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.
Since all three original reviewers are now satisfied with your revision, I am happy to recommend its acceptance to the section editor. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Most of the decription is well revised.
wel done
Valid
No other comments
The authors have responded to the reviewer's comment and it is convenient for me in the current form.
The authors have responded to the reviewer's comment and it is convenient for me in the current form.
The authors have responded to the reviewer's comment and it is convenient for me in the current form.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Four experts in the field have reviewed your manuscript. Three of them recommend minor revision while Reviewer 4 recommends a major revision. Please read their comments carefully, and revise the manuscript. Notably, Reviewer 4 is concerned about the novelty of this work compared with past works. Reviewer 1's comment also looks fundamental.
Please Provide the evidence that the disturbance of cell senescence itself may generate psoriasis; up- or down regulation of cell senescence may improve psoriasis in mice models or humans?
Though some cytokines like IL17 may alter cell senescence, the cytokines themselves can be targets of psoriasis therapy and alteration of cell senescence may be one of the effects of these cytokines and may not be therapeutic targets by itself.
How cell senescence is altered in psoriasis should be described in introduction; reduced or enhanced? In who cell types?
How the four target cell senescence genes generate psoriasis lesions via up or downregulation of cell senescence should be described even if speculatively.
Mostly well designed.
Valid
English must be improved
The research is original and relevant and is within the objectives and scope of the journal.
The research contributes to the knowledge of psoriasis and was carried out with high technical and ethical standards.
The methods were very detailed and provided enough information to be replicated.
The conclusions are related to the original research question and the results found.
N/A
The manuscript is interesting with novel idea and good English language, please find below some comments to improve the current manuscript:
In subjects and methods section:
In number 9 “Gene expression analysis”: The authors started this section stating “Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify significant differences in gene expression between PSO and control samples in both training and validation sets. Violin plots were generated using ggplot2 to visualize these differences”. This paragraph is not related to the subtitle gene expression for validating the results. Please revise the proper location for this paragraph.
In number 9 “Gene expression analysis”: The authors repeated twice the description for RNA extraction method. Please revise this section as it needs many modifications.
How the authors selected the sample size (5 psoriasis tissue specimen and 5 normal skin as controls) for the validation group?
In results section:
The figures caption needs more illustration and adding what the abbreviations included stands for and also add the reference for the software or tool used to generate this figure.
In subjects and methods section:
In number 9 “Gene expression analysis”: The authors started this section stating “Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify significant differences in gene expression between PSO and control samples in both training and validation sets. Violin plots were generated using ggplot2 to visualize these differences”. This paragraph is not related to the subtitle gene expression for validating the results. Please revise the proper location for this paragraph.
In number 9 “Gene expression analysis”: The authors repeated twice the description for RNA extraction method. Please revise this section as it needs many modifications.
How the authors selected the sample size (5 psoriasis tissue specimen and 5 normal skin as controls) for the validation group?
No comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript describes the investigation of the role of senescence-related genes in psoriasis by means of bioinformatics analysis. Some data derived from those analyses were further verified in skin tissues from psoriasis patients and healthy individuals.
However, several papers are available on cellular senescence in psoriasis; even in these papers authors have discussed the roles of senescent CD4+ T cells in developing psoriasis. I am wondering what authors are gaining from this study.
In line 81 “Differentially Expressed Autophagy-related Genes” should be defined. In line 246 “Biological Functions of Differentially Expressed Genes” should be “Biological Functions of candidate genes”.
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.