Next Article in Journal
Characterization of the CRM Gene Family and Elucidating the Function of OsCFM2 in Rice
Next Article in Special Issue
Possible Mechanisms of Eosinophil Accumulation in Eosinophilic Pneumonia
Previous Article in Journal
Current Advances in Allosteric Modulation of Muscarinic Receptors
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Novel Approach for Investigating Upper Airway Hyperresponsiveness Using Micro-CT in Eosinophilic Upper Airway Inflammation such as Allergic Rhinitis Model
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Reduced Local Response to Corticosteroids in Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Asthma

Biomolecules 2020, 10(2), 326; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10020326
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Biomolecules 2020, 10(2), 326; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10020326
Received: 17 January 2020 / Revised: 13 February 2020 / Accepted: 14 February 2020 / Published: 18 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eosinophilic Inflammation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study the Authors investigated about the corticosteroid sensitivity in nasal bronchial cells from patients with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, mainly focusing on the molecular mechanisms of steroid resistance, in particular on protein phosphatase 2A levels. I have read this experimental work with great interest, and I think it can make a contribution to the research sector.  The work is well organized and suitably accompanied by explanatory images and graphics, as well as having a suitable amount of supplementary material. While addressing a clinical condition already widely treated in the literature, it focuses on an aspect that is still relatively poorly studied, focusing in particular on the pathways that link local eosinophilia to the poor response to steroids in patients with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with concomitant severe asthma. This study leaves open various possibilities for future research and explores the possibility of considering new therapeutic targets for pathology. The article is well written and does not present evident English issues.  Overall, the study is well done and I think that the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We would like to thank for Reviewer’s favorable comments. We tried to answer the questions.

 

Major comments:

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

(Response)

 As reviewer suggested, we’ve done spell check again.

 

 

Results presentation can be improved.

(Response)

 As reviewer and another reviewer suggested, we removed several citations to Discussion section to make the results more simple.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors reported primarily patients with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) with poor disease control and reduced sensitivity to corticosteroids. They mainly focused on protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) as a key target.

Overall, this is a clear, concise a well-written manuscript. According to using experimental technique the authors used standard method and activities according to the manufacture¢s protocol. The data are interesting, appropriately illustrated and accurately referred. The experiments are appropriately controlled.

Minor comment:

Page 1, line38 – I wonder why the authors cite in the text [7] although there are unpublished data, in preparation Page 4, line 137 – the results should contain exact data of study and citation [10] does not belong to this chapter. I think that discussion is more appropriate. Page 5, line 182 – similarly as previously, citation [16-19] is more appropriate for discussion. Page 6, line 196 – again, text and citation [20] is more appropriate for discussion. Table S1 – for completeness it´s required to explain all abbreviation in table S1, i.e. ECRS and AR are missing

Author Response

We would like to thank for Reviewer’s favorable comments. We tried to answer the questions.

 

Minor comments:

Page 1, line38 – I wonder why the authors cite in the text [7] although there are unpublished data, in preparation.

(Response)

 As reviewer suggested, we removed citation [7].

 

Page 4, line 137 – the results should contain exact data of study and citation [10] does not belong to this chapter. I think that discussion is more appropriate.

(Response)

 We removed citation [10] since we mentioned about the association between PP2A and corticosteroid response in Introduction section.

 

Page 5, line 182 – similarly as previously, citation [16-19] is more appropriate for discussion.

(Response)

 According to reviewer’s suggestion, we moved citation [15] and [16-19] to Discussion section.

 

Page 6, line 196 – again, text and citation [20] is more appropriate for discussion.

(Response)

 According to reviewer’s suggestion, we moved citation [16-19] to Discussion section.

  

Table S1 – for completeness it´s required to explain all abbreviation in table S1, i.e. ECRS and AR are missing. 

(Response)

 As reviewer suggested, we added them in Table S1.

Back to TopTop