The Protective Effects of Sesamin against Cyclophosphamide-Induced Nephrotoxicity through Modulation of Oxidative Stress, Inflammatory-Cytokines and Apoptosis in Rats
, Hani M. Ali Thubab 1, Abdulrahman M. Ali Zaeri 1, Tarique Anwer 1, Rayan A. Ahmed 1, Abdulmajeed M. Jali 1, Marwa Qadri 1, Yousra Nomier 1, Sivakumar S. Moni 2 and Mohammad F. Alam 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
· Pg 4 Bowman’s space instead bowman’s space
· Pg 4 The term “recovery” is not the best, because the treatment is a prophylactic one
· Discussion: Inflammation markers instead of mediators of cytokines
· Please present more clear the experimental design for each group, the route of administration, the time of administration, duration of the treatment
· 4.5. Assessment of toxicity markers replace by Assessment of oxidative stress markers
· Pg 7. H2O2 instead h2o2
· 4.7 Assessment of protein content. You have no results or interpretation for this parameter
· References: first reference (Newton HB) is not appropriate
Author Response
To The Editor
Good morning
I am thankful to you for your prompt response and fast reviewing process of our manuscript entitled “The Protective Effects of Sesamin against Cyclophosphamide-Induced Nephrotoxicity through Modulation of Oxidative Stress, Inflammatory- Cytokines and Apoptosis in Rats” and manuscript no ijms-1936123, I have gone through each comment raised by rewires and corrected in the revised manuscript accordingly. I have also tried to minimize the similarity of the whole manuscript, and now you will get acceptable and excited.
Reviewer-1 Reply
I appreciate the reviewer comments and corrected in the whole manuscript accordingly
- Pg 4 Bowman’s space instead bowman’s space-
Reply: Corrected in Manuscript as suggested and highlighted in yellow color
- Pg 4 The term “recovery” is not the best, because the treatment is a prophylactic one
Reply: The term recovery is replaced with regaining
- Discussion: Inflammation markers instead of mediators of cytokines
Reply- Replaced as suggested by respected reviewers
- Please present more clear the experimental design for each group, the route of administration, the time of administration, duration of the treatment
Reply: I appreciate the reviewers comments and we have restructured the experimental design and focusing on the route of administration, duration of treatment etc and highlighted in yellow color
- 4.5. Assessment of toxicity markers replace by Assessment of oxidative stress markers
Reply: I have replaced the Assessment of toxicity markers as suggested by reviewers and highlighted.
- Pg 7. H2O2 instead h2o2
Reply: Corrected and highlighted as suggested by reviewer
- 4.7 Assessment of protein content. You have no results or interpretation for this parameter
Reply: Thanks for your valuable comments and I have deleted the section from the manuscript to avoid any confusions.
- References: first reference (Newton HB) is not appropriate
Reply: I have replaced the Newton HB reference with more suitable reference and highlighted 1. Lameire N. Nephrotoxicity of recent anti-cancer agents. Clin Kidney J. 2014;7(1):11-22
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work evaluated the protective of sesamin against cyclophosphamide induced renal toxicity. The positive control group is missing. The major comments are as below:
P1-line 3 in the 1st paragraph in introduction section: change depend to depending.
P1-line 4 in the 1st paragraph in introduction section: predicate structures are confused.
P1-line 5 in the 1st paragraph in introduction section: change drug to drugs.
P1-line 2 in the 2st paragraph in introduction section: which of the two metabolites?
P2-line 2 from the bottom in the last paragraph in introduction section: change encouraging to encourages.
Keep data retention digits same in tables.
P3-line 8: The subject and predicate are inconsistent.
P3-line 1 in ‘2.3. Inflammation and apoptosis’ section: change shows to showed.
P3-the 1st sentence in ‘2.4. Histopathology’ section: lack predicate.
P3-the last 2st sentence in ‘2.4. Histopathology’ section: delete the second ‘were’.
P5-line 7 in the 3rd paragraph in discussion section: change convert to converts.
P5-line 9 in the 3rd paragraph in discussion section: change interacting to interacts.
P5-line 4 in the 4rd paragraph in discussion section: change causes to caused.
P6-line 3: change suggests to suggested.
Author Response
Comment Reply to Reviewers
To The Editor
Good morning
I am thankful to you for your prompt response and fast reviewing process of our manuscript entitled “The Protective Effects of Sesamin against Cyclophosphamide-Induced Nephrotoxicity through Modulation of Oxidative Stress, Inflammatory- Cytokines and Apoptosis in Rats” and manuscript no ijms-1936123, I have gone through each comment raised by rewires and corrected in the revised manuscript accordingly. I have also tried to minimize the similarity of the whole manuscript, and now you will get accepted.
Reviewer-2 Reply
I appreciate the reviewer's comments and corrected the whole manuscript accordingly.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This work evaluated the protective of sesamin against cyclophosphamide induced renal toxicity. The positive control group is missing. The major comments are as below:
Reply: As a reviewer said, the positive control group is missing. I disagree with the respect that I have already taken a positive control group, and that is the SM20 group. Where we have given only a high dose of sesamin (SM20) to find the adverse effect compared to normal control.
P1-line 3 in the 1st paragraph in introduction section: change depend to depending.
Reply: Changed as suggested by reviewers.
P1-line 4 in the 1st paragraph in the introduction section: predicate structures are confused.
Reply: Re structured this sentence to avoid confusion
P1-line 5 in the 1st paragraph in the introduction section: change drug to drugs.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers.
P1-line 2 in the 2st paragraph in introduction section: which of the two metabolites?
Reply: The two metabolites are named as scarlein and phosphoramide mentioned in manuscript and highlighted
P2-line 2 from the bottom in the last paragraph in introduction section: change encouraging to encourages.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers
Keep data retention digits same in tables.
Reply: yes, agree and kept the same as it
P3-line 8: The subject and predicate are inconsistent.
Reply: Re-structured this sentence to make consistent
P3-line 1 in ‘2.3. Inflammation and apoptosis’ section: change shows to showed.
Reply: Changed as suggested by the reviewers and highlighted in yellow color
P3-the 1st sentence in ‘2.4. Histopathology’ section: lack predicate.
Reply: Histopathology section restructured and highlighted in yellow color
P3-the last 2st sentence in ‘2.4. Histopathology section: delete the second ‘were’.
Reply: Deleted “were” as suggested by the reviewers
P5-line 7 in the 3rd paragraph in discussion section: change convert to converts.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers.
P5-line 9 in the 3rd paragraph in discussion section: change interacting to interacts.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers and highlighted
P5-line 4 in the 4rd paragraph in discussion section: change causes to caused.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers
P6-line 3: change suggests to suggested.
Reply: corrected as suggested by the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors has improved the manuscript and the work may be published in the Journal.
