Next Article in Journal
Cardiorenal Syndrome: Emerging Role of Medical Imaging for Clinical Diagnosis and Management
Next Article in Special Issue
From Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 to CTLA-4 and to MUC1—Is the Better Response to Treatment in Smokers of Cancer Patients Drug Specific?
Previous Article in Journal
Monocyte Distribution Width, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Improves Early Prediction for Sepsis at the Emergency
Previous Article in Special Issue
Monocyte Differentiation into Destructive Macrophages on In Vitro Administration of Gingival Crevicular Fluid from Periodontitis Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/jpm11080735
Review Report
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Optimization and Biological Significance of a 29-Host-Immune-mRNA Panel for the Diagnosis of Acute Infections and Sepsis

J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(8), 735; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080735
by Yudong D. He, Eric M. Wohlford, Florian Uhle, Ljubomir Buturovic, Oliver Liesenfeld and Timothy E. Sweeney *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(8), 735; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080735
Submission received: 2 June 2021 / Revised: 22 July 2021 / Accepted: 26 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precision Medicine for Immunology and Immunogenetics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the presented manuscript, the authors investigate the utility of an updated mRNA panel in the diagnosis of acute infections and sepsis. The article is well written and clearly presents the results of high clinical relevance.

However, the authors should address the following issues:

  1. Can you provide demographic data of the patients included and results of basic diagnostic lab tests for sepsis? Please also provide a comparison of diagnosis of infection using conventional lab tests vs the presented method.
  2. Twenty-nine diagnostic markers seem to be a great number of markers. In this study, you started with a new screening procedure aiming to identify 29 out of 64 genes. Why did you need to limit the number 29? Please explain why you did not consierder a smaller number of genes, or compare several panels with different number of genes?
  3. In the first paragraph in the introduction, causal pathogens mentioned are virus, fungus, or parasites in addition to bacteria. However, there are only 7 genes in your panel distinguishing bacterial from viral infection. How did you detect parasites or fungal infection? Is the assay provided able to detect such cases too? Please provide results and a critical discussion!
  4. Can you provide the predictive data of 30-day mortality rate (such as Kaplan-Meier curve)?
  5. Reference number 13 is not cited correctly

Author Response

Please see the attached document jpm-1265325-response for our point-by-point response. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

He et al. describe procedures for diagnostic and prognostic testing in sepsis using a 29-mRNA qRT-LAMP based assay. 

The overall aim and hypothesis of the study is not yet sufficiently developed - see e.g. Abstract "Altogether, our analysis provides a coherent picture for how analytical performance and data-driven insights can combine to make biologically and clinically relevant diagnostic signatures."

Further, I was not able to retrieve the information on the cohort and samples (material, ethics, groups, etc.) and the chemistry (wet-lab). 

Author Response

Please see the attached document jpm-1265325-response for our point-by-point response. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop