Neuroprotective Effect of Ixeris dentata Extract on Trimethyltin-Induced Memory Impairment in Rats
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll done
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate your kind suggestion. Following you and the editor’s valuable suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. All changes in this revision are highlighted (green text). Following you and the editor’s valuable suggestions, we have thoroughly checked and revised our manuscript with point-by-point answers. Below is the list of point-by point reply on the comments and suggestions raised by the editor.
We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the editor who identified areas of our manuscript that needed corrections or modification. We would also like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the paper.
I have raised the following points of concern and ask that you consider revising them.
Major points
Regarding the statistical analysis
I could read that you checked for normality as the basis for selecting “one-way ANOVA”. On the other hand, I could not read the rationale for the sample size required to perform “one-way ANOVA”. If the statistical package you are using is SPSS, please provide the sample size calculations for the analysis of variance. The sample size required for one-way ANOVA depends on the number of groups being compared. For this reason, we believe it is important to calculate the sample size. Also, regardless of the number of n in each group, the results are more clearly read if 95% confidence intervals in the results of the “post-hoc test” pairwise comparisons are presented.
Discussion
Related to the above statistical analysis, the sample size and the results of the post-hoc test should be mentioned as “study limitations”. This is because we believe this will be helpful to other researchers.
Minor points
The font in Figure 1. is small and difficult to read.
Please correct it.
Figure 3. the latency 218 time of WID (A) and EID (B) is difficult to read.
Please correct it.
That's all.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate your kind suggestion. Following you and the editor’s valuable suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. All changes in this revision are highlighted (green text). Following you and the editor’s valuable suggestions, we have thoroughly checked and revised our manuscript with point-by-point answers. Below is the list of point-by point reply on the comments and suggestions raised by the editor.
We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the editor who identified areas of our manuscript that needed corrections or modification. We would also like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.
Regarding the statistical analysis
I could read that you checked for normality as the basis for selecting “one-way ANOVA”. On the other hand, I could not read the rationale for the sample size required to perform “one-way ANOVA”. If the statistical package you are using is SPSS, please provide the sample size calculations for the analysis of variance. The sample size required for one-way ANOVA depends on the number of groups being compared. For this reason, we believe it is important to calculate the sample size. Also, regardless of the number of n in each group, the results are more clearly read if 95% confidence intervals in the results of the “post-hoc test” pairwise comparisons are presented.
>> Response: The sample sizes for each experimental group in this study are as follows: control group (N=6), TMT group (N=6), TMT+CAF30 (N=6), TMT+WID 400 (N=7), TMT+WID 800 (N=7), TMT+EID 400 (N=8), and TMT+EID 800 (N=8). The sample sizes were determined based on previous studies, and efforts were made to maintain consistency across groups. However, we acknowledge that a more detailed sample size calculation, particularly one determined through power analysis, would enhance the statistical reliability of the study. We plan to address this in future research. Additionally, we have revised the Statistical Analysis section to clarify the methods used. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0. Prior to performing one-way ANOVA, the normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test (p > 0.05), and homogeneity of variances was confirmed using Levene's test (p > 0.05). Once these assumptions were satisfied, one-way ANOVA was applied, followed by the LSD post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. We also fully agree with your suggestion to include 95% confidence intervals for the post-hoc test results, which will improve the clarity of the findings. While these were not included in the initial submission, we will ensure that future analyses incorporate confidence intervals to enhance the reliability of result interpretation.
Discussion
Related to the above statistical analysis, the sample size and the results of the post-hoc test should be mentioned as “study limitations”. This is because we believe this will be helpful to other researchers.
>> Response: We agree that the sample size calculation and post-hoc test results should be clearly stated as part of the study limitations. To address this concern, we have revised the discussion section to include this information. We added the sentence as "Third, in terms of statistical analysis, the current study employed one-way ANOVA but did not provide a detailed explanation of the sample size calculation based on the number of groups. Additionally, post-hoc test results and 95% confidence intervals were not included. This may limit the interpretation of the findings, and addressing these aspects in future studies could provide more robust insights for other researchers."
Minor points
The font in Figure 1. is small and difficult to read.
>> Response: We have revised Figure 1 and increased the font size to enhance readability. The revised figure now provides clearer and more legible text and labels.
Figure 3. the latency 218 time of WID (A) and EID (B) is difficult to read.
>> Response: The latency times for WID (A) and EID (B) in Figure 3 have been adjusted to improve readability. The revised figure now ensures that the values are presented more clearly.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the prompt revision of the manuscript.
Regarding the references.
There is an overlapping capital "F" in references 11 L370-371.
I recommend removing it.
That is all.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour basic research is very important of social.
But I wonder some part of things.
It is necessary to revise more sophisticated.
I would be grateful if you could take my comments into account.
About the abstract
Please state the number of rats used in the study.
Also, the definition of neurodegenerative disease in this study is unclear.
About the introduction
I am concerned that only Alzheimer's disease may be read as "neurodegenerative disease". Please try to describe the disease in a way that readers can understand it better.
About statistical analysis
Please indicate whether the required sample size is met. Please also state the sample size for each of the groups being compared. In addition, please explain in detail how you checked the normality of the data in choosing the one-way ANOVA.
About the discussion
There is too little discussion of the limitations and challenges of the study in reaching this conclusion.
Please try to describe them in a way that will enhance the reader's understanding.
About the conclusions
The authors conclude that "it may be a good complement to health care and a good resource for the drug to prevent dementia and AD. ". However, it is unclear how this is consistent with the reference to "neurodegenerative disease" in the abstract and the reference to "Alzheimer's disease" in the introduction. Ambiguous definitions of words confuse the reader.
That is all.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the neuroprotective effects of Ixeris dentata (ID) extracts on memory impairment induced by trimethyltin (TMT) in rats, a model for Alzheimer's disease. The study found that treatment with ethanol extract of ID (EID) and caffeic acid (CAF) significantly improved cognitive function in the Morris water maze test and alleviated TMT-induced neuronal loss in the hippocampus. The protective effects were linked to increased expression of choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) and cAMP-response element-binding protein (CREB), suggesting that EID might be beneficial for improving cognitive functions in neurodegenerative diseases.
I have these comments that should be considered:
- Consider providing more detailed information on the mechanism of action of TMT and its relevance to AD.
- Clarify the rationale for choosing specific doses of ID and CAF. Additionally, provide more details on the statistical methods used to analyze the data.
- Ensure all figures and tables are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Consider using high-resolution images for better clarity.
- Add a limitation section and future direction
