexander S, Conley Y, Gruen G, et al. 2017. OPRM1 and COMT gene–gene interaction is associated with postoperative pain and opioid consumption after orthopedic trauma. Biological research for nursing, 19(2): 170–179. doi: 10.1177/1099800416680474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tegeder I, Costigan M, Griffin RS, Abele A, Belfer I, Schmidt H, et al. 2006. GTP cyclohydrolase and tetrahydrobiopterin regulate pain sensitivity and persistence. Nature medicine, 12(11): 1269–1277. doi: 10.1038/nm1490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Qadri YJ, Bortsov AV, Orrey DC, Swor RA, Peak DA, Jones JS, et al. 2015. Genetic polymorphisms in the dopamine receptor 2 predict acute pain severity after motor vehicle collision. The Clinical journal of pain, 31(9): 768. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sia AT, Lim Y, Lim EC, Goh RW, Law HY, Landau R, et al. 2008. A118G single nucleotide polymorphism of human μ-opioid receptor gene influences pain perception and patient-controlled intravenous morphine consumption after intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 109(3): 520–526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fillingim RB, Kaplan L, Staud R, Ness TJ, Glover TL, Campbell CM, et al. 2005. The A118G single nucleotide polymorphism of the μ-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) is associated with pressure pain sensitivity in humans. The Journal of Pain, 6(3): 159–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Duan G, Han C, Wang Q, Guo S, Zhang Y, Ying Y, et al. 2016. A SCN10A SNP biases human pain sensitivity. Molecular pain, 12: 1–16. doi: 10.1177/1744806916666083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xing X, Bai Y, Sun K, Yan M. 2020. Single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with postoperative inadequate analgesia after single-port VATS in Chinese population. BMC anesthesiology, 20(1): 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Duan G, Guo S, Zhang Y, Ying Y, Huang P, Wang Q, et al. 2015. The effect of SCN9A variation on basal pain sensitivity in the general population: an experimental study in young women. The Journal of Pain, 16(10): 971–980. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aidar M, Line SRP. (2007). A simple and cost-effective protocol for DNA isolation from buccal epithelial cells. Brazilian dental journal, 18(2), 148–152. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402007000200012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Verma A, Bradford Y, Dudek S, Lucas AM, Verma SS, Pendergrass SA, et al. 2018. A simulation study investigating power estimates in phenome-wide association studies. BMC bioinformatics, 19(1): 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pendergrass SA, Dudek SM, Crawford DC, Ritchie MD. 2012. Visually integrating and exploring high throughput phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) results using PheWAS-view. BioData mining, 5(1): 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kawakami K, Miyasaka T, Nakamura Y, Metoki H, Miyata S, Sato M, et al. 2021. The A118G single-nucleotide polymorphism in OPRM1 is a risk factor for asthma severity. Allergology International, 71(1): 55–65. doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2021.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Miranda-Rius J, Brunet-Llobet L, Lahor-Soler E, Farré M. 2015. Salivary secretory disorders, inducing drugs, and clinical management. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 12(10): 811. doi: 10.7150/ijms.12912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lötsch J, Belfer I, Kirchhof A, Mishra BK, Max MB, Doehring A, et al. 2007. Reliable screening for a pain-protective haplotype in the GTP cyclohydrolase 1 gene (GCH1) through the use of 3 or fewer single nucleotide polymorphisms. Clinical Chemistry, 53(6): 1010–1015. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2006.082883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nasser A, Møller LB. 2014. GCH1 variants, tetrahydrobiopterin and their effects on pain sensitivity. Scandinavian journal of pain, 5(2):121–128. doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Belfer I, Dai F, Kehlet H, Finelli P, Qin L, Bittner R, et al. 2015. Association of functional variations in COMT and GCH1 genes with postherniotomy pain and related impairment. Pain, 156(2): 273–279. doi: 10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460307.48701.b0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sadhu N, Jhun EH, Yao Y, He Y, Molokie RE, Wilkie DJ, et al. 2018. Genetic variants of GCH1 associate with chronic and acute crisis pain in African Americans with sickle cell disease. Experimental hematology, 66: 42–49. