Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper seems to be well organized by subtopic. However, there are a few grammatical errors.

In the abstract, "Early identification and effective monitoring of MetS are crucial" could be improved by changing to "is crucial" to match the singular concept implied by "identification and monitoring".

In the introduction part,  "he development of pathologies such as type 2 diabetes mellitus," "he" should be corrected to "the".

Also, terms like "Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease" should consistently use "NAFLD" after the first mention. Consistency in acronym usage enhances readability, especially in scientific texts.

•  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MS is a term given to a set of conditions, including hyperglycemia, atherogenic dyslipidemia, insulin resistance (IR), systemic arterial hypertension and central/abdominal obesity. Te current review summarized the relevant biomarkers of MetS and explores how algae-based nutritional interventions can positively impact these parameters, offering new perspectives for the management of this complex condition. Overall，the topic is interesting and the paper is well written. I have some concerns.

1) Several novel biomarkers for MS were selected and introduced, like inflammatory markers, and microRNAs. How these biomarkers were decided by the authors? Cause many other factors are associated with MS, such as LPS, IL-1β, uric acid, and gut microbiota disorders. This issue should be clearly introduced.

2) The category of Macroalgae and their influence were poorly organized. Please properly re-organize sections “5. Macroalgae” and “6. The seaweed-based dietary interventions for metabolic syndrome” by using tables, figures and sub-titles.

3) It’s better to combine the images of seaweed into one large figure.

4) “POSSIBLE BIOMARKERS OF METABOLIC SYNDROME” 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Upon reviewing the manuscript titled "Biomarkers and Seaweed-Based Nutritional Interventions in Metabolic Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review," I offer the following peer review comments:

1. Significance : The manuscript explores biomarkers associated with Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and the potential of seaweed-based nutritional interventions, which is a highly relevant and timely area of research. The article provides a comprehensive overview of biomarkers related to MetS and highlights the role of seaweed in the prevention and treatment of MetS, offering a new perspective for the management of MetS.

2. Article Structure and Content: The article is well-structured and logically presented, starting from the definition and epidemiology of MetS, gradually delving into pathophysiology, discussion of biomarkers, and finally focusing on the potential therapeutic role of seaweed. However, It is suggested that the authors further emphasize the limitations of the research and future research directions in the conclusions section to enhance the depth and breadth of the article.

3. Tables and Figures: The article includes several tables summarizing research findings, which helps readers quickly grasp key information. It is suggested that the authors consider adding more charts or illustrations to visually display the mechanisms of action of active components in seaweed and trends in biomarker changes.

Summary: This article provides valuable insights into the field of MetS research and may have an impact on public health policies and clinical practices. I recommend that the article be accepted for publication after the above points are addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have answered all questions and the manuscript could be accepted.