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.
Congratulations.
Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper is well revised and significantly improved.
Study design is well and suitable to answer the study question.
Findings are valid
Revisions are adequate and the paper is improved.
Adequate and replete with the necessary information.
Substantiated appropriately with suitable justification.
Original contributions to the world of evidence based research is obvious and the authors have enhanced the quality of the findings by taking due cognizance of the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer.
No comment
Please revise your manuscript and submit it with your written responses to each of the reviewers' comments.
Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Authors studied metrnl and HDL in patients with type 2 DM. Background data must be improved in this section since the rationale is missing. Type 2 DM is associated with high burden of chronic inflammation (AIMS Medical Science, 2024;11(1): 47–57. DOI: 10.3934/medsci.2024004). Meteorin like (Metrnl) protein is also involved in inflammation (Frontiers in immunology, 2023, 14: 1098570.). Similarly, reduced HDL levels have been reported in diseases that characterized with chronic inflammation, such as prediabetes (Bratisl Med J 2024;125(3): 145–148. DOI: 10.4149/BLL_2023_130), chronic kidney disease (BMJ open, 2022, 12.12: e066243.), and type 2 DM (Acta facultatis medicae Naissensis 2022; 39(1):66-73. DOI: 10.5937/afmnai39-33239). Hence, studying metrnl's association with hdl in diabetic subjects makes sense.
They retrospectively analyzed the data of the participants. Metrnl levels were compared in low HDL and high HDL groups.
Metrnl levels were higher in high HDL group compared to those in low HDL group. Conclusions are supported by the data.
Avoid abbreviations in first mention please.
No comments
Methods could have been more elaborate so that replication of information can be made more realistic and achievable. For instance, what was the methodology involved in HDL-C estimation?
1.Findings could have been made more logical and convincing rather than merely striking a relationship with HDL-C
2. Earlier studies have reported the association/nexus with cardiometabolic factors. The authors could have compared the levels of METRNL with adiponectin, for instance, with reference to HDL-C status
3.HDL-C per se may not be linked to insulin resistance. Thee authors should have taken into consideration factors such as QUICKI, atherogenic index of plasma and cardiac risk index based on lipid ratios, including the surrogate marker for insulin resistance, namely Triglyceride:HDL ratio
4.BMI could have been used to segregate the study subjects into non-obese, overweight and obese which could have thrown more weight on the anthropometric measurement
5. Mean arterial Pressure could have been used instead of SBP and DBP
Spelling and grammatical errors noted. For e.g. instead of the correct spelling- comparison, the authors have used comparition in a few places
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.