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2018.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Eke PI, Borgnakke WS, Genco RJ. 2020. Recent epidemiologic trends in periodontitis in the USA. Periodontology 2000, 82(1): 257–267. doi: 10.1111/prd.12323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Goncalves PF, Harris TH, Elmariah T, Aukhil I, Wallace MR, Shaddox LM. 2018. Genetic polymorphisms and periodontal disease in populations of African descent: A review. Journal of periodontal research, 53(2): 164–173. doi: 10.1111/jre.12505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nibali L, Bayliss-Chapman J, Almofareh SA, Zhou Y, Divaris K,Vieira AR. 2019. What is the heritability of periodontitis? A systematic review. Journal of dental research, 98(6): 632–641. doi: 10.1177/0022034519842510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Weckwerth GM, Dionísio TJ, Costa YM, Zupelari-Gonçalves P, Oliveira GM, Torres EA, et al. 2021. Multifocal Analysis of Acute Pain After Third Molar Removal. Frontiers in pharmacology, 12. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhang S, Yu N, Arce RM. 2020. Periodontal inflammation: Integrating genes and dysbiosis. Periodontology 2000, 82(1): 129–142. doi: 10.1111/prd.12267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Matsunaga M, Isowa T, Murakami H, Kasugai K, Yoneda M, Kaneko H, et al. 2009. Association of polymorphism in the human μ-opioid receptor OPRM1 gene with proinflammatory cytokine levels and health perception. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23(7): 931–935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Arora G, Mackay DF, Conway DI, Pell JP. 2017. Ethnic differences in oral health and use of dental services: cross-sectional study using the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey. BMC Oral Health, 17(1): 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Scariot R, Sebastiani AM, Meger MN, Broska VT, Souza JF, Lima AA, et al. 2019. Anxiety and genetic polymorphisms in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) and serotonin transportation gene (5HTT) are associated with benign migratory glossitis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, 127(3): 218–224. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Du QC, Ge YY, Xiao WL, Wang WF. 2021. Dopamine agonist responsive burning mouth syndrome: Report of eight cases. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 9(23): 6916. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i23.6916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Han F, Konkalmatt P, Mokashi C, Kumar M, Zhang Y, Ko A, et al. 2019. Dopamine D2 receptor modulates Wnt expression and control of cell proliferation. Scientific reports, 9(1): 1–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Evans G, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. 2008. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of articaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations. Journal of endodontics, 34(4): 389–393. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moore PA, Boynes SG, Hersh EV, DeRossi SS, Sollecito TP, Goodson JM, et al. 2006. The anesthetic efficacy of 4 percent articaine 1:200,000 epinephrine: two controlled clinical trials. Journal of the American dental association, 137(11): 1572–1581. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Srinivasan N, Kavitha M, Loganathan CS, Padmini G. 2009. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Oral surgery oral medicine oral pathology oral radiology and endodontics, 107(1): 133–136. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tortamano IP, Siviero M, Costa CG, Buscariolo IA, Armonia PL. 2009. A comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Journal of endodontics, 35(2): 165–168. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Yekta-Michael SS, Stein JM, Marioth-Wirtz E. 2015. Evaluation of the anesthetic effect of epinephrine-free articaine and mepivacaine through quantitative sensory testing. BMC Head & face medicine, 11:2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Saraghi M, Moore PA, Hersh EV. 2015. Local anesthetic calculations: avoiding trouble with pediatric patients. General dentistry, 63(1): 48–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mersha TB, Abebe T. 2015. Self-reported race/ethnicity in the age of genomic research: its potential impact on understanding health disparities. Human genomics, 9(1): 1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Diogo D, Tian C, Franklin CS, Alanne-Kinnunen M, March M, Spencer CC, et al. 2018. Phenome-wide association studies across large population cohorts support drug target validation. Nature communications, 9(1): 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

