Contribution of Inhibitor of Differentiation and Estrogenic Endocrine Disruptors to Neurocognitive Disorders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study makes a good effort in trying to explore how the Inhibitor of Differentiation proteins by which estrogenic endocrine disruptors exposure can affect neurocognitive disorders in populations.
The manuscript has a clear and coincise structure. The information are provided in a comprehensible manner and reflect the enormous amount of work.
I suggest only an adjustement:
1) In Introduction section, the prevalences and incidences of the neurocognitive disorders should be added.
2) In Conclusion section, the limitations of the manuscript and inputs for future studies could be added.
Author Response
July 27, 2018
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you very much for the critical review of our manuscript entitled “Contribution of Inhibitor
of Differentiation (ID) and Estrogenic Endocrine Disruptors to Neurocognitive Disorders.” Please find
the enclosed revised manuscript attached below as a word file. We have incorporated all the suggestions
of reviewer 1 and the Medical Science Editorial Office in the text. We cordially request for an expedited editorial decision to publish our manuscript in MDPI Medical Sciences based on our incorporation of all the
revisions requested by reviewer 1 and the editorial office.
Response to the comments of reviewer 1 report:
We are pleased with the laudatory comments of the reviewer.
Comments & suggestions for authors:
1. In the Introduction section, the prevalence and incidence of the neurocognitive disorders should be added.
Response: We have added the prevalence and incidence of neurocognitive disorders in the introduction section of the manuscript. Please see track changes for reference.
2. In the Conclusion section, the limitations of the manuscript and inputs for future studies could be added.
Response: We have added limitations of the manuscript and input for future studies in the conclusion
section of the manuscript. Please see track changes for reference.
Comments & suggestions by Medical Science Editorial Office:
1. Also, due to some overlap, we would like to ask you to rephrase some sentences of the following paragraphs: Section 2.3, 1st paragraph; Section 3, 2nd paragraph
Response: We have rephrased some sentences in the noted paragraphs. The track change option was used in the document for reference.
Sincerely,
Vincent Avecilla, PhD, MPH
Reviewer 2 Report
I am unable to judge the key message in this paper because it's not the area of my expertise.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a review article about a class of proteins (Inhibitors of Differentiation, ID) and environmental endocrine disrutper (EED) chemicals, many of which either have been banned (In the US, at least) such as PCB's or are well publicized and have been removed from common use (such as BPA), The authors review literature, much of which is necessarily "soft", about the possible connections between EED's and neurocognitive disorders. The lack of secure biomarkers is a major factor in making much of the neurocognitive literature "soft", but hopefully this will improve over time.
To me the value of a well-written review article is to suggest additional hypotheses and research directions. By that metric, I judge this review article to be a success, although it tends to go in too many different directions/conditions. I find their attempts at gene/protein network analyses to be a good first step.
Author Response
July 27, 2018
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you very much for the critical review of our manuscript entitled “Contribution of Inhibitor of Differentiation (ID) and Estrogenic Endocrine Disruptors to Neurocognitive Disorders.” We have incorporated all the suggestions of reviewer 2 and the editorial office in the text. We cordially request for an expedited editorial decision to publish our manuscript in MDPI Medical Sciences based on our incorporation of all the revisions requested by reviewer 2 and the editorial office.
Response to the comments of reviewer 2 report:
We are pleased with the laudatory comments of the reviewer.
Comments & suggestions for authors:
1. This is a review article about a class of proteins (Inhibitors of Differentiation, ID) and environmental endocrine disrupter (EED) chemicals, many of which either have been banned (In the US, at least) such as PCB's or are well publicized and have been removed from common use (such as BPA), The authors review literature, much of which is necessarily "soft", about the possible connections between EED's and neurocognitive disorders. The lack of secure biomarkers is a major factor in making much of the neurocognitive literature "soft", but hopefully this will improve over time
Response: The content of our literature is considered “soft” due to the lack of information/research connecting EED exposure & ID proteins to neurocognitive development. However, we make a strong case for how EED exposure influences neurocognitive disorders alongside how ID proteins are involved in neurocognitive outcomes, thus elucidating the potential for additional research to better define the public health problem based on the results from this review article. Over time, the “soft” content will be proven to be future scientific advances originating from strong molecular epidemiology & in-vivo/in-vitro research.
2. To me the value of a well-written review article is to suggest additional hypotheses and research directions. By that metric, I judge this review article to be a success, although it tends to go in too many different directions/conditions. I find their attempts at gene/protein network analyses to be a good first step.
Response: We have modified the conclusion to address research direction and specify that with additional research (epidemiological, in-vivo, & in-vitro), the gap in knowledge between how the combination of EED exposure & ID proteins will alter neurocognitive disorder outcomes from a molecular & pathological perspective will be better defined and understood.
Sincerely,
Vincent Avecilla, PhD, MPH
