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.
Ver happy to see that the paper is revised to the reviewer suggestions and consider this paper for publication
[# 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
The authors have addressed all the questions I asked.
Please check the comments made by the reviewers and make suitable edits and resubmit at the earliest.
[# 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. #]
I have trouble accepting the figures (specifically the immunoblots).
No rationale for using PI3K/Akt inhibitor, 20 μM or mTOR inhibitor, 5 μM. IC 50 studies required for selection of this concentration.
Figure 2C is unacceptable in its present form.
Figure 2C. No endogenous control run and reported in the western
Figure 5A is unacceptable in its present form.
An endogenous control (GAPDH) is required per blot run.
Figure 5A shows 3 phospho-proteins and their respective total protein. It is impossible to run all 3 phospho protein on the same gel. 3 GAPDH needs to be accounted for.
In addition there are 3 more protein shown in Fig 5A. One GADH for all proteins is mis-leading.
Manuscript in present format is not acceptable for publication. Authors need to re-do all immunoblots and understand the basics in reporting a western data. Endogenous controls are a requisite per blot.
If, what they claim is true, additional work required on reversal effects.
Minor edits required, but looks good overall
No comment
No comment
The manuscript is clear and well written, which is easy to follow. The authors have included appropriate background information and references, although the introduction can be improved with additional details about the hyperoxia-induced BPD and its mechanism. The hypothesis of the experiment is clearly stated.
The figures included are relevant and well presented. However, the labels in Figure 4 are hard to read, which can be improved. The hypothesis for the experiment is well described, robust, and sound and would add to the existing knowledge of ACEIIs. The authors describe the methods section well. Although, there is no information regarding the sex of the rats used for these experiments. Were both males and females used? The western blot section could be improved if the authors could provide the information regarding the dilutions used for the various proteins in the experiment to make it easy to replicate. The discussion section needs improvement. The authors have mostly stated their findings in the discussion section, and I would like to see the thought process of the authors as to why they think that exosomes prevent hyperoxia-induced apoptosis in AECIIs. There is a need for more discussion.
No comment.
Overall, this is a strong, novel, and essential study; however, the manuscript needs improvement.
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.