Reviewer's report
Title:High glucose increased LPS induced DC apoptosis through modulation of
ERK1/2, AKT and Bax/Bcl-2
Version:2Date:23 January 2014
Reviewer: Jonathan Peterson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Figure 1 and 2 axis labels are unreadable. From the arrows the data indicated
that the upper left corners (in fig 1A) are Live cells (An- and PI-) however you
have called these apoptotic cells (An+ PI -). Why are the axes not going in the
same direction for figure 1A and figure 2A? Why do the data from figures 1A and
2A not match figures 1B and 2B, respectively? How were the data in 1B and 2B
obtained?
For your Immunoblot please include refs or detail how GAPDH has been
established to be an appropriate control for these experiments. GAPDH is known
to be widely variable under certain conditions (such as metabolic stress). Also
figure 4 shows the representative blot; How many samples for each treatment
were used? Please include a bar graph with the mean and error of the quantified
data collected by the Alpha imager.
For NO quantification please include control cells with no LPS treatment for
comparisons.
Also, the variables analyzed are not always clear. Hard to judge the veracity of
the presented data.
Minor Essential Revisions
Please seek help in editorial review, many grammar mistakes were noted.
Please include the full name of terms the first time they are used within the
article. The Abbreviation “DC” was used in the title and second paragraph, but no
explanation of what DC stood for until the material and methods section. Other
abbreviations used without explaination include: BMDC, PI#K, MEK, Bcl-2, BAX,
LPS, PBS.
Please include blots of total Akt and ERK1/2.
It is not clear in the results or in the figures when the data is from the in vivo or in
vitro studies. Please clarify.
For figure 5, please include magnification of the image. Also it appears CTR
stands for the control staining, please verify.
Discretionary Revisions
For figure 3, please increase the brightness of the normal staining.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:High glucose increased LPS induced DC apoptosis through modulation of
ERK1/2, AKT and Bax/Bcl-2
Version:2Date:23 January 2014
Reviewer: Jonathan Peterson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Figure 1 and 2 axis labels are unreadable. From the arrows the data indicated
that the upper left corners (in fig 1A) are Live cells (An- and PI-) however you
have called these apoptotic cells (An+ PI -). Why are the axes not going in the
same direction for figure 1A and figure 2A? Why do the data from figures 1A and
2A not match figures 1B and 2B, respectively? How were the data in 1B and 2B
obtained?
For your Immunoblot please include refs or detail how GAPDH has been
established to be an appropriate control for these experiments. GAPDH is known
to be widely variable under certain conditions (such as metabolic stress). Also
figure 4 shows the representative blot; How many samples for each treatment
were used? Please include a bar graph with the mean and error of the quantified
data collected by the Alpha imager.
For NO quantification please include control cells with no LPS treatment for
comparisons.
Also, the variables analyzed are not always clear. Hard to judge the veracity of
the presented data.
Minor Essential Revisions
Please seek help in editorial review, many grammar mistakes were noted.
Please include the full name of terms the first time they are used within the
article. The Abbreviation “DC” was used in the title and second paragraph, but no
explanation of what DC stood for until the material and methods section. Other
abbreviations used without explaination include: BMDC, PI#K, MEK, Bcl-2, BAX,
LPS, PBS.
Please include blots of total Akt and ERK1/2.
It is not clear in the results or in the figures when the data is from the in vivo or in
vitro studies. Please clarify.
For figure 5, please include magnification of the image. Also it appears CTR
stands for the control staining, please verify.
Discretionary Revisions
For figure 3, please increase the brightness of the normal staining.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:High glucose increased LPS induced DC apoptosis through modulation of
ERK1/2, AKT and Bax/Bcl-2
Version:2Date:23 January 2014
Reviewer: Jonathan Peterson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Figure 1 and 2 axis labels are unreadable. From the arrows the data indicated
that the upper left corners (in fig 1A) are Live cells (An- and PI-) however you
have called these apoptotic cells (An+ PI -). Why are the axes not going in the
same direction for figure 1A and figure 2A? Why do the data from figures 1A and
2A not match figures 1B and 2B, respectively? How were the data in 1B and 2B
obtained?
For your Immunoblot please include refs or detail how GAPDH has been
established to be an appropriate control for these experiments. GAPDH is known
to be widely variable under certain conditions (such as metabolic stress). Also
figure 4 shows the representative blot; How many samples for each treatment
were used? Please include a bar graph with the mean and error of the quantified
data collected by the Alpha imager.
For NO quantification please include control cells with no LPS treatment for
comparisons.
Also, the variables analyzed are not always clear. Hard to judge the veracity of
the presented data.
Minor Essential Revisions
Please seek help in editorial review, many grammar mistakes were noted.
Please include the full name of terms the first time they are used within the
article. The Abbreviation “DC” was used in the title and second paragraph, but no
explanation of what DC stood for until the material and methods section. Other
abbreviations used without explaination include: BMDC, PI#K, MEK, Bcl-2, BAX,
LPS, PBS.
Please include blots of total Akt and ERK1/2.
It is not clear in the results or in the figures when the data is from the in vivo or in
vitro studies. Please clarify.
For figure 5, please include magnification of the image. Also it appears CTR
stands for the control staining, please verify.
Discretionary Revisions
For figure 3, please increase the brightness of the normal staining.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant