Gut Microbiota and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Severity in Type 2 Diabetes Patients
, Yi-Chun Tsai 3,4,5,6, Wei-Wen Hung 7, Wei-Chun Hung 8, Chen-Chia Chang 8 and Chia-Yen Dai 5,9,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors performed a cross-sectional study on 163 patients investigating the association between gut microbiota and NAFLD severity in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2.
The methods are well described and the results clear, I have no requests to make to the Authors
Author Response
Thanks for your comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with great interest your article, and in order to improve its quality here are my suggestions:
- Study limitations are listed clearly in the manuscript. However, I would suggest specifying study limitations in a separate paragraph.
- English language and style are fine, however minor spell check is required. In the manuscript, I would suggest to change following terms:
- instead using - Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) I would suggest to use - Type 2 diabetes (T2D) everywhere in the text including the title. T2D is more common term.
- instead using - diabetic patients and - diabetic subjects I would suggest to use patients with diabetes or subjects with diabetes
- instead using - anti-diabetic agents I would suggest to use antihyperglycemic therapy or antihyperglycemic treatment
- instead using - sugar control it should be written - glycemic control
- instead using - HbA1C it should be written –HbA1c
- instead using term hyperlipidemia I would suggest to use - dyslipidemia
- in Table 1 there is a mistake in row - Hyperlipidemia, % 813? (81.3?)
- furthermore, in Table 1 instead using fabric names Glucophage and Actos, I would suggest to use generic names of medication – metformin and pioglitazone
Author Response
Q1: Study limitations are listed clearly in the manuscript. However, I would suggest specifying study limitations in a separate paragraph.
Answer 1: We specify study limitations in as separate paragraph as your suggestion. Please see Page 8, “Discussion”, last paragraph.
Q2: English language and style are fine, however minor spell check is required. In the manuscript, I would suggest to change following terms:
instead using - Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) I would suggest to use - Type 2 diabetes (T2D) everywhere in the text including the title. T2D is more common term.
instead using - diabetic patients and - diabetic subjects I would suggest to use patients with diabetes or subjects with diabetes
instead using - anti-diabetic agents I would suggest to use antihyperglycemic therapy or antihyperglycemic treatment
instead using - sugar control it should be written - glycemic control
instead using - HbA1C it should be written –HbA1c
instead using term hyperlipidemia I would suggest to use – dyslipidemia
Answer 2: We correct these terms according to your suggestion. Please see words with blue color.
Q3: in Table 1 there is a mistake in row - Hyperlipidemia, % 813? (81.3?)
Answer 3: We correct it.
Q4: furthermore, in Table 1 instead using fabric names Glucophage and Actos, I would suggest to use generic names of medication – metformin and pioglitazone
Answer 4: We revise generic names of medication according to your suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
As a new finding, the authors relate a high qPCR expression of genes from microbiome species characteristic for the Firmicutes group to the severity of NAFLD in 163 persons with type 2 DM.
Scope:
The paper is within the scope of JPM although not directly related to PM, the analyses of the microbiome are rather crude and analyses on a group basis.
Tile: No comments.
Abstract: Intro: NAFLD remains an important problem , not a has been. Results: Especially or only male
Key words: No comments.
Intro: References to chronic infectious hepatitis (self-citations) out of scope. Fair introduction to the microbiome in tp 2
Methods: No comments. Fair to divide into groups of NAFLD, regression analysis OK.
Results: Logistic analysis is logistic regression analysis? Table 1: Avoid brand names (Actos, Glucophage).Table 2: Heading makes no sense. Figures OK.
Disussion: Is fair, an attempt discuss the apparent paradox that Firmicutes gene expression is expected to be low in Tp 2 DM is lacking, see e.g. PLOSone 2010 5: e9085. A critical evaluation of the reliability of the method (Fibroscan)would be welcome, I encourage the authors to study Nature Rev Gastroenterol and Hepatol 2020 7: 279.
Author Response
Point 1: Scope: The paper is within the scope of JPM although not directly related to PM, the analyses of the microbiome are rather crude and analyses on a group basis.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment.
Point 2: Tile: No comments
Response 2: Thanks.
Point 3:Abstract: Intro: NAFLD remains an important problem , not a has been. Results: Especially or only male
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We revise abstract as your suggestions
Point 4: Key words: No comments.
Response 4: Thanks
Point 5: Intro: References to chronic infectious hepatitis (self-citations) out of scope. Fair introduction to the microbiome in tp 2
Response 5: We delete the references to chronic infectious hepatits (self-citations) as your suggestion
Point 6: Methods: No comments. Fair to divide into groups of NAFLD, regression analysis OK.
Answer 6: Thanks
Point 7: Results: Logistic analysis is logistic regression analysis? Table 1: Avoid brand names (Actos, Glucophage).Table 2: Heading makes no sense. Figures OK.
Response 7: This is logistic regression analysis. We revise the names of medication (metformin and pioglitazone) in Table 1 according to your suggestion. We revise the heading of Table 2 (The microbiome distribution of study participates)
Point 8: Disussion: Is fair, an attempt discuss the apparent paradox that Firmicutes gene expression is expected to be low in Tp 2 DM is lacking, see e.g. PLOSone 2010 5: e9085. A critical evaluation of the reliability of the method (Fibroscan) would be welcome, I encourage the authors to study Nature Rev Gastroenterol and Hepatol 2020 7: 279.
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestions. We revise the discussion and reference according to your comments. Please see Page 8, Discussion, first paragraph (reference 34) and fourth paragraph (reference 42,43).
