Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects of Soroseris hirsuta Extract by Regulating iNOS/NF-κB and NRF2/HO-1 Pathways in Murine Macrophage RAW 264.7 Cells
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
[General]
The authors examined the effects of Sororeris hirsuta extract (SHE) on anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects in mouse macrophage RAW264.7 cells. The authors demonstrated that SHE reduced LPS-induced NO production and IL-1β productions via the suppression of NF-κB activity (p65 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation) and LPS-induced ROS production. Moreover, they demonstrated that SHE increased scavenging activity via the enhancement of NRF2/HO-1 pathway.
The experiments were well designed, and their results are clear. Although the results of this study were cultured cell level, I think that the usage of SHE is clinically important and meaningful to treat various inflammatory diseases from these findings.
However, several corrections are needed as described below.
[Major points]
- The authors used SHE in this study. However, the process of screening from various components is not shown. What plants did the authors select and use at first? The authors described only “data not shown” in the Discussion section (lines 317-318). Therefore, the plants used in screening and relative NO production levels should be presented as Table (i.e. Supplemental Table). Moreover, the authors should indicate how to get and prepare plants in the Materials and Methods section.
- The construction of manuscript should be improved. The sentences about SHE in the Introduction section (lines 62-65) should be moved to the Discussion section because SHE was selected in this study.
[Minor points]
- Please indicate the software and the company in the Materials and Methods section.
- (Figure 1) The data of cytotoxicity should be presented at first. Moreover, I think “Nitrite” is a more popular word than “NaNO2”.
- (Figure 3) To judge from line 246 to 267, Figure 1 and Figure 5, I think that the letter “B” is deleted and C is B. Please confirm.
- The localization of p65 is difficult to distinguish in Figure 3. Please increase the magnification.
- typo: line 331, RAW264.67
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The authors examined the effects of Sororeris hirsuta extract (SHE) on anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects in mouse macrophage RAW264.7 cells. The authors demonstrated that SHE reduced LPS-induced NO production and IL-1β productions via the suppression of NF-κB activity (p65 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation) and LPS-induced ROS production. Moreover, they demonstrated that SHE increased scavenging activity via the enhancement of NRF2/HO-1 pathway. The experiments were well designed, and their results are clear. Although the results of this study were cultured cell level, I think that the usage of SHE is clinically important and meaningful to treat various inflammatory diseases from these findings. However, several corrections are needed as described below.
[Major points]
Comment 1. The authors used SHE in this study. However, the process of screening from various components is not shown. What plants did the authors select and use at first? The authors described only “data not shown” in the Discussion section (lines 317-318). Therefore, the plants used in screening and relative NO production levels should be presented as Table (i.e. Supplemental Table). Moreover, the authors should indicate how to get and prepare plants in the Materials and Methods section.
Response: We have accordingly added Supplemental Table to the manuscript. Furthermore, we have added information on the plants that were used in the study along with and their preparation process to the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 2. The construction of manuscript should be improved. The sentences about SHE in the Introduction section (lines 62-65) should be moved to the Discussion section because SHE was selected in this study.
Response: We have moved the sentences that have been pointed out (lines 62–65) from the Introduction section to the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.
[Minor points]
Comment 1. Please indicate the software and the company in the Materials and Methods section.
Response: We have added information on products and suppliers, including manufacturer details used in this study to the revised manuscript.
Comment 2. (Figure 1) The data of cytotoxicity should be presented at first. Moreover, I think “Nitrite” is a more popular word than “NaNO2”.
Response: We have moved the cytotoxicity result of Figure 1 so that it is presented at first and revised “Nitrite” to NaNO2 in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3. (Figure 3) To judge from line 246 to 267, Figure 1 and Figure 5, I think that the letter “B” is deleted and C is B. Please confirm.
Response: We have deleted the letter B and accordingly marked C as B in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4. The localization of p65 is difficult to distinguish in Figure 3. Please increase the magnification.
Response: To distinguish p65 translocation from the cytosol to the nucleus, we have provided a better version of Figure 3B in the revised manuscript
Comment 5. typo: line 331, RAW264.67
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have accordingly rectified the word in the revised manuscript.
We hope to have adequately addressed each of the respective reviewer’s concerns in a point-by-point manner and hope that you will now find this manuscript to be sufficiently improved for publication in Applied Science.
Thank you and kind regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper by Jung and colleagues provides a wide and precise overview of the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of natural extracts. The manuscript meets the standard for publication.
I only suggest the authors to add a list of abbreviations, which are widely used.
Moreover, the authors should check if the presence of the “Patents” section at the end of the paper is appropriate.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
The paper by Jung and colleagues provides a wide and precise overview of the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of natural extracts. The manuscript meets the standard for publication. I only suggest the authors to add a list of abbreviations, which are widely used.
Moreover, the authors should check if the presence of the “Patents” section at the end of the paper is appropriate.
Response: We have accordingly added a list of abbreviations. However, the patent was not described as it was not applicable to this manuscript.
We hope to have adequately addressed each of the respective reviewer’s concerns in a point-by-point manner and hope that you will now find this manuscript to be sufficiently improved for publication in Applied Science.
Thank you and kind regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
