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.
Please address the comment by Reviewer 2 while the manuscript is in production
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed my comments and the comprehensibility increased in this version.
no comment
no comment
I just have a minor comment:
Please include the full name of tiRNA when first mentioning it in line 93.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
First, I would like to thank the authors for submitting their work to PeerJ. I also extend my gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers for their time and effort in evaluating this manuscript.
After reading the reviews, it is evident that your work introduces valuable new aspects to the field and deserves to be published. However, before the manuscript is ready for publication, the authors need to address the issues raised and follow the recommendations of the reviewers.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article addresses the emerging role of tsRNAs in injuries and their potential as therapeutic targets. The topic is compelling and could open an avenue for future scientific advancements. I have a few comments to improve this article from its current version:
1. The language is generally understandable, but revisions in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are needed.
2. The authors have made commendable efforts in gathering numerous references for the article. However, the logical flow connecting these ideas is lacking. Improving the logical flow by describing how each study relates to or builds upon previous findings, rather than listing each finding in isolation, will enhance the reading experience for the audience.
3. It would be beneficial if the authors could include brief descriptions of the experimental methods used in the referenced studies. Additionally, discussing and comparing findings from similar or different experimental setups would provide readers with a more objective and comprehensive understanding of the subject.
By addressing these points, the article will be more cohesive and engaging for readers.
This review summarizes current findings on tRNA-derived small RNAs with a special focus on injuries. Although tsRNAs have been well reviewed, the authors provide novel perspectives by organizing literature in different categories of injuries. The tables would be especially helpful for readers interested in the clinical implications of tsRNAs. However, I have 3 major comments:
1. The English can be unclear in some sentences, making it difficult to understand the author's meaning. For example, line 112-114,137, 170 (Use in addition instead of distinct from)194 (not combine but bind to), 238-239, 258-260. Additionally, when the authors explain findings from the same study using multiple sentences, it can be a bit unclear whether these sentences describe the same study or not. For example, line 148-150,326-352 and 355-362. It would be easier for the readers to comprehend if the authors could paraphrase these sentences or consolidate them to highlight that these discoveries are from the same paper.
2. When referencing the findings from literatures, the authors should be more specific. For example: Line 73 and 143 (what kind of stresses? Please specify); 314-320 (what tsRNA species are found to be the top biomarkers?)
3. When writing a review, in addition to listing the findings of referenced studies, it is also important to let the readers know the implications of such studies. Please include sentences describing the impact and implications of cited studies, or a brief summary to describe what one can learn from all the studies cited in a section. For example, at the end of "Translation regulation", one could add a sentence summarizing that tsRNA not only downregulates translation but can also upregulate it, suggesting that it plays a diverse role in translation regulation.
No Comment
No Comment
1. Line 76 and later sections, when discussing how tsRNA inhibits translation, please include the study from Ivanov 2011 Mol. Cell
2. Line 78 "Other...sequencing". The meaning is unclear, please clarify
3. Line 80-82. Do the authors want to state that oxidative stress is strongly associated with organ damage? Since the scale of this review covers more stresses than ROS, what about other non-ROS-associated tsRNAs? It is unclear what this sentence is trying to state, please clarify
4. Line 145. The sentence about Dino and collogues does not explain how RNA helicases contribute to the biogenesis of tsRNA. Please clarify
5. When species name is mentioned, please make it italic
6. In vitro and in vivo should be italic
7. Please provide figure legends
8. Line 273 please explain what IRI stands for
In this review, the authors aim to summarize the role and mechanisms of tsRNA in organ injury. The review article has certain scientific significance. However, there are several concerns for this manuscript is needed for improvement.
1. Authors should have the manuscript checked by a professional editing service for language.
2. In the introduction regarding tsRNAs and human diseases, the authors should cite the recent literatures to fully address the point
3. The authors should add a chapter to summarize the pathogenesis, molecules mechanism and current treatment status of organ injury-associated diseases.
4. The authors should add a chapter to summarize the clinical value of tsRNAs in organ injury-associated diseases.
5. The chapter “Conclusions” are not adequate, and the authors should provide more information about clinical significance and shortage of current studies on tsRNAs and organ injury-associated diseases.
.
.
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.