In Vivo Efficacy and Toxicity of an Antimicrobial Peptide in a Model of Endotoxin-Induced Pulmonary Inflammation
, Chiara Falciani 2, Luisa Bracci 1,2 and Alessandro Pini 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript by Cresti et al. describes “In-vivo efficacy and toxicity of an antimicrobial peptide in a model of endotoxin-induced pulmonary inflammation”. This work is well planned, results and discussions sections are well written in this manuscript. Authors nicely explored in-vivo efficacy and toxicity of synthetic peptide SET-M33 in murine model of pulmonary inflammation. I would recommend this manuscript may be considered for publication after corrections as below.
1. As this manuscript is related to activity of peptide, I would recommend authors to include a paragraph about peptide drug discovery in introduction.
2. Figure 1 and figure 2 are looking same in this manuscript. Please upload figure 2 containing effect of this peptide on BAL cytokine levels.
3. Authors can write in detail about specific inhalation exposure system for mice in section 3.2
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Author needs to improve much in Introduction, result and discussion section. The result image for cytokine is missing/ mismatch, required some deep discussion about the result.
Line 67-68; Dose selection for inhalation is not appreciable through different route administered study. For inhalation, required range finding study data as a preliminary study. This needs to be scientific justification with reference.
Line 71; Mention as Preliminary atmosphere analysis for the SET M33 peptide exposure without animals needs to present details and data table.
Table 1; The ideal range was not attained in 79 μg/L from this the relevant dose of SET M33 was not reached to the regions of lung. kindly justify with the scientific reasoning.
Table 1, Line 90; The standard deviation value is high
Line 107; mention the clinical signs specifically for unsteadiness with gait or tremor, etc.
Line 113; mention whether it is weekly feed consumption or else.
Line 118; Mention the statistical significance for the organ weight. Also derive the Relative organ weight with brain and show the significance.
Line 207; Figure 2, the image presented is not about the Cytokine data.
Line 215; Regarding materials such as SET-M33, LPS, Budesonide, isoflurane, Tween 80, TFA, Pentobarbital sodium, LI-heparin, Inhalation unit detail, UPLC instrument detail.
Line 232; Mention the chamber condition during exposure. How the chamber condition was assessed at what interval. Also, the animal acclimatization procedure the chamber needs to brief.
Line 234; Replace word of ”administration” with ”exposure”.
Line 237; 50uL of which dose administered, specify LPS or other... And mention the concentration used for the administration
Line 285; Mention IP pentobarbital dose used for killing animals.
Line 302; Instrument detail for LCMS/MS required.
Line 327; Multiplex system detail required.
Line 357; the SET-M33 need to mention correctly.
Line 414; More recent reference needs to cite for the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Author required to care on units, maintain uniformity for kit/product purchase with catalogue number and make. Also reference needs to check in one of the reference mention [124-26]. Few comments still have not response.
Author Response
We thank the referee for the suggestion. Now, in material and methods we added all the information about kit/product code numbers and make. Moreover, the reference mistake number (24 and not 124) is now corrected.
