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.
Thank you for your careful and thorough revisions. The reviewer has confirmed that all comments have been fully addressed, and I am also satisfied with the clarity and quality of the updated manuscript. I have no further concerns.
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted for publication. Congratulations, and thank you for your thoughtful work during the review process.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Authors have addressed my comments well. I have no further reservations.
The Authors have addressed my comments well. I have no further reservations.
The Authors have addressed my comments well. I have no further reservations.
The Authors have addressed my comments well. I have no further reservations.
Thank you for your submission on lactylation in respiratory diseases. Both reviewers see value in the topic, but there are significant concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. Please revise carefully with the following in mind:
1) Focus on respiratory diseases – Several sections devote most of the space to general background on asthma, silicosis, PH, etc., with very limited lactylation-specific content. Please streamline disease introductions and ensure the emphasis remains on the role of lactylation, supported by available evidence.
2) Balance and evidence – Clearly distinguish between findings from experimental models and those supported by clinical studies. Where evidence is limited (e.g., asthma, silicosis, PH), acknowledge this and discuss as gaps in the literature rather than overstating.
3) Presentation of evidence – Consider providing a supplementary table summarising all identified lactylation-related studies in respiratory diseases, with details of model, methods, and key findings. This will increase transparency and value for readers.
4) Figures and tables – Improve Figure 2 with more detailed depiction of mechanisms and specific targets. Ensure all therapeutic approaches discussed specify the models used (in vitro, in vivo, preclinical/clinical).
5) Clarity and conciseness – Reduce overly long introductory paragraphs in each section, and focus instead on mechanisms, findings, and implications for lactylation in respiratory disease.
Only with these substantial changes will the manuscript be suitable for consideration.
**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.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript, “New insights into lactylation in respiratory diseases:progress and perspectives”. The authors summarize the roles and mechanisms of lactylation in respiratory diseases, such being a thorough understanding of the functions and therapeutic potential. The manuscript is well written and structured and provides much information. I have only a few concerns as follows:
1.In each chapter, the authors begin by introducing the disease (e.g., cancer) and emphasizing its significance. While informative, this introductory summary is too long and could be considerably reduced, such as the first paragraph of asthma, lung cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, etc. The focus of the manuscript should be on the roles and mechanisms of lacylation in these diseases.
2.The authors are encouraged to more clearly state findings derived from experimental models versus those supported by clinical evidence when summarizing the involvement of lactylation in various respiratory diseases.
3.In the discussion of Development of drugs targeting lactylations, it is essential to clearly report both the in vitro and in vivo models used, the doses administered, as well as the corresponding stages of study (e.g., preclinical or clinical). The authors may consider adding these information in an additional table or along the manuscript.
4.Figure 2 could be improved by including more detailed information regarding the regulatory mechanisms and specific target proteins of lactylation in these pathophysiological processes.
no comment
no comment
no comment
With interest, I read the manuscript entitled “New insights into lactylation in respiratory diseases: progress and perspectives” (submission ID: #120776), written by Chen et al.
Comments:
1. Lines 122-130. This section suggests that the Authors performed a systematic review. Of course, the Authors are not obliged to classify their results so, and stay with a concept of a narrative review. In any case, it would be better to describe the methodology in more detail. When was PubMed searched? What was/were the exact phrase/-s used? How many articles were originally retrieved and how many disqualified at each selection step? Optimally, a flow chart summarizing the whole process should be provided.
2. In the chapter “5.1 Asthma”, there is a lot of general statements of asthma and only a very few studies on the role of lactylation are given. Actually, it is a single study only. The same can be said about chapters “5.4 Silicosis” and “5.5 Pulmonary hypertension (PH)”. Considering that the general description of those conditions makes 90% of those chapters, do the corresponding diseases really deserve separate chapters? In view of data presented by the Authors, contribution of lactylation to asthma, silicosis, and PH looks mostly like wishful thinking.
3. In continuation, where are 174 articles identified by PubMed search? One cannot see them in lung-specific chapters. A supplementary table should present all identified studies with their major findings.
4. The remaining chapters are general and have as much in common with lungs as with any other organ.
5. Figure 2 is very superficial.
See my comments in section "1. Basic reporting".
See my comments in section "1. Basic reporting".
See my comments in section "1. Basic reporting".
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.