Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Annotation Efficiency with Machine Learning: Automated Partitioning of a Lung Ultrasound Dataset by View
Previous Article in Journal
Mandibular Clinical Arch Forms in Iraqi Population: A National Survey
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Significance of Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase Expression in the Immunological Response of Kidney Graft Recipients

Diagnostics 2022, 12(10), 2353; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102353
by Krzysztof Wiśnicki 1,*, Piotr Donizy 2, Agata Remiorz 1, Dariusz Janczak 3, Magdalena Krajewska 1 and Mirosław Banasik 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Diagnostics 2022, 12(10), 2353; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102353
Submission received: 28 August 2022 / Revised: 24 September 2022 / Accepted: 25 September 2022 / Published: 28 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article titled ‘Significance of indoleamine 2-3 dioxygenase expression in the immunological response of kidney graft recipients’ summarized the influence of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO1) on the tryptophan metabolism pathway, kynurenine pathway, and emphasis on immunosuppression in kidney transplant protection. The authors first discussed around the involvement of IDO enzymes in the tryptophan metabolism pathway, with the initiation of kynurenine metabolism and the final metabolites of picolinic acid, quinolinic acid and NAD+. Then the immunosuppressive mechanisms of IDO1 were discussed thoroughly, which were refined into seven aspects, includes dendritic cells, macrophages, natural killers, eosinophils, neutrophils, T cells and B cells. To better illustrating how IDO1 can functioning in the kidney allografts, the role of IDO1 in kidney was discussed. Finally, using case study and clinical study result to prove the importance of IDO1 in kidney graft recipients.

Overall, I think this article is well organized and written, and the summary is comprehensive. Although minor things need to be improved, such as font in the graph is unclear and graph quality, these are not hindering the good quality of this review paper. I suggest accepting this article with minor revision.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment. The response has been uploaded in a Word file.

Kind regards,

Krzysztof Wiśnicki

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the manuscript and I send you my comments:

1) methods must be added, how to reviewed the data?

2) Clinical data must be added, several references are related to experimental animal studies, so human data are necessary.

3) please add a table resuming the data in the text 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment. Our response has been uploaded in a Word file.

Kind regards,

Krzysztof Wiśnicki

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors I have read the revised version and I have not other comments

Best regards

 

Back to TopTop