Next Article in Journal
Dietary Intake of 91 Individual Polyphenols and 5-Year Body Weight Change in the EPIC-PANACEA Cohort
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolic Functions of Biliverdin IXβ Reductase in Redox-Regulated Hematopoietic Cell Fate
Previous Article in Journal
Oxidative Stress and Intracranial Hypertension after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nicotine and Cotinine Induce Neutrophil Extracellular Trap Formation—Potential Risk for Impaired Wound Healing in Smokers

Antioxidants 2022, 11(12), 2424; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11122424
by Romina H. Aspera-Werz, Jonas Mück, Caren Linnemann, Moritz Herbst, Christoph Ihle, Tina Histing, Andreas K. Nussler and Sabrina Ehnert *
Reviewer 2:
Antioxidants 2022, 11(12), 2424; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11122424
Submission received: 4 November 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent paper that evaluates the role of nicotine and cotinine on  neutrophil extracellular trap formation with a focus on  potential risk for impaired wound healing in smokers

I have no objection on this paper and wish to congratulate on with the Authros for the excellence of their work

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her positive estimate of our manuscript. As suggested by the second reviewer and editor, the order of the manuscript was modified (M&M section was moved before the results section and some parts from the introduction were moved to the discussion). Overall the manuscript was double-checked for type-O‘s and doubled introduction of abbreviations.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion Introduction section is too long and includes elements more associated with discussion section as well as the result section is confused with discussion section.

Authors sould describe with more details materials&methods section. Reagents and kits should have Cat. No.

Patients should be clearly describe according to exposure to tobacco smoke and diseases. 

Was in the study group of patients who receive nicotine replacement? Because in case of the lack of this group the conclusions are too far.

The abbreviations are introduced many times.

Because the present study is retrospective, how authors collect the blood?

In my opinion verses 207-108 are more related to method section not to results section

Finally how many patients included into the study have diabetes? 90 or 84?

All antioxidants were determined in the mixture of CSE, nicotine and cotinine?

In my opinion whole manuscript should be rewritten and the material&methods section should be decribed with more details.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In current version I accept the paper

Back to TopTop