Summary
We thank O’Donnell et al, for their comments on our contribution and are grateful to be afforded this opportunity to formally respond to their critique24.
We are surprised by the author’s assertion relating to the biological relevance of SPM because a simple literature search for related terms such as ‘resolvin’ in PubMed yields an abundance (>1,420 publications) of evidence supporting the potent biological activities and the diagnostic potential of some of these mediators. Several co-authors of the O’Donnell’s et al manuscript, have published on the resolvins and SPMs, including some publications within recent weeks. Importantly, O’Donnell et al, misreport as well as mis-apply criteria for peak identification reported in the Gomez et al, publication which lead to the flawed analysis they performed.
In this response therefore, we provide a step-by-step clarification of the methodologies used in Gomez et al, and a side-by-side comparison of the underlying data to clarify any confusion. We also demonstrate that using the orthogonal criteria discussed by O’Donnell et al, we obtain essentially identical results thus providing additional validation of our techniques and support the conclusions.
Competing Interest Statement
JD is an inventor on patents related to the composition of matter and/or use of pro-resolving mediators some of which are licensed by Brigham and Women's Hospital or Queen Mary University of London for clinical development. JD is also scientific founder and director of Resolomics Ltd. EAG is an inventor on patents related to use of pro-resolving mediators as diagnostics licensed by Queen Mary University of London for clinical development. CNS is a co-founder, consultant to Nocendra Pharma and an SAB member of Thetis Pharma for their resolvin E1 clinical development programs