Therapeutic Potential of Capsaicin against Cyclophosphamide-Induced Liver Damage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigated the precise hepatoprotective mechanism of CPS.

 The objective had been reached probably, however, the results and methods needs more intensive justification. Several notes are summarized below for better version of paper.

 

Major Points:

·        The abstract is not clear. 

·        The authors have not done proper literature study. It is suggested to refer to newly published papers and improve the literature study
With regard to metaheuristics, there is no proper literature. The authors should conduct a detailed literature study.

·        The authors should add Motivation behind the main contributions.

·        Need a flowchart to show the proposed method.

·        There is no proper information about the datasets. There is no citations for the datasets.

·        The introduction section can be substantially improved with a better explanation and motivation of why the problem being solved is relevant for broader readers. Significantly, the broader readers will be interested in knowing why they should care about the proposed work. The authors should to include the following research work in the literature survey for better improvement:  as a reference:

ü  An Efficient Strategy for Blood Diseases Detection Based on Grey Wolf Optimization as Feature Selection and Machine Learning Techniques

ü  speed control of three phase induction motor using neural network

·        Conclusion should be improved and have concluding remarks regarding the findings of the work.

·        Please add a new table that indicates a precise value of parameters of all considered methods.

·        Additionally, there are lots of grammatical mistakes and typo errors.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comment-1

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable suggestion and remarks. I have gone through all raise points carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly by track changing. I have also tried to minimize the similarity of whole manuscript as well as English error. I hope you will find now acceptable and interesting.

Authors

The authors investigated the precise hepatoprotective mechanism of CPS.

The objective had been reached probably, however, the results and methods needs more

intensive justification. Several notes are summarized below for better version of paper.

Major Points:

• The abstract is not clear.

Response: Yes I am agreeing and modified accordingly, now abstract is clear and understandable.

The authors have not done proper literature study. It is suggested to refer to newly published papers and improve the literature study With regard to metaheuristics, there is no proper literature. The authors should conduct a detailed literature study.

Response: I have modified and replaced old reference with new references as per reviewer suggestion.

• The authors should add Motivation behind the main contributions.
• Need a flowchart to show the proposed method.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments and accordingly I have added the diagram/flow chart in methodology section.

• There is no proper information about the datasets. There is no citations for the datasets.

Response: I am sorry to understand this query because it is not a survey study or neither review article. In our study, the original data is already embedded in the manuscript text.

The introduction section can be substantially improved with a better explanation and motivation of why the problem being solved is relevant for broader readers. Significantly, the broader readers will be interested in knowing why they should care about the proposed work.

Response: I appreciate the reviewer comments and I improved the introduction section with open, clear, and broad objective for wider readers.

The authors should to include the following research work in the literature survey for better improvement: as a reference:

ü An Efficient Strategy for Blood Diseases Detection Based on Grey Wolf Optimization

as Feature Selection and Machine Learning Techniques

speed control of three phase induction motor using neural network

Response: I respectfully disagree about these references citation in my manuscript because it is not suitable for this study. This reference seems to be computer specialized study, which is not related to our study.

Conclusion should be improved and have concluding remarks regarding the findings of the work.

Response: Thanks for valuable comments and I have modified in the conclusion and highlighted in red color.

Please add a new table that indicates a precise value of parameters of all considered methods. Additionally, there are lots of grammatical mistakes and typo errors.

Response: I have corrected the all grammatical mistakes and typo errors with the help of English editing tools.

peer-review-25833399.v1.docx (/user/review/displayFile/34567988/8OT41HYg?

file=review&report=25833399)

Submission Date 22 December 2022

Date of this review 23 Dec 2022 19:19:31

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study intended to assess the therapeutic potential of capsaicin against cyclophosphamide-induced liver damage from the perspective of oxidative stress, inflammatory response, and apoptotic. Although the purpose of this study has certain research significance, the depth of this study is not enough to meet the requirements of the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

1. To further elucidate the molecular mechanism of capsaicin against cyclophosphamide induced liver damage at molecular level.

2. This article is written in a highly irregular format, such as missing Spaces between numbers and units, incorrect use of abbreviations and full spelling, and capitalization of some reference titles. This must be carefully revised.

