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.
Authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and the manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Please incorporate all reviewer comments into the revised manuscript and provide a detailed, point-by-point response in a separate document.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The research work titled “Has_circRNA_0122683 (circ-PRKCI) relieves ferroptosis of HPAEpiCs in sepsis-induced acute lung injury by sponging miR-382-5p” was performed and written very well. The authors have taken extensive efforts making the research happen. However, the following concerns can be addressed to make the manuscript appear better.
• The AUC values are promising. However, description related to ROC curves lacks clarity,
• Are there any bias identified during patient recruitment?
• Mentioning the study bias in the limitation section is better (related to recruitment, in-vivo/animal-based studies)
• The miRNA downstream process is not explained, these can be written in the future research recommendations
• Ethical section of the study is clear, However, adding more details on the informed consent procedure and sample storage conditions would strengthen the study ethically
• The study has stated the circ-PRKCI/miR-382-5p for their therapeutic implications. However, this was just a hypothesis. The study lacks in-vivo validation. This lacuna can be address in limitations of the study or can be mentioned in the future research prospects.
• The study is well justified as it addresses the role of circ-PRKCI in sepsis induced ALI, a condition with limited therapeutic targets. However, the novelty compared to previously published work on ferroptosis and circular RNA should be emphasized more clearly.
• Providing power analysis (statistically) would further strengthen the results.
• Relevant studies are cited. More recent publications would give better understanding various meta-analysis can be found online.
• The manuscript was identified to be having grammatical mistakes. Linguistic edition is recommended.
The research work titled “Has_circRNA_0122683 (circ-PRKCI) relieves ferroptosis of HPAEpiCs in sepsis-induced acute lung injury by sponging miR-382-5p” was performed and written very well. The authors have taken extensive efforts making the research happen. However, the following concerns can be addressed to make the manuscript appear better.
• The AUC values are promising. However, description related to ROC curves lacks clarity,
• Are there any bias identified during patient recruitment?
• Mentioning the study bias in the limitation section is better (related to recruitment, in-vivo/animal-based studies)
• The miRNA downstream process is not explained, these can be written in the future research recommendations
• Ethical section of the study is clear, However, adding more details on the informed consent procedure and sample storage conditions would strengthen the study ethically
• The study has stated the circ-PRKCI/miR-382-5p for their therapeutic implications. However, this was just a hypothesis. The study lacks in-vivo validation. This lacuna can be address in limitations of the study or can be mentioned in the future research prospects.
• The study is well justified as it addresses the role of circ-PRKCI in sepsis induced ALI, a condition with limited therapeutic targets. However, the novelty compared to previously published work on ferroptosis and circular RNA should be emphasized more clearly.
• Providing power analysis (statistically) would further strengthen the results.
• Relevant studies are cited. More recent publications would give better understanding various meta-analysis can be found online.
• The manuscript was identified to be having grammatical mistakes. Linguistic edition is recommended.
The research work titled “Has_circRNA_0122683 (circ-PRKCI) relieves ferroptosis of HPAEpiCs in sepsis-induced acute lung injury by sponging miR-382-5p” was performed and written very well. The authors have taken extensive efforts making the research happen. However, the following concerns can be addressed to make the manuscript appear better.
• The AUC values are promising. However, description related to ROC curves lacks clarity,
• Are there any bias identified during patient recruitment?
• Mentioning the study bias in the limitation section is better (related to recruitment, in-vivo/animal-based studies)
• The miRNA downstream process is not explained, these can be written in the future research recommendations
• Ethical section of the study is clear, However, adding more details on the informed consent procedure and sample storage conditions would strengthen the study ethically
• The study has stated the circ-PRKCI/miR-382-5p for their therapeutic implications. However, this was just a hypothesis. The study lacks in-vivo validation. This lacuna can be address in limitations of the study or can be mentioned in the future research prospects.
• The study is well justified as it addresses the role of circ-PRKCI in sepsis induced ALI, a condition with limited therapeutic targets. However, the novelty compared to previously published work on ferroptosis and circular RNA should be emphasized more clearly.
• Providing power analysis (statistically) would further strengthen the results.
• Relevant studies are cited. More recent publications would give better understanding various meta-analysis can be found online.
• The manuscript was identified to be having grammatical mistakes. Linguistic edition is recommended.
The research work titled “Has_circRNA_0122683 (circ-PRKCI) relieves ferroptosis of HPAEpiCs in sepsis-induced acute lung injury by sponging miR-382-5p” was performed and written very well. The authors have taken extensive efforts making the research happen. However, the following concerns can be addressed to make the manuscript appear better.
• The AUC values are promising. However, description related to ROC curves lacks clarity,
• Are there any bias identified during patient recruitment?
• Mentioning the study bias in the limitation section is better (related to recruitment, in-vivo/animal-based studies)
• The miRNA downstream process is not explained, these can be written in the future research recommendations
• Ethical section of the study is clear, However, adding more details on the informed consent procedure and sample storage conditions would strengthen the study ethically
• The study has stated the circ-PRKCI/miR-382-5p for their therapeutic implications. However, this was just a hypothesis. The study lacks in-vivo validation. This lacuna can be address in limitations of the study or can be mentioned in the future research prospects.
• The study is well justified as it addresses the role of circ-PRKCI in sepsis induced ALI, a condition with limited therapeutic targets. However, the novelty compared to previously published work on ferroptosis and circular RNA should be emphasized more clearly.
• Providing power analysis (statistically) would further strengthen the results.
• Relevant studies are cited. More recent publications would give better understanding various meta-analysis can be found online.
• The manuscript was identified to be having grammatical mistakes. Linguistic edition is recommended.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
the manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language. If there is an error, it is:
1- In the abstract you write
The area under the curve values of ROC curves for circ-PRKCI in differentiating septic ALI patients from healthy individuals and septic non-ALI patients were 0.948 and 0.814. While in Figure 2 The diagnostic utility of circ-PRKCI in sepsis-induced ALI. AUC value was 0.996 and 0.999
2- In the supplementary figures
In the main manuscript you write Supplementary Figure 1. Effect of circ-PRKCI on the expression of miR-382-5p. qRT-PCR was performed for miR-382-5p expression detection after circ-PRKCI overexpression in HPAEpiC. Data were presented as the mean ± SD, n = 3. ns represent not significant, *P<0.05.
While in raw data and figure 1 in the supplementary data show the expression of miR-890, miR-1324 and miR-382-5p in circ-NC vector (A group) and circ-PRKCI vector (B group)
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.