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 issues raised by the reviewers were addressed and the revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is the second revision .The authors have responded to my comments with proper changes in the manuscript .
This is the second revision .The authors have responded to my comments with proper changes in the manuscript .
This is the second revision .The authors have responded to my comments with proper changes in the manuscript .
Please address the concerns of all reviewers and revise 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
Thank you for inviting me to review the submitted manuscript titled " Identification of hub genes and prediction of the ceRNA network in adult sepsis". Briefly, this is an interesting and meaning study based on the bioinformatics analyses. The authors used several GEO databases, and made kinds of bioinformatics analyses. The authors also validated the key hub genes using qPCR. Overall, this is a good study.
no comment
no comment
My only minor concerns is the figure quality. Several figures need to be improved more carefully. For example, in figure 5B, the letter "t" and "r" are getting together. Additionally, the key bioinformatics messages from GO and KEGG analyses should be highlighted.
Thanks for the opportunity to review your study. I have several comments
1. The present study seems to be very general. The authors have used several bioinformatics tools to explore the known information. In the present study, integrated bioinformatics analyses were conducted, and validation dependent on patient datasets and blood samples was performed. The major drawback of the study is the lack of supportive data (patient samples data) to prove the concept of the study.
2. The study goal is very general: to test your measurements against several outcomes through a bioinformatics tool. Your abstract states that hyperinflammation was closely associated with the innate immune system, while immunosuppression primarily involved the adaptive immune system. It is not true. Patients with sepsis and septic shock have hyperinflammatory responses associated with both arms of immunity. The majority of sepsis patients died due to multiple organ failure has severe defects in the adaptive arms of immunity.
3. The study highlighted five hub genes in the module that were identified and verified by the above six training cohorts and RT- qPCR of peripheral blood in septic patients. The comparative data of the folds change expression in patients with sepsis and healthy controls was done in just nine samples each. It is not a sufficient sample size to conclude the findings of the study.
4. Did the author calculate the power of study?
5. Because of the general study goal, the discussion remains very descriptive explaining that the markers were somewhat different between the groups. However, it would be more interesting whether the biomarkers are as distinct as in the in-vitro experiment or patient samples and how you answer your study questions.
It is purely a general study design marginally lacking the experimental works
The concept of the study is proved by advanced bioinformatics tools.
The study has several grammatical mistakes and typos.
It is important study , however the aim was not adequately clarified ., the importance of the sepsis problem is well illustrated .
The authors need to write clear aim /objective as well as research questions and hypothesis.
In the method section , the inclusion criteria have to be more clarified , .explain why need for 10 samples and how the sepsis will be more than 5 sepsis . and also the control , as this will end in more than 10 .
The technical part of the study is well written .
Some figures as number4 , is not clear
The methods is well illustrated .
Authors need to elaborate on the reproducibility of the findings .
Non
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.