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.
After reviewing the authors' revised version, I believe this revised paper was significantly enhanced and improved and the concerns of the 3 Reviewers were adequately addressed. This article is ready to be considered for publication in this Journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please revise your manuscript according to the comments of our Reviewers.
[# 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 review process 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) #]
The manuscript is generally well-written and clear. The background and purpose of the study are adequately introduced. However, I recommend the following improvements to enhance clarity and readability:
Please consider revising the abstract to improve its clarity and readability. Specifically, streamline the methods and results sections in the abstract to focus on key information, and make sure the abstract adheres to the PeerJ journal format.
In the introduction, provide a brief overview of the current treatment options for RP, and highlight the unmet need for novel therapeutic strategies.
Add more recent relevant literature to the introduction and discussion sections to provide a comprehensive context for your study.
The manuscript would benefit from a thorough language and grammar check to improve readability and clarity.
The experimental design is appropriate and well-described.
The findings appear to be valid and well-supported by the data. However, the following points should be addressed:
Discuss the potential off-target effects of SAHA or other HDAC inhibitors and the implications of these effects on the study's conclusions.
The authors should provide a more in-depth discussion of the limitations of the study, including potential off-target effects of SAHA and the use of a single concentration of SAHA.
The authors should discuss the potential therapeutic implications of their findings for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa, including the potential use of HDAC inhibitors as a therapeutic strategy, challenges associated with drug delivery, and the need for further research to determine the optimal combination of HDAC and PARP inhibitors for retinal protection.
no comment
no comment
no comment
In the current study, the authors investigate the roles of different isoforms of HDACs and PARPs in the process of the photoreceptor cell death. In addition, the authors found that SAHA, one HDAC inhibitor, can provide protective effects against the photoreceptor cell death. Overall, these are the novel observations, and the data support the main conclusion. However, there are minor concerns that need to be addressed, which are listed as follows:
1. Please keep the consistent name of proteins or genes, such as “CGMP” or “cGMP”.
2. Please double check the information and citation of “Verdone et al. 2015” is correct. The reviewer cannot see the same author from this reference with the current manuscript.
3. Is there any significant difference in Fig 1C-1F? If yes, please indicate the significance in the Figures and describe the statistical methods used.
4. It is better that the authors can show the list of 13 downregulated and 7 upregulated DEGs in supplemental Table or list.
5. In line 472, please delete the sentence “Add your discussion here”.
This artical "HDAC inhibition delays photoreceptor loss in Pde6b mutant mice of retinitis pigmentosa: insights from scRNA-seq and CUT&Tag" presents a unique opportunity for a comprehensive analysis of the development of single cell gene expression and CUT&TAG in Pde6b mutant mice. The authors hoped to identify candidates such as HDACs and PARPs that are useful biomakes, and indeed this analysis can provide some new insights into the pathogeneis of RD.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
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.