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 concerns of the reviewers were addressed, and the revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors provide a study of use of epicatechin as a potential exogenous antioxidant to regulate genes expressed during UV induced oxidative stress in fibroblast cells. The study provides comprehensive experimental analysis of effect of epicatechin in the cells treated with UVB. The result provides a concise summary of the role of epicatechin in regulating the genes involved.
Authors provided appropriate corrections as suggested in previous review.
Authors added the missing importance of genes and provided proper conclusion of the comments made.
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 that 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
a. Result of the abstract has not shown clear quantitative
b. Has used the latest literature
c. The background needs to be explained why the epicatechin compound was chosen in this study.
d. It is necessary to explain the novelty of this research
a. It has not been explained related to the experimental design used in the research
b. It is necessary to explain the stages of the research process in the form of a flow diagram
a. The Data and discussion are good
Can be improved according to existing comments
- figure consistency:
- The author should consider unify the way in which statistics are presented. In the first few figures, statistical significance are indicated by alphabets, and in the others, it was denoted by "#" and "*". I recommend the author follow the latter criteria, as it is more routinely used in the field.
- Fig. 2: are panel A and D the same?
- Fig. 3: what is the difference between the left two panels and the right two panels?
Can the authors provide justifications for the dosage of Epicatechin used in the study? Are they physiologically relevant and in what way?
In the "Apoptosis" section of the Result part, the descriptions in the main text seem to not match that of the figures. Specifically, the figures indicate that Epicatechin has protective effects, namely a reduction in dead cells, apoptosis and necrosis. But the text indicated otherwise.
The authors provide a study of use of epicatechin as a potential exogenous antioxidant to regulate genes expressed during UV induced oxidative stress in fibroblast cells. The study provides comprehensive experimental analysis of effect of epicatechin in the cells treated with UVB. The result provides a concise summary of the role of epicatechin in regulating the genes involved. However, the study would benefit from a more detailed conclusion and discussion. I recommend the following improvements to enhance the manuscript:.
Many abbreviations are not defined. Please make sure, all the abbreviations even if used only once in text are defined. The readers may not know the abbreviations.
Title:
Do authors mean “Apoptotic”? Should the word be “Apoptosis”? Apoptotic appears to be incorrectly used because it is an adjective and does not fit grammatically with the rest of the title.
Abstract
line 36: Acronym WST not defined.
Line 38: Acronyms COL1A1, MMP-1, FGF-2, and GPX-1 not defined.
Introduction:
Line 80-81: do the authors mean “exogenous” antioxidants are needed since the endogenous antioxidants available in body are not sufficient?
Line 91: What natural ingredients have epicatechin? Which fruits or vegetables are rich in epicatechin? Please add reference.
Authors should mention what is the normal amount of epicatechin present in human body and what would be the amount required for effective removal of free radicals if this data is available. If the authors can mention the amount of epicatechin in natural source and its bioavailability and how much of that a person would have to consume to reach the desired levels, it will justify the need to have the pure compounds for better bioavailability.
Methods:
Line 145: Please describe the modifications incorporated in the experiment.
Please mention replicates used in all experiments.
Results:
It would be easier for the readers to understand the results if % increase or decrease in the gene expression is mentioned. It will also provide a good comparison.
Discussion:
Lines 204-213 are repetitive.
Line 207-209: The authors mention the compounds have strong oxidative activity, is there a quantitative measure to this? Is that mentioned in the paper Kaurinovic and Vastag, 2019? Having numeric value instead “quite strong” will provide a good perspective to discuss the data obtained by authors.
Add a reference to line 238.
Line 243: Scientific name “Momordica charantia” should be in italics.
Authors have described the importance of each gene they are studying in ageing and the effect of UV on the same however, the authors should also compare their findings with the data available for other antioxidants that are studies previously. This would provide a good basis for conclusion on whether epicatechin is better or not compared to other antioxidants.
Conclusion:
The authors did not provide a proper conclusion for the study. The conclusion currently includes the summary of results. Authors should include the importance of this study in advancing the regulation of the ageing genes during UV exposure. Authors should include one sentence summary of importance of each gene for example “COL1A1 and FGF-2 are crucial for collagen synthesis and skin repair, whereas GPX-1 plays a key role in antioxidant defense.” The conclusion should also compare studies done previously and how this study fills the gap or why is this study important. Does this provide a better antioxidant than already available ones?
In the whole text, there is no mention of the molecular mechanism of epicatechin. Is this discussed previously? Authors should mention this and provide a reference to it. If not mentioned previously, the authors should provide a hypothesis. Why did the authors choose to study epicatechin only? Why is it so important?
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.