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.
The reviewers indicated that the revised manuscript addressed all previous concerns.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have thoroughly addressed my concerns from the previous review. The revisions made to the manuscript are satisfactory, and the overall quality has significantly improved. I find the manuscript acceptable for publication in its current form.
The experimental design is robust and well-structured, with no significant areas requiring improvement.
The findings are well-supported by the data presented and align with the study's objectives.
Please specifically note the comments and annotated document from Reviewer 1, who requests reviewing of the methodology section for clarity, suggesting certain aspects of the experimental design could benefit from further elaboration. The manuscript would also benefit from contextualizing the results within the broader field of oxidative stress research - to enhance the study’s relevance to potential therapeutic applications.
The article investigates the effects of two phycocyanin subunits (Ns-α and Ns-β) from Nostoc sphaeroides on the antioxidative capacity of C. elegans. The study suggests that these subunits enhance the nematode's ability to combat oxidative stress by modulating reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, improving its overall antioxidative defense. The findings underscore the potential therapeutic roles of phycocyanin in oxidative stress-related conditions, particularly in models like C. elegans.
The experimental design used in this study is generally well-executed.
The validity of the findings in this study appears to be robust, supported by appropriate experimental design and clear methodology.
It would be valuable to further discuss the potential implications of the study’s findings in relation to future research, particularly within the scope of antioxidant therapies. A more detailed exploration of the molecular mechanisms through which Ns-α and Ns-β modulate ROS would provide greater insight into their biological roles. Additionally, expanding the comparative analysis of these results with other antioxidant agents could offer a broader perspective and underscore the significance of this research within the context of oxidative stress and therapeutic applications.
The manuscript is well-written in clear, professional English. Some minor grammatical adjustments could enhance readability, but overall, the language is accessible and unambiguous. The manuscript also provides a thorough background on oxidative stress, the significance of phycocyanin, and the relevance of using C. elegans as a model organism. The MS follows a standard scientific structure, with well-organized sections and logical flow. Figures and tables are relevant and of moderate quality, though some figure legends could use more detail. The raw data is provided except for the images which I urge the authors to include as well. The results address the hypotheses, particularly regarding antioxidative capacity of the phycocyanin subunit Ns-α and Ns-β in C. elegans, aligning well with the research objectives.
The experimental design of the manuscript is well-conceived and methodologically sound, allowing for a clear investigation into the antioxidative effects of Nostoc sphaeroides phycocyanin subunit proteins in C. elegans.
The findings appear valid, sound, and well-interpreted. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide all raw images for endogenous ROS accumulation (H₂DCF-DA treatment) and lipofuscin accumulation, in addition to the selected images included in the main text. This addition would allow researchers to better assess treatment consistency and signal quality, aiding in the replication of these experiments.
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.