3. Line 81-82, the number of experimental animals is relatively small, and future studies suggest using at least 8 rats. 

4. Line 82-88, what does the mean of “,-;” and “mg/kg¹⁶, mg/kg¹³ and mg/kg¹⁷”

5. Line 91, How to anesthetize?

6. Line 100, Please convert rpm to centrifugal force, otherwise provide centrifuge details.

7. line 134-147, please add reference.

8. line 153, “the value expressed as mean ±SEM of six rats”, but line 174 and line 182 “Value are presented as mean±sd (n=6)”. Please explain.

9. Table 1 and Table 2, Significance analysis is too complicated to label, please simplify. Such as line 174, “*p<0.001 vs. CPM200”. It's hard to understand.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments-2

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable suggestion and remarks. I have gone through all raise points carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly by track changing. I have also tried to minimize the similarity of whole manuscript as well as English error. I hope you will find now acceptable and interesting.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study intended to assess the therapeutic potential of capsaicin against cyclophosphamide-induced liver damage from the perspective of oxidative stress, inflammatory response, and apoptotic. Although the purpose of this study has certain research significance, the depth of this study is not enough to meet the requirements of the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

1. To further elucidate the molecular mechanism of capsaicin against cyclophosphamide induced liver damage at molecular level.

Response: I have followed your instruction to modify the manuscript for better understanding of molecular mechanism of capsaicin against cyclophosphamide  and try to respond of your all queries.

2. This article is written in a highly irregular format, such as missing Spaces between numbers and units, incorrect use of abbreviations and full spelling, and capitalization of some reference titles. This must be carefully revised.

Response: I am agreeing with reviewer and I have modified all the issue raised by reviewer.

3. Line 81-82, the number of experimental animals is relatively small, and future studies suggest using at least 8 rats.

Response: I am agreeing with reviewer comments but unfortunate the study was conducted during the covid-19 period and intentionally minimum rats were taken. Sure, I will carry out the animal study by using at least  8-10 rats in future.

4. Line 82-88, what does the mean of “,-;” and “mg/kg , mg/kg and mg/kg ”

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion and I have removed unwanted space, semi colon and completed the mg/kg body weight.

5. Line 91, How to anesthetize?

Response: The rats were anesthetize by using 87 mg ketamine/kg of body weight and 13 mg xylazine/kg body weight. I have added in the manuscript.

6. Line 100, Please convert rpm to centrifugal force, otherwise provide centrifuge details.

Response: Thanks for comments and I have converted rpm to g.

7. line 134-147, please add reference. 16 13 17 

Response: Thanks for your comments and I have added the references.



8. line 153, “the value expressed as mean ±SEM of six rats”, but line 174 and line 182

“Value are presented as mean±sd (n=6)”. Please explain.

Response: Thanks for your comments and It was a typographical error and I have corrected it.

9. Table 1 and Table 2, Significance analysis is too complicated to label, please

simplify. Such as line 174, “*p<0.001 vs. CPM200”. It's hard to understand.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I have made simplest way

 

Thanks and Regards

Dr. M Firoz Alam

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments 

Author Response

Dear sir,

Thanks for your no comments, in spite of that I have gone through the manuscript minutely and find minor error, which is highlighted through track changes.

Thanks for your kind review and fast process

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript and the quality of this paper has been well improved. But I hope the author will revise the writing carefully again. For example line 17 "hepatotoxicity... Rats"; line 19, the full spell of CPS; line 90-91, what means of the number of 16, 13, and 17?

Author Response

Dear sir,

Thanks for your valuable comments, I have gone through the manuscript minutely and find minor error, which is highlighted through track changes. I hope you will found it upto the mark.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript and the quality of this paper has been well improved. But I hope the author will revise the writing carefully again. For example line 17 "hepatotoxicity... Rats"; line 19, the full spell of CPS; line 90-91, what means of the number of 16, 13, and 17?

Response: I am agreeing with your valuable comments and I have gone through the manuscript minutely and find minor error. I have corrected all issues by track changing.

Thanks for your valuable suggestion and bringing the manuscript to the quality level.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx