Exposure to Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) Affects the Antioxidant Response and Gene Expression of Procambarus clarkii
, Yuan Yuan 1, Hengliang Huang 1, Ziwei Wang 1, Mohammad Abdul Baki 3, Zhihua Dai 1,4, Muhammad Rizwan 1,5, Shuanglian Xiong 1, Menghua Cao 1 and Shuxin Tu 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
The manuscript has been revised thoroughly. I have attached response file on your comments.
We hope this revised version manuscript will meet the standards for publication.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and suggestion for the authors
General Comments
The manuscript by Hossain et al. is well-done. The authors clearly show that exposure to D6, thus silicone, has a harmful effect on crayfish (P. clarkii) by perturbating the antioxidant response. The results showed here are interesting and potentially important also for other organisms.
Specific Comments
Major points
The work is well done, and the results very clear; however, my suggestion to the authors is to revise a bit the text. For example, the connection between silicon’s harmful effects and antioxidant response is not clear; I suggest the authors clarify this point in the introduction and the results. Additionally, while the authors explain the importance of their study in the introduction, the same concept is not mentioned in the abstract. I suggest the authors change the abstract adding a few sentences to explain why D6 exposure in crayfish is important, thus the relevance of their work.
Lines 242-243: The authors mention: “The crayfish mortality rate was highest in the high concentration level (>10 mg L-1) of D6.”. Please, show those data. Having a dose effect on the mortality in the last panel of Figure 3 would be very convincing and interesting.
Figure 4: it is not clear if the data in this figure are from qRT-PCR or RNA-seq. Also, considering that RNA-seq data are available, showing a differential-analysis plot, highlighting the genes selected for further analysis would be beneficial for the data and the work.
Minor points
Line 28: there is a “.” instead of a “,” after Sod3.
Figure 4: in panel Pod3, the “r” in “relative” is missing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
As I mentioned last time, I think the subject: studying the possible long-term effects of increasing silicone contamination of several natural habitats, by looking at crayfish as a “reporter species” is worthwhile. However, as presented, I still really cannot consider it worthy of publication in its present form.
That is mostly due to language considerations.
Just as I said last time, I know that it can be considered a grave injustice that native speakers and those that get an early education in English have such a tremendous advantage, but writing in English entails writing in correct (!) English, and this is not an example of sufficient quality. The manuscript is somewhat improved (compared to last time), especially in the first part. However, most of the article is riddled with language mistakes, which make it very hard to read.
Author Response
As per your suggestion and comments, we have updated the manuscript.
We hope that revised manuscript now will meet the standards for publication in the journal.
Thank you very much.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is still somewhat poorly written, but this does not interfere with efficient communication of the research set-up and results anymore.
