Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 25th, 2025 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 24th, 2025.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 15th, 2025 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 2nd, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jun 2, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for addressing the reviewer feedback and comments. Your article is now suitable for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 24, 2025 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.

·

Basic reporting

Why did the authors choose the two SQLE SNPs rs10104486 and rs2288312? Was it based on functional annotations from previous studies, MAF (minimum allele frequency), or GWAS signals?

Are OR values ​​(odds ratios) and 95% confidence intervals reported? Is the observed effect size biologically meaningful?

Although the article points out that rs10104486 and rs2288312 are related to obesity, it does not discuss whether these variant sites are located in regulatory regions, affect SQLE expression or downstream cholesterol synthesis pathways, and whether there are functional experiments to support their biological mechanisms.

Experimental design

The article does not describe the technical methods used for DNA extraction and SNP typing (such as PCR-RFLP, TaqMan, sequencing, etc.). How accurate and reproducible are they?

Did the authors perform a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test on the SNP distribution of the control group? If not, the results of this test may affect the reliability of statistical inferences.

Validity of the findings

Did they adjust for potential confounding factors (such as diet, physical activity, family history, etc.)?

For multiple SNPs and multiple comparison models, were multiple hypothesis testing corrections (such as Bonferroni, FDR) performed to control the first type error rate?

Additional comments

What statistical models did the authors use to evaluate the association between genotype and obesity?

·

Basic reporting

the manuscript is clear, introduction part is poor in exact correlation between the studied parameters and their role in obesity.

role of genetic polymorphism in the involvement of obesity should focused.

tables are adequate in data.

Experimental design

the design is fair

Validity of the findings

the findings are valid but authors should focus on the findings as they are.

presenting both SNP effects on obesity, determining the role of each genotype.

statistically the results must represent in OR(C.I95%) to all the genotype comparisons

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.