Neutrophils in Intestinal Inflammation: What We Know and What We Could Expect for the Near Future
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review entitled “Neutrophils in intestinal inflammation: What we know and what we could expect for the recent future” by Arosa and colleagues is a very well-prepared review that delivers comprehensive knowledge about neutrophils and their role in intestinal inflammation with a particular focus on IBD.
I have only minor suggestions:
1) The second part of the title: “What we know and what we could expect from the recent future,” could be corrected as the word “recent,” in my opinion, relates to the past rather than to the future. Instead of using recent, I suggest “near.”
2) Overall structure of the manuscript is very good. I have 3 minor comments on this:
A) Title of paragraph 2 - Inflammatory bowel disease and treatment deficiencies - word deficiencies could be changed to “and lack of treatment options.”
B) Paragraph 4.2 describes the role of neutrophils in the resolution of intestinal inflammation, but part 4.2.1 describes the strategies to target neutrophils to resolve inflammation. I suggest changing paragraph 4.2.1 to new 4.3, which describes strategies targeting neutrophils in intestinal inflammation resolution.
C) Paragraph 5. Nets should be changed to more descriptive
3) In my opinion, citations in the brackets should be separated from the last words of the sentence with space and followed by a comma. At the moment, citations are left without space, just after the last word of the sentence.
4) Comment to figure 1:
Please include which parts of the figure describe the induction of inflammation. Add letter D to efferocytosis. The square below efferosis should also have a title. Please improve the resolution of some cell types (M1 and M2 cells) and also improve the overall resolution of the close-up intestine picture that relates to the chronification of inflammation (as it is different from the image above).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Thank you very much to the Reviewer for his/her comments, which definitively help us to improve our manuscript. Below you can find a detailed response point-by-poin to all suggestions made by the reviewer.
1) The second part of the title: “What we know and what we could expect from the recent future,” could be corrected as the word “recent,” in my opinion, relates to the past rather than to the future. Instead of using recent, I suggest “near.”
Thank you very much for that suggestion, we completely agree and apologise for that mistake. Accordingly, we have changed the title of the manuscript.
2) Overall structure of the manuscript is very good. I have 3 minor comments on this:
- A) Title of paragraph 2 - Inflammatory bowel disease and treatment deficiencies - word deficiencies could be changed to “and lack of treatment options.”
We have added “ and lack of treatment options” instead of “deficiencies”.
- B) Paragraph 4.2 describes the role of neutrophils in the resolution of intestinal inflammation, but part 4.2.1 describes the strategies to target neutrophils to resolve inflammation. I suggest changing paragraph 4.2.1 to new 4.3, which describes strategies targeting neutrophils in intestinal inflammation resolution.
Thank you for that comment. We agree that enumeration was a bit confusing. We have added a new title and a new enumeration to that section to make it clearer.
- C) Paragraph 5. Nets should be changed to more descriptive
We have changed that paragraph to “NETS overview”.
3) In my opinion, citations in the brackets should be separated from the last words of the sentence with space and followed by a comma. At the moment, citations are left without space, just after the last word of the sentence.
We apologise for that mistake. We separated all references from the last words of the sentence.
4) Comment to figure 1:
Please include which parts of the figure describe the induction of inflammation. Add letter D to efferocytosis. The square below efferosis should also have a title. Please improve the resolution of some cell types (M1 and M2 cells) and also improve the overall resolution of the close-up intestine picture that relates to the chronification of inflammation (as it is different from the image above).
Thank you for that suggestion. We agree the figure was confusing. Therefore, we have made some modifications to make it clearer. We added a new enumeration and colours to the different sections. Moreover, we eliminated some squares and added more information to the figure legend. Also, the resolution of the whole figure was improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review article is well written, clear, and covers the area it reviews well. The only objection I have to the manuscript is that it is vague in places, but that is due to the state of the current knowledge of this area and not to the reviewers. The emphasis on IBD and the role of NETS added to the review and I think it should be published in its current form.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
The review article is well written, clear, and covers the area it reviews well. The only objection I have to the manuscript is that it is vague in places, but that is due to the state of the current knowledge of this area and not to the reviewers. The emphasis on IBD and the role of NETS added to the review and I think it should be published in its current form.
Thank you very much to the reviewer for his/her comments. We really appreciate the positive comments about our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is thought to be able to provide readers with the latest relevant knowledge by describing the function and action of Neutrophils in IBD. It can be published after correction grammar and expression by native speaker.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3:
The paper is thought to be able to provide readers with the latest relevant knowledge by describing the function and action of Neutrophils in IBD. It can be published after correction grammar and expression by native speaker.
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her comments that definitively helped us improve our manuscript. Following the Reviewer suggestion, the text has been checked and corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