JJ Cray Jr

4 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-12279Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

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.

 There are significant request to elaborate on experimental design, subject and target selection, and the novel approach used by the grup.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2022 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: https://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,

JJ Cray Jr., 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 financial disclosure:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We would like to acknowledge the Dental Registry and DNA Repository project, which is supported by the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Also, we thank the Graduate Program in Oncology and Medical Sciences at the Federal University of Pará, Brazil, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, for the support to Lisboa, RO, and Bezamat, M, respectively.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[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: No

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: No

**********

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: 1. Was only one type of anesthetic compared? Example: lidocaine with vasoconstrictor. And in similar clinical situations? Example: in third molar extractions or class I restorations or endodontic treatment, etc. It is necessary to describe what types of dental treatment were used as a parameter in anesthesia, and what anesthetics were used.

2. In table 01, include what the numbers inside the parentheses mean (maximum and minimum?). If so, it is important to distinguish adults from children, since the parameter used to evaluate the groups was the amount of anesthetic during the dental procedure; in children, fear and anxiety greatly influence pain, especially during procedures involving needles, as is the case with anesthesia.

3. Was it the same person who anesthetized all participants? Has any calibration been done between dentists? What kind of treatment was done on everyone to compare anesthesia?

4. The presence of some inflamed tissue can influence the amount of anesthetic tubes to be used in each procedure, was this taken into account?

5. How were these phenotypes evaluated? More detail is needed.

6. It is necessary to mention which studies were used as a reference in the choice of SNPs.

7. It is necessary to include the background of the selected SNPs in the introduction.

8. Add in table 02 information such as “increase or decrease pain sensitivity” other than just “Intensity or pain sensitivity”. So we would know what exactly the polymorphism effect on pain perception.

9. Was an epistasis analysis performed? Some studies demonstrate that the GCH1 gene can modulate the effect of COMT on the pain response. Patients who have SNP in both genes usually have a protective effect (analgesia) by GCH1, even with the COMT SNP still present.

10. I suggest increasing the quality of the images, it is difficult to understand what is written.

11. Results need to be organized more clearly, it's confusing.

12. I suggest further specifying the purpose of the work. Through the methodology of the work, the objective was to investigate these clinical phenotypes and some genetic markers in the response/efficacy of anesthetic or analgesia and not necessarily pain. It is necessary to clarify the justification and background of these objectives during the introduction, as it is not clear exactly what this work is about, only during the reading of the methodology. There are numerous ways to work with or assess pain: acute, spontaneous, chronic, stimulated/induced. It is necessary to specify and better describe the type of pain being investigated in this study, since one of the objectives is precisely to make this correlation between pain-related SNPs and other clinical phenotypes.

13. Importantly, the SNPs investigated here are not exclusively related to nociceptive pathways, but also to other non-painful conditions. It is necessary to describe each one of them better in this sense, depending on the amount of clinical phenotypes that were included in the analysis and are not directly related to nociceptive processes. Furthermore, it is necessary to include this observation in the discussion of the work.

14. The title is a few confusing: “Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics Study”. What does it mean “reverse genetics study” ?

15. The only relationship with pain in this work was the way the sample was divided into two groups – and this division, and the genes that are really related to painful processes, still need to be more detailed. However, the immense amount of clinical phenotypes evaluated are not directly related to pain, it is necessary to establish a link between these phenomena and describe them very well in the study.

16. It should also be discussed that there was not found any difference between the both groups after Bonferroni correction. Perhaps the method of using the amount of anesthetic as a parameter for dividing the groups was not satisfactory for evaluating these clinical phenotypes (pain-related? What exactly?) with genetic markers of pain. There are many factors that influence the amount of anesthetic used. This was a decisive criterion in the selection of the two groups, however, the way in which it was made was neither mentioned nor described. If there was calibration between the dentists who performed the procedure (both anesthetic and dental – surgical/restorative/endodontic/periodontal – which should also be described), nor if there was any nervous branch of predilection and region that was anesthetized – maxilla or mandible, if there was previous pain or local inflammation/infection. These are all factors that influence the anesthesia procedure, and that influenced the choice/division of the study sample.

17. The final considerations state that “Nevertheless, our study provides a pioneering approach to the study of pain perception”. What tool was used to evaluate pain perception? Visual analogue scale (VAS)? Sound, eye, and motor (SEM) indexes? Quantitative Sensory Testing?

18. Which previous study was used to determine the cut-off point for the amount of anesthetic? So it could be used as parameter to dived the sample into two groups.

Reviewer #2: The authors performed PheWAS-like analysis to examine the associations of 58 phenotypes with 7 pain related SNPs. A total of 1289 subjects were selected and grouped based on the dose of anesthesia received during the dental treatment procedure. They found an association between the rs1799971 in OPRM1 and asthma, which was in agreement with a recent report. In addition, the study identified three associations of oral phenotypes with variants of pain-related genes. Overall, the study is carefully designed and performed.

Major critiques:

1. The authors applied novel criteria to recruit subjects - individuals who feel more pain (received more anesthesia) or less pain (who received less anesthesia). However, using “anesthesia utilization” as a surrogate indicator of pain severity raised concerns. It is unknown if other factors were taken into consideration, e.g. medication history, especially opioids and other analgesic drugs, dental procedure types (location, duration), as well as pain assessment (score, type). Whether these variants were adjusted in the statistical analysis was not mentioned in the manuscript.

2. The sample size of "black – less anesthesia" group is small. The authors should address how they controlled the power of analysis to ensure the association detected between rs4818 of COMT and diseases of the tongue was not false-positive.

3. The authors should address the rationale of selecting these 7 SNPs, in terms of their relationships with orofacial pain perception, specifically.

Minor issues:

Line 233, Appendix Table 1 is not included in the manuscript.

Line 143, reference is missing.

**********

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: Yes: Flávia Fonseca Carvalho Soares

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - Comments to the author.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 17;17(11):e0277036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277036.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Aug 2022

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

All information has been revised as requested.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The additional information in the acknowledgment section was excluded. It is marked in yellow and crossed out with a line.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We would like to acknowledge the Dental Registry and DNA Repository project, which is supported by the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Also, we thank the Graduate Program in Oncology and Medical Sciences at the Federal University of Pará, Brazil, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, for the support to Lisboa, RO, and Bezamat, M, respectively.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The additional information in the acknowledgment section was excluded. It is marked in yellow and crossed out with a line. We added it in the cover letter as asked.

4. 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.

We added a supporting information file with our raw data.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

We changed the cover letter to reflect that we are uploading all raw data as an appendix.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Was only one type of anesthetic compared? Example: lidocaine with vasoconstrictor. And in similar clinical situations? Example: in third molar extractions or class I restorations or endodontic treatment, etc. It is necessary to describe what types of dental treatment were used as a parameter in anesthesia, and what anesthetics were used.

The information of the local anesthetics used were added to the manuscript in the methods section (line 134) and also the duration of anesthesia according to the article reference.

2. In table 01, include what the numbers inside the parentheses mean (maximum and minimum?). If so, it is important to distinguish adults from children, since the parameter used to evaluate the groups was the amount of anesthetic during the dental procedure; in children, fear and anxiety greatly influence pain, especially during procedures involving needles, as is the case with anesthesia.

The number inside the parentheses mean the range of age in each group. As you can see in the table 1 the groups were matched for age, so there are no significant variations between groups. Both children and adults may display some fear and anxiety. 90% of pediatric dentistry is done under local anesthesia. Comparison groups were originally matched by age to mitigate the influence of age.

3. Was it the same person who anesthetized all participants? Has any calibration been done between dentists? What kind of treatment was done on everyone to compare anesthesia?

Data for the study comes from our registry, that currently spans over 17 years. It was not the same operator that anesthetized all participants. All dentists in training perform anesthesia under the same protocol. Treatments done were typical operative dentistry procedures. We added these clarifications in the Methods section (line 137) to address this concern.

4. The presence of some inflamed tissue can influence the amount of anesthetic tubes to be used in each procedure, was this taken into account?

To mitigate this aspect, comparison groups were matched by dental procedure. But beyond that, it was not possible to fully account for levels of inflammation at the day treatments were performed. We added a clarification in the method section (line 139) to acknowledge this detail.

5. How were these phenotypes evaluated? More detail is needed.

Phenotypes were defined based on coding used in the registry, which reflects descriptions at the dental records. We added this information in the methods section (line 159) to address this concern.

6. It is necessary to mention which studies were used as a reference in the choice of SNPs.

The studies used as references for each SNP were originally mentioned in table 2.

7. It is necessary to include the background of the selected SNPs in the introduction.

The background of the SNPs was inserted in the introduction.

8. Add in table 02 information such as “increase or decrease pain sensitivity” other than just “Intensity or pain sensitivity”. So we would know what exactly the polymorphism effect on pain perception.

The SNPs in the chosen genes act mainly in the general context of the pain perception process and unfortunately in the literature there are no specific concrete associations of these SNPs regarding their participation in the increase or decrease of pain, many of them seem to act in both situations depending on some factors, therefore, to avoid future mistakes when conditioning them with a specific association, it is preferable to use the term “Intensity or pain sensitivity” as used in the reference articles. Among the suggested explanations for the discrepancy found in the literature is that this may indicate that these polymorphisms affect pain sensations of some, but not all, stimuli. This information will be added to the manuscript to explain why we used the term.

9. Was an epistasis analysis performed? Some studies demonstrate that the GCH1 gene can modulate the effect of COMT on the pain response. Patients who have SNP in both genes usually have a protective effect (analgesia) by GCH1, even with the COMT SNP still present.

No. For this specific paper epistasis analysis was not performed because the study's main objective was to search associations using the PheWAS methodology and not the influence that could exist between the studied markers.

10. I suggest increasing the quality of the images, it is difficult to understand what is written.

All images were submitted to the PACE tool and the quality of the images was enhanced.

11. Results need to be organized more clearly, it's confusing.

The organization was done according to the specific results of each PheWAS analysis performed and following the presentation standard for this methodology.

12. I suggest further specifying the purpose of the work. Through the methodology of the work, the objective was to investigate these clinical phenotypes and some genetic markers in the response/efficacy of anesthetic or analgesia and not necessarily pain. It is necessary to clarify the justification and background of these objectives during the introduction, as it is not clear exactly what this work is about, only during the reading of the methodology. There are numerous ways to work with or assess pain: acute, spontaneous, chronic, stimulated/induced. It is necessary to specify and better describe the type of pain being investigated in this study, since one of the objectives is precisely to make this correlation between pain-related SNPs and other clinical phenotypes.

The information in the main sections of the manuscript has been improved for a better understanding of the purpose of the study and how it was done.

13. Importantly, the SNPs investigated here are not exclusively related to nociceptive pathways, but also to other non-painful conditions. It is necessary to describe each one of them better in this sense, depending on the amount of clinical phenotypes that were included in the analysis and are not directly related to nociceptive processes. Furthermore, it is necessary to include this observation in the discussion of the work.

Most of phenotypes included in the analysis have a pain sensitivity component. SNPs were chosen because they have some association with the pain perception processor regardless of whether it is nociceptive pain or not. And since the perception of pain is something extremely complex with the involvement of several genes, it is expected that these SNPs participate in other processes and are also associated with other non-painful conditions.

14. The title is a few confusing: “Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics Study”. What does it mean “reverse genetics study” ?

In reverse genetics, genetic marker data are used to drive, or form the basis of, new phenotype definitions, that is, the analysis starts from genotype to phenotype. We addeda clarification in the Introduction section (line 83)/

15. The only relationship with pain in this work was the way the sample was divided into two groups – and this division, and the genes that are really related to painful processes, still need to be more detailed. However, the immense amount of clinical phenotypes evaluated are not directly related to pain, it is necessary to establish a link between these phenomena and describe them very well in the study.

Most phenotypes included actually have potentially a pain sensitivity component associated with them. We added this clarification in the methods section (line 162).

16. It should also be discussed that there was not found any difference between the both groups after Bonferroni correction. Perhaps the method of using the amount of anesthetic as a parameter for dividing the groups was not satisfactory for evaluating these clinical phenotypes (pain-related? What exactly?) with genetic markers of pain. There are many factors that influence the amount of anesthetic used. This was a decisive criterion in the selection of the two groups, however, the way in which it was made was neither mentioned nor described. If there was calibration between the dentists who performed the procedure (both anesthetic and dental – surgical/restorative/endodontic/periodontal – which should also be described), nor if there was any nervous branch of predilection and region that was anesthetized – maxilla or mandible, if there was previous pain or local inflammation/infection. These are all factors that influence the anesthesia procedure, and that influenced the choice/division of the study sample.

Bonferroni is quite a strict method of multiple comparion correction. One result survived this correction. Results that do not survive a Bonferroni correction were also presented and have been added to the Discussion section, since they may represent true biological relationships and deserve further study. The reviewer's other considerations were supplied in the previous comments.

17. The final considerations state that “Nevertheless, our study provides a pioneering approach to the study of pain perception”. What tool was used to evaluate pain perception? Visual analogue scale (VAS)? Sound, eye, and motor (SEM) indexes? Quantitative Sensory Testing?

