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 authors have responded to all the requests of the reviewers and the editor, which has improved the quality of the article. I consider the article approved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
In general, the authors presented new results, satisfactory answers to the demands of the reviewers and new discussions, which improved the quality of the article. I indicate in red and in text boxes some issues that need to be reviewed (attached), and I consider that the article needs a careful proofreading for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
In the revised manuscript, Zhu et al. have made a good attempt at answering and added new experimental data to clarify my suggestions and concerns in the initial review. They included new qRT-PCR data and better quality H&E images in the revised manuscript. This revised manuscript provides interesting points about the effect of exercise on placental angiogenesis in HFD. In my opinion, with careful proofreading and typo/spacing corrections, this manuscript can be published in PeerJ.
None.
None.
None.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have improved the manuscript and I am overall satisfied with their responses.
Thank you again for your manuscript submission. The reviewers recommended that you make major amendments to your manuscript. Please revise the manuscript according to the referees' 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. #]
In the current manuscript, Zhu et al. claim that “Effects of swimming before and during pregnancy on
placental angiogenesis and perinatal outcome in high-fat diet-fed mice”. The authors conclude that long-term (13 weeks) HFD aggravates placental inflammation (Figure 2; f, h) and the hypoxic environment (Figure 2; d, g) and downregulates the expression of PPARs (Figure 2c, d) in the placenta. Exercise interventions can also significantly alleviate these conditions (Figure 2) and low fertility rates caused by HFD (Figure 4).
The authors show the effect on angiogenesis by exercise as shown in Figure 2 (several protein levels) and Figure 3A (histology). I suggest that the authors form conclusion from additional evidence rather than forming conclusions solely from Western blot AND poor H&E image. For example, the authors can perform qRT-PCR or RNA-seq analysis for more genes that may support angiogenesis and inflammation. Also, the authors should provide high-resolution H&E histology data to clarify whether exercise affects placental angiogenesis and inflammation.
The conclusion that the exercise affects placental angiogenesis under HFD is not convincing, because of insufficient data. The authors should provide clearer or additional data to clarify whether swimming affects placental angiogenesis and inflammation. Otherwise, the authors need to modify their conclusion about the placental angiogenesis in the title and abstract of the present manuscript.
1. Overall, figure legend is very short. Please explain them in detail.
2. The 13 weeks can be relatively short or long term. Please delet ‘long term”.
3. In Figure 1c, the significance with p-value is missing.
4. In Figure 4b, the error bar is missing.
Please, structure the manuscript according to the journal´s standard.
Introduction: The first two paragraphs give the idea that preeclampsia has a central role in the study. I suggest that authors modify the introduction section so readers have a better foundation to understand the purpose of the study.
Please, make the study hypothesis clear in the introduction section
Methods:
- I suggest inserting a figure with the protocol timeline;
- (lines 226-229): It is unclear how long the female rats were on the high-fat diet;
- (lines 235-236): “The period of intervention was 16 weeks: 13 weeks before delivery, 3 weeks during pregnancy, and no exercise during lactation”. Please rewrite the sentence because it is confusing.
- (line 263): I suggest separating the method of euthanasia and tissue extraction from immunoblotting into different topics
no comment
The main findings of the present study are that swimming before and during pregnancy prevents inflammation, a hypoxic environment, and the decreased expression of PPARγ and PPARα proteins in the placenta from high-fat-fed rats. Although the study is original research that falls within the scope of the journal, some points need to be improved, as follows:
General: Please, structure the manuscript according to the journal´s standard.
Introduction: The first two paragraphs give the idea that preeclampsia has a central role in the study. I suggest that authors modify the introduction section so readers have a better foundation to understand the purpose of the study. Please, make the study hypothesis clear.
Methods:
- I suggest inserting a figure with the protocol timeline;
- (lines 226-229): It is unclear how long the female rats were on the high-fat diet;
- (lines 235-236): “The period of intervention was 16 weeks: 13 weeks before delivery, 3 weeks during pregnancy, and no exercise during lactation”. Please rewrite the sentence because it is confusing.
- (line 263): I suggest separating the method of euthanasia and tissue extraction from immunoblotting into different topics
Results:
- Figure 1: Graph (a) is not self-explanatory. I could not understand the weight measurement period. I suggest including weight and food intake data from the start of the HF diet.
- Please provide results on lean body weight, according to the Material and Methods sections (IRIS-CT – body scanning).
Discussion:
- I suggest carefully revising the discussion section because the reasoning is difficult to follow.
- I suggest discussing maternal weight data before and during pregnancy and data on maternal metabolism.
- I suggest that authors insert the discussion on the benefits of the specific exercise protocol used in this work.
- The number of fetuses and their weight and length were not different between groups despite long-term high-fat diet exacerbated placental inflammation and hypoxic environment. I suggest that authors discuss these results. Even if there are no significant fetal changes, could there be implications for adult life? I think this discussion is relevant.
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.