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.
Thanks for addressing all the comments from the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please response to all the reviewer's comments.
The standard curve is labeled with three categories: 'standard,' 'unknown,' and 'unknown (flagged);' however, the graph displays only red squares. Please ensure that the graph's visual elements align with the described categories in the legend.
Figure 5 presents two distinct sets of graphs. To improve clarity, assign and reference subnumbers to each graph and correlate these with the descriptions provided, enabling easier differentiation between the two groups.
To enhance the specificity of the procedure described in the article, it may be beneficial to refer to 'SOE PCR' instead of 'primer synthesis'.
The authors have not addressed the issues raised in this section.
All the asked changes have been made. The introduction has been changed and reads much better now. The overall flow of the paper has improved.
The resolution of figures has been improved, and legends are now readable. All the changes are made.
All the figure materials, including the supplementary material, are now readable.
The authors correctly addressed my feedback to improve the readability of the paper.
Please respond to the reviewer's comments and resubmit the revised one.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Several figures in the manuscript require significant adjustments:
- Figure 2:
- Enlarge the font size that describes the reaction conditions near WB.
- Increase the font sizes for the x, y axis labels, numbers, and the legends.
- Enhance the resolution of the standard curve plot.
- Figure 3:
- Font sizes describing the reaction conditions near WB are too small.
- Specify the number of duplicates/triplicates performed.
- For individual data points on the bar plot, reduce the symbols' size for better variance visualization.
- Figure 5:
- Figure 5A and 5B display the same information, but in different formats. Consider only presenting Figure 5B (overlay plot) to prevent redundancy.
Several errors are noted in this section:
- Line 85: What do you mean by “primer synthesis method”? Could it be "solid phase synthesis"?
- Line 92: Change "QT-PCR" to "qRT-PCR."
- Line 119: The micro-spectrophotometer measures RNA quantity, not quality.
- Lines 122-124: The microliter symbol's font is inconsistent with the rest. Kindly rectify.
- Line 124: '2' in 'ddH2O' should be subscripted.
- Figure 1: This seems more apt for supplementary information (SI) since it pertains to the methods. Please reconsider its placement.
- Figure 5: The results from the flow cytometry, as depicted in Figure 5, are not adequately discussed in the main text.
- General Observation: All figures are absent in the main text, leaving only their legends. Kindly rectify this oversight.
The authors have reported interesting phenomena where stimulating the Flagellin-TLR5 complex augments TRIF and p-ERK1/2 protein levels, leading to pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-12 and IL-4 secretion. However, more mechanistic insights into how these phenomena are correlated would increase the impact of the study.
The introduction needs to be more detailed. Most of the discussion can be used as an introduction for better understanding and increased readership.
In the Discussion, please discuss how your findings fill significant knowledge gaps.
In line 54: replace innate with inner.
In line 58-59 ‘In order to eliminate interfering factors, we designed this cell experiment’ please elaborate on the interfering factors.
Please present high-resolution images with readable legends.
Add space between number and symbol throughout the manuscript, e.g. 37_°C
For supplementary material, I could not open ‘Copy of results of pERK1:2 exp in DC’.
This paper cannot be considered for publication in its current form. However, it holds promising results, and I encourage the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript.
Line 64: use the word antibiotics instead of antibodies.
Line 65: confluency
Line 70: the size of the amicon ultra mentioned needs to be corrected.
Line 122: Should be μM.
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.