The final consideration was re-elaborated to suit the proposed objectives and results of the study.

18. Which previous study was used to determine the cut-off point for the amount of anesthetic? So it could be used as parameter to dived the sample into two groups.

It is common clinical practice to give up to one tubete of anesthetic for dental treatments. Hence, the cutoff used.

Reviewer #2: The authors performed PheWAS-like analysis to examine the associations of 58 phenotypes with 7 pain related SNPs. A total of 1289 subjects were selected and grouped based on the dose of anesthesia received during the dental treatment procedure. They found an association between the rs1799971 in OPRM1 and asthma, which was in agreement with a recent report. In addition, the study identified three associations of oral phenotypes with variants of pain-related genes. Overall, the study is carefully designed and performed.

Major critiques:

1. The authors applied novel criteria to recruit subjects - individuals who feel more pain (received more anesthesia) or less pain (who received less anesthesia). However, using “anesthesia utilization” as a surrogate indicator of pain severity raised concerns. It is unknown if other factors were taken into consideration, e.g. medication history, especially opioids and other analgesic drugs, dental procedure types (location, duration), as well as pain assessment (score, type). Whether these variants were adjusted in the statistical analysis was not mentioned in the manuscript.

Groups were matched by dental procedures, but chronic use of opioids or other analgesic oral drugs, was not considered. No pain assessments were performed.

2. The sample size of "black – less anesthesia" group is small. The authors should address how they controlled the power of analysis to ensure the association detected between rs4818 of COMT and diseases of the tongue was not false-positive.

Test power was controlled using the simulation study by Verma et al. (2018) and according to this study for the group that required less anesthetic, there was sufficient power if the allele frequency was 20% and the penetrance was 20% or higher.

3. The authors should address the rationale of selecting these 7 SNPs, in terms of their relationships with orofacial pain perception, specifically.

SNPs were selected for their involvement with the perception of the general participation of genes in fundamental processes. Those SNPs that are related to orofacial pain were described in the introduction for better understanding. Per reviewer 1, rationale was added to the introduction section.

Minor issues:

Line 233, Appendix Table 1 is not included in the manuscript.

The appendix table1 was inserted in the main text as table 5.

Line 143, reference is missing.

The missing reference was added.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

JJ Cray Jr

9 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-12279R1Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

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.

There are some outstanding issues mostly with interpretation that should be addressed in a revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 2022 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: https://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,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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: Partly

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: The authors answered most of the questions raised and significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still major concerns that need to be addressed.

1. Lidocaine and articaine have very different particularities. For instance, The duration of effect in a maxillary infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine ranges from 60 to 90 minutes in pulp tissue and 170 to 300 minutes in soft tissue, while the duration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine encompasses 60 to 75 minutes in the pulp and 170 to 360 minutes in the soft tissues. Palate anesthesia is unpleasant for many patients because it is a very sensitive site, so when the anesthetic used is articaine, it is not necessary to perform infiltration in the palatal location for extraction procedures, as it is very effective only with injection in the region maxillary vestibular. Articaine presents tissue diffusion when compared to the lidocaine in areas other than the place where the anesthetic was deposited, avoiding excessive punctures and patient discomfort. Therefore, depending on the dental procedure, the type of anesthetic could influence the number of tubetes to be used. This should have been considered in the methodological strategy of the study.

2. Regarding including children in the sample, I still have concerns about the parameter of “quantity of anesthetic used”. Since we use weight calculate the maximum amount of anesthetic. In this way, children necessarily must use less tubetes then adults. Since the parameter of “pain perception” is the amount of anesthetic used, these variables involved in metabolization, duration effect, toxicity and others, should be addressed accordingly.

3. The final consideration state that “Through this powerful strategy, it was possible to identify new associations between SNPs in genes related to pain and oral phenotypes in the groups of individuals who feel more pain (those who received more anesthesia) or less pain (who received less anesthesia)”. Actually, it is not possible to establish this type of equivalence. Since the amount of anesthetic used can be influenced by several factors, such as anatomical variations, metabolism rate, type of anesthetic used, local tissue pH (which can be modified by the presence of inflammation), technique used, among others, and not just pain.

Reviewer #2: The authors have carefully addressed the questions from the reviewers. The revised manuscript is in better shape. However, there are couple places need additional inputs.

