Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 19th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 21st, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 13th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 21st, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 21, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

As the authors gave a minor revision decision on this manuscript and the authors have incorporated the revisions I conclude the revisions are satisfactory and consider the manuscript for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 21, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please follow the suggestions of the reviewers and resubmit your manuscript at the earliest. Looking forward to the revised version.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

The authors need to clarify some of the points as follows:
Line 110: How much volume of urinary samples was used per patient?
Line 113: What method was used to quantify protein?
Line 114-115: What is the final concentration of DTT and IAA used?
Line 119: What column was used for separation of the mix-sample?

Validity of the findings

no comments

Additional comments

The study is very interesting. It is well rounded but needs few method details for reproducibility.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In this study, authors have evaluated Complement system proteins in the urine samples of SLE patients, have looked at differentially expressed proteins in active phase of the disease and have also explored their clinical relevance.

Experimental design

OK

Validity of the findings

OK

Additional comments

1. Sample size looks small to make conclusions about clinical relevance.
2. Materials and methods could have been better presented. The legends for the figures are poorly written. It is extremely difficult to figure out what has been plotted on X and Y axis and for which group.
3. In fig1c, the data points are just three in numbers. What are these three points; replicates,/ no. of subjects or any other parameter?
4. Fig3 legends are similarly ambiguous (3b, 3C). Data from which group has been plotted in 3b and 3C is not very clear. I would request authors to tabulate the % Sensitivity and specificity for Fig3C.
5. Authors should also present Positive and Negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) for determining clinical relevance.
6. What were the confounding factors and the limitations of the study should be discussed in detail.
7. Urine analysis in SLE patients basically predicts nephritis. What was the status of Complement proteins expression in the patients? A bioinformatic analysis with publicly available database for single cell RNA-data seq will help provide better picture as predictor of nephritis.

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.