The Pro-Oxidant Effect of Class A CpG ODNs on Human Neutrophils Includes Both Non-Specific Stimulation of ROS Production and Structurally Determined Induction of NO Synthesis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, Golenkina et al. investigate the role of synthetic CpG oligonucleotides and their immunomodulatory properties in human neutrophils in dependency of their structure.
Overall the manuscript is well-written and the story is understandable. Especially the introduction is excellent. First of all, I have to compliment the authors for performing ROS measurements without making the common mistakes or using the wrong controls, which are usually encountered in the literature. Very well done. However, at the same time the main critical points during the experiments are the DHE measurements and their interpretation (See major experimental points). Since the manuscript is very well written only a few corrections have to be made in the text (see minor points for the text).
If the points mentioned can be addressed by the authors, this already nice article is ready for publication and will be a useful contribution the field.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Article entitled “The Pro-oxidant Effect of Class A CpG ODNs on Human Neutrophils Includes both Non-specific Stimulation of ROS Production and Structurally Determined Induction of NO Synthesis” presents specific effects of class A CpG ODNs on the oxidative status of neutrophils. The presented article is relevant and thematically fits the Oxygen journal. An interesting and well-planned study. The results have been well discussed. References are well chosen and up to date. The figures in the article are of good quality and are legible. The conclusions well summarize the results presented by the authors. However, Authors can describe the conclusions of the study in more detail. My comments are limited to improving the abstract (the abstract should contain 1-2 sentences on the methods used as well as short conclusions at the end) and technical correction of the text (examples: lines 91, 120, 158, 186, 191, 234 - CO2 - 2 should be subscripted). Authors may also consider transferring figure 2 (SEM) from the supplement to the main text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I hope you had nice holidays despite the revision. You corrected all my suggestions. This is a fine article and it is ready for puplication. Have a nice new year 2023.