First of all, based on the analysis scale (58 phenotypes, 7 SNPs, 1289 subjects), it can not be called as a real PheWAS study. The authors should be careful when using the term in the manuscript.

Second, the authors should revise the Introduction to be more concise and focused. This is not a review paper.

**********

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: Yes: Flávia Fonseca Carvalho Soares

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. 2022 Nov 17;17(11):e0277036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277036.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Sep 2022

Response to Reviews

Reviewer #1: The authors answered most of the questions raised and significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still major concerns that need to be addressed.

1. Lidocaine and articaine have very different particularities. For instance, The duration of effect in a maxillary infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine ranges from 60 to 90 minutes in pulp tissue and 170 to 300 minutes in soft tissue, while the duration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine encompasses 60 to 75 minutes in the pulp and 170 to 360 minutes in the soft tissues. Palate anesthesia is unpleasant for many patients because it is a very sensitive site, so when the anesthetic used is articaine, it is not necessary to perform infiltration in the palatal location for extraction procedures, as it is very effective only with injection in the region maxillary vestibular. Articaine presents tissue diffusion when compared to the lidocaine in areas other than the place where the anesthetic was deposited, avoiding excessive punctures and patient discomfort. Therefore, depending on the dental procedure, the type of anesthetic could influence the number of tubetes to be used. This should have been considered in the methodological strategy of the study.

RESPONSE: We added discussion to acknowledge this limitation.

2. Regarding including children in the sample, I still have concerns about the parameter of “quantity of anesthetic used”. Since we use weight calculate the maximum amount of anesthetic. In this way, children necessarily must use less tubetes then adults. Since the parameter of “pain perception” is the amount of anesthetic used, these variables involved in metabolization, duration effect, toxicity and others, should be addressed accordingly.

RESPONSE: We added discussion and acknowledged this limitation.

3. The final consideration state that “Through this powerful strategy, it was possible to identify new associations between SNPs in genes related to pain and oral phenotypes in the groups of individuals who feel more pain (those who received more anesthesia) or less pain (who received less anesthesia)”. Actually, it is not possible to establish this type of equivalence. Since the amount of anesthetic used can be influenced by several factors, such as anatomical variations, metabolism rate, type of anesthetic used, local tissue pH (which can be modified by the presence of inflammation), technique used, among others, and not just pain.

RESPONSE: We rewrote the statement to address this concern.

Reviewer #2: The authors have carefully addressed the questions from the reviewers. The revised manuscript is in better shape. However, there are couple places need additional inputs.

First of all, based on the analysis scale (58 phenotypes, 7 SNPs, 1289 subjects), it can not be called as a real PheWAS study. The authors should be careful when using the term in the manuscript.

RESPONSE: The definition of PheWAS is a study design in which the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms or other types of DNA variants is tested across a large number of different phenotypes. Based on the definition, our study is a PheWAS study. We added this definition in the discussion section to address this concern.

Second, the authors should revise the Introduction to be more concise and focused. This is not a review paper.

RESPONSE: We shortened the introduction as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviews.docx

Decision Letter 2

JJ Cray Jr

11 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-12279R2Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

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.

There is one outstanding concern that potentially some citations have been ommitted.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 25 2022 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: https://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,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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: The authors have carefully addressed the questions from the reviewers, and significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still minor issues that need to be addressed. All the new data included are lacking references. It is necessary to cite the sources from which the information was obtained.

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: Yes: Flávia Fonseca Carvalho Soares

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. 2022 Nov 17;17(11):e0277036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277036.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


17 Oct 2022

Reviewer #1: The authors have carefully addressed the questions from the reviewers, and significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still minor issues that need to be addressed. All the new data included are lacking references. It is necessary to cite the sources from which the information was obtained.

RESPONSE: We added the references as requested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviews2.docx

Decision Letter 3

JJ Cray Jr

19 Oct 2022

Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics Study

PONE-D-22-12279R3

Dear Dr. Vieira,

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,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

JJ Cray Jr

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-12279R3

Pain Perception Genes, Asthma, and Oral Health: A Reverse Genetics Study

Dear Dr. Vieira:

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. JJ Cray Jr.

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 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - Comments to the author.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviews.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviews2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES