Next Article in Journal
High-Fat Diet Alters the Retinal Pigment Epithelium and Choroidal Transcriptome in the Absence of Gut Microbiota
Next Article in Special Issue
A Linkage between Angiogenesis and Inflammation in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Previous Article in Journal
Fibronectin Functions as a Selective Agonist for Distinct Toll-like Receptors in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 11
Issue 13
10.3390/cells11132075
Review Report
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Inflammasome Activation in Retinal Pigment Epithelium from Human Donors with Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Cells 2022, 11(13), 2075; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11132075
by Mara C. Ebeling 1, Cody R. Fisher 1,2, Rebecca J. Kapphahn 1, Madilyn R. Stahl 1, Shichen Shen 3, Jun Qu 3, Sandra R. Montezuma 1 and Deborah A. Ferrington 1,2,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Ryo Terao
Cells 2022, 11(13), 2075; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11132075
Submission received: 25 April 2022 / Revised: 23 June 2022 / Accepted: 27 June 2022 / Published: 30 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Inflammation in AMD (Multifactorial Age-Related Macular Degeneration))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the article titled “Inflammasome activation in retinal pigmented epithelium from human donors with age-related macular degeneration,” by Ebling et al., the authors investigated inflammasome pathways in human RPE cells from samples with CFH risk factor and with/without AMD. 

 

Major Comments:

  • Introduction is long. Figure 1 needs to be in the introduction—not results. It would also all the authors to cut down on text
  • Figure S2 ought to be in the main paper—as it is essential to the rest of the data
  • N=3 for figure 3 seems a bit low.
  • Figure 4 is too complicated with the groups and the analyses. Please separate out the key groups
  • Figure 5 is the key figure. Maybe eliminate Figure 4 since Figure 5 clarifies things

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have described the inflammasome signaling in RPE cells from human donors. As authors mentioned, they could not find the significant difference at the basal condition. However the activation increased IL-1b as a downstream of inflammasome in RPE cells from human donors, but there were not difference among subgroups. 

 

Results 3.1.; This is not "Results". It should be switched to other section. 

Results 3.3; The high/low risk ratio in AMD and No-AMD is almost the same, which supposed to be different. Could you discuss about it?

Results 3.3; Could you provide the distribution of AMD grading in AMD samples? 

L340; CD59 is not significant. Please clearly describe that it is a trend. 

L399-401; The description can be misleading a little. There are not any significant increases in mtDNA (Figure S5). Authors cannot evaluate the rotenone treatment as a significant increase. 

L506-518; As they mentioned, there may be a difference between early and late AMD. Could you compare early and late AMD in this study? In addition, a MGS4 sample used in figure S1 looks no difference in PCR compared to early stage. Could you explain the reason?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not have any further comments.

Back to TopTop