The Role of ncRNAs in the Immune Dysregulation of Preeclampsia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors present the role of ncRNAs in the immune dysregulation of preeclampsia. The subject is of great interest and can be seen as a lead to a new approach in the therapy of preeclampsia cases.
The introduction focuses on the general knowledge on the subject. The information provided is useful in understanding the topic and the importance of the subject in nowadays medicine.
The authors conducted a proper collection of the data. The information presented is up to date, suitable, and substantial.
The conclusions are coherent and sustain the findings.
The figures presented are easy to interpret and understand.
Good English level.
I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

We acknowledge the reviewer for his kind opinion regarding our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript shows the microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs involved in preeclampsia (PE), and many candidates proposed as useful markers in the pathological analyses and detection of signs. This paper will be valuable for the prediction and detection of PE. On the other hand, some inadequacies were found in the text and suggested corrections.

(Major comments)

1) How do the ncRNAs and lncRNAs play into the pathogenesis of hypertension and proteinuria? in PE? If possible, please add to the text.

2) EOPE is not well explained, please show the importance of EOPE in the pathogenesis or in the prevention and detection processes in PE.

3) Some terms were not well explained, and I could not understand their importance in PE. Please add some more explanation for the mechanism, physiological state, or importance in PE that these terms indicate. If they are not the main subjects in your manuscript, please consider deletion.

a)        Line 64 "endothelial cell activation"

b)        Line 65-66 "syncytiotrophoblast stress"

c)        Line 67 "uteroplacental ischemia"

d)        Line 114 “extracellular traps observed in endothelial dysfunction."

e)        Line 356 "it quickly joins HuR" (use “HuR” in full spelling to clarify meaning)

4) Line 132: IL-6 belongs to Th2 cytokine, so there is a contradiction in the description (describing the induction of Th1 dominant condition)

5) Line 383: It is not indicated what MSC is an abbreviation for. Furthermore, If MSCs mean “mesenchymal stem cells”, then it feels wrong that MSCs have immunosuppressive properties.

(Minor comments)

1) The following terms are of uncertain meaning. Full spelling is needed.

a)        Line 286: CAMs.

b)        Line 286: PFN2

c)        Line 307: PTRPO

d)        Line 344: CCR7

2) There are corrections in the following words and sentence.

a)        Line 304: IL24 --> IL-24

b)        Table 1 (miR-210): T cells regulation --> T-cell regulation

c)        Table 2 (LncRNA-miRNA-LEP): while --> While

d)        Table 2 (SPRY4-IT1): HTR-8SV/neo --> HTR-8/SVneo

e)        Table 2 (Meg-3): The sentence is not complete in "inhibition of endogenous MEG-3 increased apoptosis and decreased migration of HTR-8/SVneo and JEG3 cells”.

f)         Lnc --> lnc: Line 326, 364, 462, 464, 465, 477

3) Line 478-486: The relationship between subjects and predicates is complicated in those descriptions. Please indicate what the important effects or targets lncRNAs have in the pathogenesis of PE. For those effects and targets, please indicate what specific lncRNAs are involved and describe the important ones.

The subject-predicate relationships in lines 477-486 are difficult to understand.

Author Response

We acknowledge to editors and reviewers for their kind observations regarding our manuscript. All your recommendations have been followed and answered. Changes in the manuscript can be reviewed in the track changes of word. Please see the word file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx