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.
The revision has been properly performed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
no comment
no comment
I found that the authors have answered all my questions and remarks; I thank them for their efforts
I really didn't like how the authors responded to the reviewers' comments. When authors respond to reviewers, if they want the paper to be accepted, they have to respond carefully to the suggestions requested. The rebuttal letter is quite difficult to understand... The English language used is really difficult to follow. Probably the authors underestimate this step.
Here are some examples:
When you will give a proper response to this suggestion "the use only of diabetic mice in this work whereas the authors should have compared diabetic mice to non-diabetics", insert a sentence in the manuscript.
I can't see a proper answer to this comment: "add the wound morphology image of control and all treated animal groups with wound area closure calculations."
The manuscript is well written (much better than the rebuttal letter!!!), but some grammatical mistakes, as suggested by reviewers, are still present.
Check carefully that all the methods have been inserted: where is the method related to NF-kB western blot analyses? Also, please, write it properly the acronym in the paper.
Change Western blot figures you inserted in the paper with better figures that represent the results you discussed. Also, insert in each lane the name of the samples.
In figure 1E, insert the mean values and SD with statistical analysis.
If the RT-PCR analyses have been calculated with the 2-DDct method, the control sample should be 1. How these results have been calculated? Check all the figures, and make corrections.
This is your last chance to make properly the revision requested.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please note that this revision has only been reviewed by the Academic Editor at this point. Once you have addressed their comments, it might still need to be sent out for peer review. #]
[# 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/ #]
Please address carefully the Reviewers comments.
[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
All is OK except some images and figures which are not convincing
The high technical standard is not reached in some experiments like western blots
see my general comments to the author
The article “Recombinant fusion protein by lysozyme and antibacterial peptide enhances ischemic wound healing via angiogenesis and reduction of inflammation in diabetic db/db mice » is a well written paper in a good english with the aim to answer the question if the fusion protein « lysozyme and antibacterial peptide » could enchance the wound healing in diabetic mices via angiogenesis and reduction of inflammation. I have two main critics :
1- 1- The experiments were carried out with appropriate techniques and the results are convincing except for a few images and western blots like those in fig. 4, 6B and 7B; yet the statistical analyzes seem convincing.
2- 2- The second remark concerns the use only of diabetic mice in this work whereas the authors should have compared diabetic mice to non-diabetics, even if they would have been forced to reduce their investigations either on angiogenesis, or on reducing inflammation.
Other minor remarks:
Line 66- 67 preventing infection from pathogenic bacteria and viruses within wounds and fractures in trauma patients (Callewaert&Michiels 2010).>> This reference didn’t speak about Virus!
Line 112 NONISCH+PROT and ISCH+PROT mice were injected with fusion protein (0.1 mL, 50 μg/mL) >> You didn’t show or verify if the fusion is still active?; What about the purification of this enzyme and why did you use only one concentration ?
Line 123 Wound samples were homogenized in cold PBS s and centrifuged at 10000rpm for 20min at 4°C.>>please remove the “s”
Lines 152-153 2 mmol/L phenyl methylsulfonyl fluoride and protease inhibitors (10 μg/L leupeptin and aprotinin).>> the phenyl methylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) is also a protease inhibitor!
Line 168 infiltrationt and increase of the number >>please remove the “t” at the end of infiltration
Line 188 The fusion protein also elevated the levels of PDGF and VEGF in serum (P<0.05) (Figs. 3A and 3B)>> in the legend, it is said p<0.01
Line 198 enhanced expression of PDGF and CD34 in ischemic adductor muscle compared to the ISCH group (Figs. 4C and 4D) >> in the legend, it is said the inverse: (C) Representative images of adductor muscle sections stained for CD34 (x400). (D) Representative images of adductor muscle sections stained for PDGF (x400)
Manuscript Number: 53150v1
Manuscript title: Recombinant fusion protein by lysozyme and antibacterial peptide enhances ischemic wound healing via angiogenesis and reduction of inflammation in diabetic db/db mice
This manuscript written by Wei Li et.al, to demonstrated the effect of recombinant fusion protein on wound healing in diabetic conditions. They have conducted a number of experiments and collected much valuable data for such a paper. The paper was written very well and the results are interpreted well in the aspect of diabetic wound healing. This manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal after minor revision of the manuscript based on the following queries.
1. The manuscript has issues with grammatical mistakes and should be corrected before publication.
2. Add the detailed methodology of fusion construction in materials and methods section. Whether you construct this fusion protein used in this manuscript? Or you obtained this fusion protein from any commercial manufactures?, please add this details.
3. again add some details about how many days you treated the animal with fusion protein, please exactly mention treatment period in materials and methods section.
4. How the authors picked the concentrations of fusion proteins in their experiments – Justify.
5. add the wound morphology image of control and all treated animal groups with wound area closure calculations.
1. Add the detailed methodology of fusion construction in materials and methods section. Whether you construct this fusion protein used in this manuscript? Or you obtained this fusion protein from any commercial manufactures?, please add this details.
2. again add some details about how many days you treated the animal with fusion protein, please exactly mention treatment period in materials and methods section.
No comment
-
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.