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 well addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No further questions
No further questions
No further questions
No additional comments
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
This study well elucidates the role of selective HDAC6 inhibitor TubA in neuroprotection after intracerebral hemorrhage and provides new experimental evidence to support this effect. The results have clinical therapeutic potential and provide a theoretical basis for further development of novel drugs for cerebral hemorrhage treatment.
The structure of the paper is clear, the experimental design is reasonable, the experimental data are sufficient, and the figures and tables are clear and readable.
The Results section of this study provides a clear description of the experimental data and provides sufficient evidence to support the role of selective HDAC6 inhibitor TubA in neuroprotection.
In summary, this paper demonstrates excellent performance in experimental design, data analysis, and conclusion elaboration
This manuscript is similar to previously published studies. In addition, the manuscript contains some grammatical errors.
[# 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 Academic Editor 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). #]
1) Some typo errors need to be checked, such as phamacological→pharmacological (line 42); favourable or favorable (line 83, I think American English writing was used by the authors in this article.); a-tubulin→alpha-tubulin (lines 144, 252, 254, ……), etc.
1) According to the Rats-used group and Rats-died group mentioned in the supplementary material 1 file, the total number of Rats used in this experiment is over one hundred and seventy (lines 102-103).
2) In the time-dependent experiment, fifteen sham-operated rats were used but three sham-operated rats were involved in the results. The authors need to have a reason for the other twelve sham-operated rats (Figure 1).
1) An article published in 2022 found that inhibition of HDAC6 by siRNA or Tubastatin A treatment was neuroprotective after ICH (Upregulation of MDH1 acetylation by HDAC6 inhibition protects against oxidative stress‑derived neuronal apoptosis following intracerebral hemorrhage. Miao Wang et al., Cell Mol Life Sci. 2022 Jun 9;79(7):356. doi: 10.1007/s00018-022-04341-y.). This reference did not be mentioned in this submitted article. Moreover, this submitted article has similar results compared to the previous study (Miao Wang et al.). The authors should indicate the difference or new findings of this submitted article.
2) Does acetylation of alpha-tubulin directly participate in mediating apoptotic mechanism or just an outcome after HDAC6 inhibition? The result is still not clear after the description by the authors in the introduction part (lines 90-93) and discussion part (line 379).
No additional comments.
This study has a clear focus on exploring the role of HDAC6 in the context of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and the potential protective effects of TubA on apoptosis in an ICH model. By examining these specific aspects, the study aims to contribute to the current understanding of the mechanisms underlying ICH and potentially identify new therapeutic strategies for this condition.
no comment.
There have been numerous studies on the relationship between HDAC6 and apoptosis, making it difficult for a new study on the same topic to be considered highly innovative. Additionally, the study need bring together and synthesize existing knowledge in a unique way, or present findings from a different perspective, making it valuable and relevant to the scientific community.
The author should shorten the abstract. A well-written abstract should succinctly provide an overview of the study, including its purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. The aim is to provide readers with a clear understanding of the research without going into excessive detail.
It's possible that the study may not be considered highly innovative, and in such cases, further research or refinement may be needed before it can be considered for publication.
The article is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected without possibility of revision.
The article is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected without possibility of revision.
The article is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected without possibility of revision.
The article is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected without possibility of revision.
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.