Next Article in Journal
Exosomal and Plasma Non-Coding RNA Signature Associated with Urinary Albumin Excretion in Hypertension
Next Article in Special Issue
Vascular Permeability in Diseases
Previous Article in Journal
Immunotherapy for Biliary Tract Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 23
Issue 2
10.3390/ijms23020821
Review Report
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Transcriptional Response in a Sepsis Mouse Model Reflects Transcriptional Response in Sepsis Patients

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(2), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23020821
by Florian Rosier, Nicolas Fernandez Nuñez, Magali Torres, Béatrice Loriod, Pascal Rihet * and Lydie C. Pradel *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(2), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23020821
Submission received: 25 November 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 9 January 2022 / Published: 13 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection State-of-the-Art Molecular Mechanisms of Hematopathology in France)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is very interesting and sounding,

However, I've some ocncerns about it.

Introduction is very short, and more information is needed to better focus the potential relevance of the manuscript.

A conclusion section must be added.

At last, references are really few, and only six  are from the last five years.  Please add more references, also discussing other additional model of sepsis (i.e.,  bioinformatics and exploratory data analysis tools)

Author Response

We have improved the introduction (lines 30-65), and we have added several relevant references, as requested. We have better focused the potential relevance of the manuscript. In all, we have added 22 references in the whole manuscript.

 

We have added a conclusion section and improved the text at the end of the manuscript (lines 348-468). In addition, we have added a conclusion in each result section. In all, this should clarify the link between our results and our conclusions.

 

Finally, we have written a new paragraph to discuss the relevance of mouse models, which we have mentionned in the introduction. In addition, we pointed out the interest of other OMICS studies (epigenomics, genomics, proteomics…). Integrating such high-dimensional exploratory data with transcriptomic data should led to unravel the complexity of sepsis etiology. This is the last paragraph before the conclusion (lines 333-346).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opprotunity to review the paper by Rosier et al. The paper is well written, with a detailed methology. The transferability of a mouse model in to humans can be discussed, but the results are interesting. Just the quality of nearly all figures is not sufficient. It is often not possible to identify the content.

Author Response

We have discussed the relevance of mouse models for human sepsis in a new paragraph (lines 399-412).

We have improved the resolution of somes figures.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop