All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I am satisfied with the corrections, and the manuscript is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript was re-reviewed and Reviewer 2 identified some outstanding issues. Please make the revisions and send them to us.
The manuscript( # 46283) investigated the effects of lactobacillus BS15 treatment on fluoride-induced memory impairment and possible signaling mechanisms. These findings are interesting. However, I remain concerned about the following:
1. The description in Result of Abstract is similar to discussion. Please revise it.
2. Figure-2b,-2c, and -2d are unclear. Please provide pictures with higher magnification.
3. There is counterstaining in Figure 3. The authors didn’t explain how to decrease the effects of counterstaining on the optical density of CREB staining. In addition, similar to Figure 2, figure 3 is also unclear. Please provide pictures with higher magnification.
4. It is difficult to understand why the authors detected the mRNA and protein levels of certain molecules, but not for other molecules. Please add explanation.
ok
ok
The manuscript( # 46283) investigated the effects of lactobacillus BS15 treatment on fluoride-induced memory impairment and possible signaling mechanisms. These findings are interesting. However, I remain concerned about the following:
1. The description in Result of Abstract is similar to discussion. Please revise it.
2. Figure-2b,-2c, and -2d are unclear. Please provide pictures with higher magnification.
3. There is counterstaining in Figure 3. The authors didn’t explain how to decrease the effects of counterstaining on the optical density of CREB staining. In addition, similar to Figure 2, figure 3 is also unclear. Please provide pictures with higher magnification.
4. It is difficult to understand why the authors detected the mRNA and protein levels of certain molecules, but not for other molecules. Please add explanation.
Please address the changes suggested by Reviewer 1.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
ok
ok
ok
This manuscript aimed to test whether Lactobacillus johnsonii BS15 improves intestinal environment against fluoride-induced memory impairment in mice. The authors found that BS15 intake could benefit the neuroinflammation and demyelination in the hippocampus by improving the gut environment and ameliorating fluorine-induced memory dysfunction. The manuscript is interesting. Several revisions are suggested to improve the manuscript.
Major concerns:
1. The authors should present the research results following certain logics such as protection, then the underlying mechanisms.
2. Figure legends didn’t clearly show the meaning of figure. For example, what’s the meaning of a and b in figures?
3. Figure 3C is wrong
4. Figure 5 is not clear. Higher magnification is needed.
5. Data of a molecule of mRNA and protein should put in one figure. And all protein level detection should provide western blot band and corresponding statistical chart.
It is well written and can be accepted for publication in its current form
Well expressed
Valid for publication
The manuscript can be accepted for publication
Please consult a professional English editing service and send a rebuttal letter addressing the requested suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The English needs to be improved. For example, neurogenesis should be replaced to neuroplasticity.
No comment.
1. In figure 1 and 5, it is unclear to show the data of PCR and western on same bar.
2. In figure 2, morphological evidences are needed to show the changes of gut permeability, such as HE staining, Staining of gap junction proteins
3. In Figure 4 and Figure 7, more evidences including western or/and immunostaining are needed to confirm the changes of detected factors.
In the manuscript “Lactobacillus johnsonii BS15 improves intestinalenvironment against excessive fluoride intakeinducedmemory impairment in mice - a study basedon the gut-brain axis hypothesis”, the authors found that Lactobacillus johnsonii BS15 intake limited neuroinflammation and demyelination in the hippocampus , improved cognitive dysfunction and increased the expressions of neuroplasticity-related factors. It is interesting. However, I have concerns which I believe should be addressed prior to publication, as outlined below in detail.
.
.
.
The manuscript has a novel idea regarding the correlation between gut microbiota or probiotic and neurotoxicity induced via flouride. It can be accepted for publication but it needs some major revisions.
First it needs English language editing also there is some spelling mistakes as:
Introduction section:
Line 60 : from not form
Line 96: present not prsent
Line101: learning not leaning
In discussion:
Line 323: resulted in not resulted
So revise the whole manuscript for any spelling mistakes.
Also the abstract must be brief and more precise.
In the discussion section correlation between probiotics and neurogensis must be mentioned in details also references for the effect of probiotics on inflammatory and neurogenic markers must be mentioned.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.