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 addressed the previous comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please attend to the following feedback from the Section Editors:
The manuscript needs better data presentation in order to justify the title. Also, reference numbers for the antibodies are not disclosed (impossible to properly reproduce the experiments). Please ensure the authors meet the PeerJ policy for reporting antibodies at https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/#data-materials-sharing - and ideally that you provide RRIDs (Research Resource IDentifiers) if available.
There are also issues with the histopathology; for example, you named "Masson staining" instead of Masson's trichrome staining and you say "Masson Ponceau acid fuchsin when acid fuchsin is the same as Masson...).
Fig 4C is not big enough to distinguish anything. The apoptotic index does not seem to match histology slides.
You must provide the original blots with the protein ladder included as blots and graphs do not seem to match well.
A point to point response letter and language editing service.
[# 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) #]
This study, You et al, investigated the role and mechanism of miR-200a-3p in diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM). Although protective effects of miR-200a-3p are significant findings, this study is still descriptive and falls short in mechanistic advancement. Some major issues need to be revised.
A. This study shows that miR-200a-3p inhibitor aggravates diabetic cardiomyopathy injury. However, the data showed that miR-200a-3p overexpression could alleviate diabetic cardiomyopathy injury, and miR-200a-3p inhibitors are not mentioned. Therefore, it is suggested in the title to mention miR-200a-3p overexpression instead to miR-200a-3p inhibitor.
B. In the introduction, it is suggested to mention the prevalence of diabetic cardiomyopathy.
C. Please mention all forward and reverse primer sequences used during PCR.
D. Mice in the model group were fed a high-fat diet. Please clarify the specific formula of the high-fat diet.
E. Please specify the percentage isoflurane used for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.
F. Please clarify, were all mice euthanised by removal of the heart under anaesthesia? And also specify what method of anaesthesia was used for this.
.
.
This article draws attention to miR-200a-3p as a targeted therapeutic approach for diabetic cardiomyopathy. However, there are several points that need to be clarified as follows:
1) The author indicates that the DCM model was established in db/db mice. But, the db/db mice have shown symptoms of myocardial injury in diabetes, and no further construction of DCM model is required. So, this sentence needs reframing for better readability.
2) There is too much description of other miRNAs in the section of introduction. The miR-200a-3p should be described in detail in the introduction.
3) The author need provide more information about the miR-200a-3p mimic/inhibitor and negative control. And, are these scramble sequences? Moreover, how were the doses of miR-200a-3p inhibitor/negative control selected?
4) In general, the codes of the kits used should be reported in the materials & methods section. The brand and model of reagents and experimental instruments in the methodology one by one.
5) What method is used for post hoc testing after analysis of ANOVA?
6) The author need provide a reference for this sentence ' Previous studies have suggested that FOXO3 acts on Mst1 and several other downstream factors to affect cell survival and cell function'.
7) Lack of in-depth exploration mechanism is a major problem in this study. The main defects of this study should be clarified in the discussion section.
8) The illustrations of all the figures should be described in more detail and need to indicate the number of biological repetitions for each experiment.
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.