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 work is well-structured, well-written, and easy to understand. I am glad to accept it on behalf of PeerJ.
Thank you for your submission. Please amend the manuscript according to reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# 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) #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Comments to the Author:
This manuscript by Hefler et al. entitled “Preclinical models of acute liver failure - a comprehensive review” comprehensively summarized preclinical animal models of acute liver failure (ALF) induced by surgical, pharmacologic or immunogenic causes. The review is interesting and very informative for the field.
1. Among surgical, pharmacological or immunogenic approaches to model ALF, which is the most representative of clinical course?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of three categories of models regarding their drug response? Which reflect the response to treatment on clinic?
In the present Review, the authors discuss the various available preclinical models for studying the acute liver failure disease to better understand the pathophysiology in order to develop more relevant experimental models and therapeutic strategies.
Authors have comprehensively written the review article which is going to be useful for the audience as a single resource rather than pulling out various research articles for studying the experimental models for the disease “Acute liver failure”.
Strengths and drawbacks of every available experimental model has been discussed well.
This field has been reviewed recently and therefore this comprehensive review has a good scope to the research field.
Minor Comments:
1. Although, the review is written in readable English, throughout the manuscript English needs correction or should be revised.
2. Throughout the manuscript, text alignment (justified alignment) and inappropriate spacing needs to be correct.
3. Introduction section requires the reference citations from line 47-56. Citing tables does not qualify for the literature citation, as material explained in the tables have also not been cited in the tables as well.
4. In Table 1 and Table 2, another column should be made including all the reference citations (all research articles and review articles reviewed to collect the information presented in the tables). Just a suggestion to simplify, may be PMIDs can be given as a separate column.
5. Line number 74-75, rephrase the sentence, “as previously doing well patient without preexisting liver disease”. (Patient is a term used for a person receiving medical care, so a patient is not well anyways).
6. Line 76-77 reference citation is missing.
7. Line 78-84 reference citation is missing.
8. Line number 85, add “is” after the word council.
9. Line number 131, its hepatotoxicity not hepatoxicity. Please correct that.
10. D-Gal or d-Gal, it has to be consistent either lowercase or uppercase, throughout the manuscript.
11. Remove “to” after judge in line number 438.
12. Line 562, correct spelling of Wistar Rats.
13. In figure 1, font size of the time points on the arrows should be increased. It is not clearly visible on a print.
14. Check the font style for the figure legends, it’s not matching with the tables. It should be consistent throughout.
15. Reference citation, line number 727-732?
16. Line number 757, I assume, its MHV not MSV. Please correct that.
17. Line number 796, use abbreviation of IFNAR in brackets, as IFNAR has been used further after this line.
18. Line number 821, change where to were.
19. Line number 834, add “to” after compared.
"No comment"
None
None
None
This is well-written reviwe paper on the current state of preclinical models of acute liver failure. The authors have studied on the existing literature on the topic extensively and comprehensively and their presentation of the major fundings in these studies were accurate and clear. key information has been summarized in figures and table in ways that are concise and memorable to the readers. This reviewer finds this paper quite informative and only has the following suggestions to make:
First, the authors may want to add the disadvantages of the Long-Evans model to talbe 1.
Second, the authors may want to add overall mortality for both clinical and preclinical models in figure 1.
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.