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.
Thank you for making the final minor revisions. Your manuscript has been accepted in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The attached PDF proposes some editorial suggestions. Please consider them in a revised version that addresses grammar and style.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please thoroughly review and provide detailed comments on all the concerns raised by the reviewers. The work and conclusions would be greatly improved by including an analysis of the expression of pro-inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in LPS-exposed cells. Thanks!
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language could be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The manuscript titled Asian acid reduces lipopolysaccharides-induced pulp inflammation through activation of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2, with details, is well presented and well developed experimentally. However, it has deficiencies that make it an incomplete study.
The methodological part is well developed for the proposed objectives, would you only observe why use a single measurement time (72 h)?
In my opinion, the results were expected given that asiatic acid had previously demonstrated its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity, so it was highly predictable that it would show the induction of the expression of the nuclear marker erythroid factor 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2). ), the work and conclusions would be complete if the expression of pro-inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), inducible nitric-oxide synthase (iNOS), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)) in LPS-exposed cells
A study evaluating anti-inflammatory activity such as the one presented must be broader to have complete conclusions about the effect of asiatic acid.
Asiatic acid has previously been shown to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity, so it is highly predictable that it would show the induction of the expression of the nuclear marker erythroid factor 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), which is why the main observation against it is Why was only Nrf2 evaluated? I consider that, for example, the expression of pro-inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), inducible nitric-oxide synthase (iNOS), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) should have been evaluated and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)) in LPS-exposed cells.
In the abstract, the authors should specify which interventions were utilized since there were 6 separated groups. There were several abbreviations which appeared for the first time without explanation. The “P” value should be written in italics.
The discussion was too prolix, the authors should focused on the discussion of Nrf2, which was priority of this study. In line 291 to 292, it seemed inappropriate to state “could attenuate the inflammation induced by LPS by increasing the Nrf2 level. “, rather it should be altered as “by Nrf2 application.”
The format of the references should be unified, for instance reference 5 did not include the month, while the other references did.
The authors should justify why the experiment were divided into 6 groups, especially there were 3 interventional groups, the IG1, IG2 and IG3 seemed to be unnecessary, which may be combined as one or two groups.
There were only HE stainings of the histological analysis which seemed insufficient to demonstrate inflammation. Immunohistochemical staining should also be included, especially for the detection of inflammatory factors, such as TNF-alpha, IL-1, etc. also the detection for Nrf2 should be included.
In line 182, the P value should be described as <0.01. Also was the level of TNF-alpha detected from the pulp tissue acquired? The authors should specify this.
A diagram or operation photograph for the animal model seemed to be necessary.
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.