Preventive Epigenetic Mechanisms of Functional Foods for Type 2 Diabetes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Summary:

In this review, the authors Bilyaminu et al. are postulating that epigenetic inheritance mechanistically mediates the impacts of functional nutrition against the metabolic risk of diabetes in the offspring. The overall aim of future research in this field should be to build upon the existing evidence and provide a comprehensive understanding of the preventive epigenetic effects of functional foods in T2D for the development of new, evidence-based prevention and management strategies.

Comments:

1.The authors have provided sufficient background and a clear discussion.

2.Can the authors explain how does the concept of functional foods apply to the patients with chronic diabetes? and which age group is suitable for this approach?please highlight the limitations of this approach.

3.This review is interesting as it is talking about a new approach to address the diabetes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript entitled " Preventive Epigenetic Mechanisms of Functional Foods for Type 2 Diabetes " in which the authors provided an overview of the current state of knowledge on the preventive epigenetic mechanisms of functional foods in Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Also, they demonstrated the role of epigenetic inheritance against the metabolic risk of diabetes. They highlighted the importance of applying the preventive epigenetic mechanisms of functional foods as a potential tool for the prevention and management strategies for T2D.

The work is understandable and the topic is important. The scientific narrative is well structured and flows naturally from one idea to the next. The figures and tables are informative Therefore, I consider this manuscript is suitable for publication in Diabetology Journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s report

Title: Preventive Epigenetic Mechanisms of Functional Foods for Type 2 Diabetes

The manuscript is contain continuous redundant information and not correctly aligned with the topic. The sequence of different section is also somewhat confusing. Authors needs to write strictly according to topic of review with their own findings and suggestions.

Introduction:

-I suggest authors to improve their introduction strictly according to topic of review with no more than 3 paragraphs and updated citations.  

- Figure 1: Do authors understand that obesity, diet, physical inactivity, smoking etc. are unmodiiable factors???? how?

-

Section2:

-Authors don’t really need to do overview in this section as they supposed to do this in introduction

-  Authors strictly need to write this section according to topic of this section without any redundant information.

-Section 2.1 and 2.2: I suggest authors to combine these 2 section into new one describing riskfactors for t2d only

-I recommend authors to combine section 2.4 to 2.4.4 into mechanistic section describing how different risk factors cause the T2D by affecting methylation, chromatin remodeling, non-coding RNA, histone modification

Section 3: Authors don’t need this section. They need to write this within risk factor section (see my above point i.e. Section 2.1 and 2.2:)

Section 4: Again this section in start contains redundant information. This section strongly needs to discuss how selective functional food can reduce the burden of T2DM. possible mechanisms, and need of further research.

-Authors don’t need section 4.1. This kind of information needs to be in introduction

-Section, 4.1 and 4.2 contain redundant info. I don’t see any point having these section in. Consider removing it or fit it somewhere else.

Section 4.3: Authors don’t need to write this section in in general way. There are hundreds of functional foods and its products. Authors needs to decide which kind of (class of) functional foods and products need to focus in this paper. This section need to address according to type of functional foods, for example either berries, functional lipids, polyphenols. Or authors can write this section according to type of functional foods.

Table 2: This table doesn’t provide insight into epigenetic preventive mechanisms of intervention. Please include those studies which clearly elaborate functional food intervention in in impro

-Conclusion: Please improve future perspectives and conclusions according to given suggestions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     In this manuscript, the authors reviewed the impacts of functional nutrition against the risk of developing diabetes in the offspring.

2.     Overall, the authors provided sufficient background information.

3.     Authors listed only four epigenetic perturbations such as DNA methylation, Non-coding RNAs, Histone modification and chromatin remodeling in the manuscript. Why did the authors focus on these four epigenetic perturbations listed in the manuscript? Is there a specific reason for the selection of these factors? There are other epigenetic perturbations such as induced stress, exposure to biochemical agents etc. which plays a role in diabetes. Listing out information regarding this might help strengthen this manuscript

4.     Some of the statistics mentioned in this article paper by the authors are dating back to 2017.For example, the authors mentioned that “In the United States for example, the estimated economic burden of diabetes rose (by 26%) from USD 245 billion in 2012 to USD 347 billion in 2017”. Updating the information to the current year will give more accurate information to the readers.

5.     In 2.4.3, under the subsection, Non-coding RNA, the authors talk about various noncoding RNAs. Is there any published literature that mentioned about any specific lncRNAs that are known to be modulated by functional foods?

5.I would suggest adding more references to strengthen the manuscipt.

7.     There are some minor grammatical errors that are to be attended to. For example, the word ‘moreso’ should always be spelled as two different words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much working on my previous comments. However, I am still not satisfied with writing quality of this manuscript. Most of the time authors starting new statements without context.