The Impact of PSR™ (Plant Small RNA Technology), Tea Extract, and Its Principal Components on Mitochondrial Function and Antioxidant Properties in Skin Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled: “The Impact of PSR™ (Plant Small RNA Technology), Tea Extract, and Its Principal Components on Mitochondrial Function and Antioxidant Properties in Skin Cells”, the authors explored the impact of a black tea extract obtained through (Plant Small RNA) PSRTM technology, characterized by its abundance of small molecules, particularly citric acid on mitochondrial health with a primary on the assessment of extract’s potential to counteract Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)-induced mitochondrial alterations associated with aging, which lead to impaired mitochondrial function, reduced ATP production, and increased ROS generation.

 

The study is well presented. The introduction is well structured. However, at the end of the introduction, the objectives should be elaborated on and not by just saying “in vitro analysis”.

There were inconsistencies in the unit in the methodology, especially minutes or min.

The concentration of the extracts used should be stated in the methodology.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work “The Impact of PSR™ (Plant Small RNA Technology), Tea Extract, and Its Principal Components on Mitochondrial Function and Antioxidant Properties in Skin Cells” describes the properties of a  black tea extract obtained through (Plant Small RNA) PSRTM technology.

The experimental and results parts are well described and the data are statistically significant.

I have few questions to ask the authors:

a) Could the analysis of the extract by mass spectrometry reveal a more complete composition of the mixture?

b)In the experiments, the UV stress controls show a not particularly high toxicity, also the production of ROS is 23% higher than in the control. You think this may have helped protect your extract in a model that isn't particularly toxic.

c) From DPPH data, 0.5% and 1% extracts were more efficient ROS scavengers. Why was the 0.1%v/v mixture used in all cell tests? I suggest adding in the supplementary any experiments with the other %v/v of estract if you have some results.

I think that once the authors answer my questions, the work is suitable for publication with minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf