Impact of Endocrine Disruptors on the Genitourinary Tract

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript jox-3209963 entitled “Endocrine disruptors and genitourinary tract” is a paper that should be addressed to the description of the influence of endocrine disruptors in genitourinary tract disease. However, the paper is a collection of data not always useful to reach the goal. For example, not every type of cancer is directly related to the genitourinary tract. I am thinking to breast cancer. I would rather talk about genitourinary syndrome of menopause which is not mentioned in the text. Moreover, I would avoid anatomic descriptions and limit the paper to what is reported in the title.

 

The paper should be reorganized and shortened a lot. A paragraph should be classification of the EDCs (for instance from line 1130 and below should be moved to this paragraph). A better classification could be obtained by adding a table (also with structures if possible).

 

General considerations:

Why did the authors to report only arsenic? Also cadmium, lead and mercury are considered EDCs.

Why the authors use Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine disruptors (EDs)? In my opinion it is misleading. 

 

Furthermore, there are some more corrections I suggest:

Abstract:

Line 25: “may” is better than “will”

 

Introduction:

Lines 33-52: I suggest reducing this part

Line 80: delete one of the two commas

Line 139: correct phytoestrogen

Line 148: correct Interstingly

Lines 159-160: Phtalates: phtalic acid esters (delete colon). They are the same thing.

Line 159: add “as” (such as)

Line 160: correct “are a compound”

Lines 161-162: delete colon. Connect the two sentences.

Line 165: delete of (several of “BPA-free”)

Line 165: correct “amrket”

Line 167: explain BPAF and BPS

Line 167: comparable to

Line 171: Pharmaceuticals agents is wrong

Line 189: correct pesticeds

Line 192: delete i

 

Line 229. Change this title: it is not correct. Also in this case limit the discussion to genitourinary tract.

 

In paragraph 2.4 other EDCs must be added, such as triclosan and triclocarban. Triclosan is only mentioned in the text; triclocarban is not mentioned at all. There are recent interesting reviews reported by mdpi journals that underline the pros and cons and the different facets of these compounds.

 

Line 428 use only DES. The name was reported above.

Line 895: DES

Lines 895-896: delete “a drug with powerful estrogenic properties now considered as an ED”. It was already reported above.

Moreover, there are some more typo and spelling mistakes.

I suggest doing a thorough reading of the text, shortening and correcting the wrong sentences and mistakes. Limit the paper and discussion to what is related to endocrine disruptors activity.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article "Endocrine Disruptors and the Genitourinary Tract" is well-organized and thoroughly discusses the impact of endocrine disruptors (EDs) on the genitourinary system. However, I have a below concerns :

1. Title Suggestion: Consider revising the title to "Impact of Endocrine Disruptors on the Genitourinary Tract" for greater clarity.

2. Mechanisms of Disruption: The article should further elaborate with pictorial representation on how endocrine disruptors interfere with signaling pathways mediated by the endocrine system. Please include a detailed list of the specific pathways involved with appropriate citations from existing studies.

3. Discussion Enhancement: The discussion could be improved by incorporating preventive measures to mitigate the effects of endocrine disruptors on the genitourinary system.

These additions would further enhance the depth and practical relevance of the article.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

it can be accepted

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language are required.