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.
All issues pointed out by the reviewers were adequately addressed and I am glad to recommend your revised manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have successfully addressed all of my comments. The manuscript is now acceptable for publication in PeerJ
N/A
N/A
N/A
The authors addressed my concerns. I have no further comments.
-
-
Please address the concerns of all reviewers and amend the manuscript accordingly.
**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.
**Language Note:** The review process 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The review is well written and comprehensive.
The figure is not up to the mark. While the flow looks good, the fonts are extremely small. Also, coloring the boxes with different types of outline colors does not do justice to a well written review article.
Suggestion: Make fonts bigger; remove bright colors or just keep B/W boxes that have separate bullets for each topic.
Gaps in the literature are correctly identified and addressed. Nice flow and logic of the review. This is an important topic within the scope oF CNS diseases in general and is focused to the scope of PeerJ.
Appropriate references are provided as required.
As a review article the existing literature is properly contextualized. It reinforces the role of Neutrophils and NETS in CNS disease, especially neurodegenerative diseases.
Authors must include the role of NETS in ALS. Nowhere this function is discussed or mentioned.
Two references must be discussed in this context:
1) Trias E, King PH, Si Y, Kwon Y, Varela V, Ibarburu S, et al. Mast cells and neutrophils mediate peripheral motor pathway degeneration in ALS. JCI Insight (2018) 3(19). doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.123249
2) Front. Immunol., 16 August 2023
Sec. Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology
Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1246768
Major Comments: 1. With the modification of figure as suggested and 2. With incorporation of discussion on the above two references and the role of NETS in ALS, the review can be accepted.
In this manuscript, Shao et al. discuss Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and summarize the role of NETs in immune related mechanisms and in CNS diseases including cerebral strokes, Alzheimer's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and neurological cancers. There are several issues that need to be addressed:
1. The English language should be improved and the manuscript needs a thorough grammar check. I suggest that the authors to contact a professional editing service.
2. The introduction is repetitive. NETs should be introduced and discussed more in detail. The authors should highlight the existing knowledge gap and how this review serves to fill those gaps.
3. In the introduction, the authors mention "In CNS diseases, the role of NETs has been largely revealed and reported [24-26]. However, so far, the role of NETs in CNS diseases is not fully elucidated, and the specific mechanisms remain unclarified." Please rephrase this as these sentences are contrary to each other.
4. The authors should include a diagram to show all the factors that contribute to NET release.
5. It will be informative to include a diagram to show how NETs crosstalk with the inflammation/immune pathways
6. Since the authors majorly discuss NETs in AD, I suggest the authors to change the section heading from "NETs in neurodegenerative diseases" to "NETs in Alzheimer's Disease".
7. The authors should include a section to discuss the therapeutic application of NETs in detail.
N/A
N/A
In this review the authors detailed the current understanding of role of NETs in CNS diseases.
I ask the authors to address the following comments.
The section describing survey methodology is misleading. This review is reading like an expert review. But this section is written as it is a systematic review. I suggest authors to remove this section (lines 76-84).
Sentences in lines 65-67 are contradictory to each other.
Line 67: I suggest the authors not use the term ‘study’ as it is a review article.
Authors used the phrase ‘important disease’ to indicate commonly occurring/well studied diseases. Please note that the word ‘important’ is not making sense.
-
-
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.