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: Daniel M Wall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
(1) An abstract needs to be added.
(2) The figures and legends need to be improved. The figures have not
reproduced well and are difficult to interpret, especially the FACS data. In
addition it is unclear at times what the figures are supposed to show as the figure
legend does not describe exactly is shown. In particular the concept of 'apoptosis
ratio' is not explained or what it means or how it is calculated.
(3) Figure 5 is difficult to interpret as the GAPDH control appears to be stained
quite randomly with regions of intense or diffuse staining. These should be
addressed as I presumed the purpose was to show uniform staining in these
samples as otherwise it undermines what is shown with the other antibodies.
(4) There are grammatical issues throughout that need to be addressed as these
at times can make understanding the data more difficult. In addition,
abbreviations need to used and explained at their first use. None were included
for example for DC, ECL, LPS, NC or DAB within the first 3 pages.
(5) The reproducibility of Western blotting should be confirmed. No mention is
made of whether Westerns were repeated to ensure the observed result was not
a one off.
(6) The reason for measurement of nitric oxide in the supernatant of DCs is not
explained and it seems a strange thing to measure. The reasons for this should
be clarified.
Minor Essential Revisions:
(1) Spelling and grammatical errors throughout and the use of italics where
appropriate (e.g. in vitro and in vivo)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
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: Daniel M Wall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
(1) An abstract needs to be added.
(2) The figures and legends need to be improved. The figures have not
reproduced well and are difficult to interpret, especially the FACS data. In
addition it is unclear at times what the figures are supposed to show as the figure
legend does not describe exactly is shown. In particular the concept of 'apoptosis
ratio' is not explained or what it means or how it is calculated.
(3) Figure 5 is difficult to interpret as the GAPDH control appears to be stained
quite randomly with regions of intense or diffuse staining. These should be
addressed as I presumed the purpose was to show uniform staining in these
samples as otherwise it undermines what is shown with the other antibodies.
(4) There are grammatical issues throughout that need to be addressed as these
at times can make understanding the data more difficult. In addition,
abbreviations need to used and explained at their first use. None were included
for example for DC, ECL, LPS, NC or DAB within the first 3 pages.
(5) The reproducibility of Western blotting should be confirmed. No mention is
made of whether Westerns were repeated to ensure the observed result was not
a one off.
(6) The reason for measurement of nitric oxide in the supernatant of DCs is not
explained and it seems a strange thing to measure. The reasons for this should
be clarified.
Minor Essential Revisions:
(1) Spelling and grammatical errors throughout and the use of italics where
appropriate (e.g. in vitro and in vivo)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
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: Daniel M Wall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
(1) An abstract needs to be added.
(2) The figures and legends need to be improved. The figures have not
reproduced well and are difficult to interpret, especially the FACS data. In
addition it is unclear at times what the figures are supposed to show as the figure
legend does not describe exactly is shown. In particular the concept of 'apoptosis
ratio' is not explained or what it means or how it is calculated.
(3) Figure 5 is difficult to interpret as the GAPDH control appears to be stained
quite randomly with regions of intense or diffuse staining. These should be
addressed as I presumed the purpose was to show uniform staining in these
samples as otherwise it undermines what is shown with the other antibodies.
(4) There are grammatical issues throughout that need to be addressed as these
at times can make understanding the data more difficult. In addition,
abbreviations need to used and explained at their first use. None were included
for example for DC, ECL, LPS, NC or DAB within the first 3 pages.
(5) The reproducibility of Western blotting should be confirmed. No mention is
made of whether Westerns were repeated to ensure the observed result was not
a one off.
(6) The reason for measurement of nitric oxide in the supernatant of DCs is not
explained and it seems a strange thing to measure. The reasons for this should
be clarified.
Minor Essential Revisions:
(1) Spelling and grammatical errors throughout and the use of italics where
appropriate (e.g. in vitro and in vivo)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant