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.
Thank you very much for your careful response. The reviewer's comments have been well addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewers have provided several important comments, which could improve the quality of manuscript.
[# 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. #]
Despite some small typos and mistakes, the manuscript was well-written using professional and easy-understandable language. The introduction offered a clear overview of the current knowledge of obstructive sleep apnea and the aim of the study. However, in the Material and methods part, the details of how the TCR sequencing library is prepared are missing (line 143 to 148). It was unclear whether there is a T cell enrichment step or a CD4+/CD8+ isolation step. It is ambiguous whether the TCR repertoire was from CD4+ T cells or CD8+ T cells or both.
In general, the structure of the manuscript was well-arranged. By discussing the differences in TCR repertoires between different OSA patient groups and healthy donors, the authors were able to find a correlation between OSA status and TCR repertoire diversity. The figures are relevant, high quality, and well-labeled and described. The raw data was supplied.
The experimental design was straightforward and easy to follow. However, the result was mostly about correlations between TCR repertoire and OSA status. The authors did not further investigate the mechanism behind the correlation which makes the conclusion a little weak. In addition, in the results part, the discussion about their findings on the clonotypes can be further elaborated (line 252 to 254). For example, whether there are similar findings in other studies or diseases.
The finding of the manuscript is novel and can serve as a reference for further research on OSA and T cells. The conclusion and the limitations of the research were both clearly stated and linked to the original research questions.
The lack of cell sorting prior to sequencing and mechanism proof beyond correlation weakens the conclusion. Moreover, the authors didn't mention the status of the MHC genotype of the donors which can be a confounding factor for the differences in TCR repertoire. But nevertheless, the authors still made a fair conclusion from the data they generated and successfully avoided over-explaining.
1. The overall writing is clear.
2. Line89: 'speci city', please correct the word.
3. Line91: 're ect', please correct the word.
4. Tabe1, page27: 'T cell lymphocyte cout', please correct the word.
Since the modeling dataset is unbalanced, which has more healthy samples compared to OSA patients. The author should try some methods to balance the modeling dataset and validating the performance of their model on validation and testing dataset.
Is there any improvement of the D50 value and Shannon's Diversity index after nPAP treatment?
no comments
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.