Mouse Model of Anti-Obesity Effects of Blautia hansenii on Diet-Induced Obesity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Obesity is a world wide health risk disorder especially high fat mediated. Developed countries is facing this health risk and need a proper lifestyle management with regard to diet, exercise and medications. Natural product remedies is always a source for addressing metabolic pathways of disorder. This is a very well executed program. The source of Blautia hansenii is mentioned but what are its active ingredients?

Does Blautia hanenii has anti glycation products? There are good functional assays involving PKPD.

Any details about the active principle and the mechanism of action of anti-obesity will educate the readers.

It is a very well written article

Author Response

　We would like to thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on the previous draft.

Reviewer 1

1. Obesity is a world wide health risk disorder especially high fat mediated. Developed countries is facing this health risk and need a proper lifestyle management with regard to diet, exercise and medications. Natural product remedies is always a source for addressing metabolic pathways of disorder. This is a very well executed program. The source of Blautia hansenii is mentioned but what are its active ingredients?

↓

Thank you for your comments. We changed the sentence of discussion section (Page12 line379, Page12 line391). We predict active ingredients was components of micro bacteria, especially ceramide. It is considered that they promote the growth of beneficial bacteria in the intestine. Further, Administration of Blautia hansenii restore short chain fatty acid production in intestinal tract. We consider them to be the active ingredients.

 

2. Does Blautia hanenii has anti glycation products? There are good functional assays involving PKPD. Any details about the active principle and the mechanism of action of anti-obesity will educate the readers.

↓

Thank you for your comments. It is not yet available as a product. However, oral administration of some intestinal bacteria studied in clinical trial. We believe that further research is necessary for its utilization. I added the sentence at Page12 line399 and Page13 line403.

 

3. Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is a very well written article.

↓

Thank you very much for your comment. Thanks for all the help.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled „Anti-obesity effects of Blautia hansenii in diet-induced obesity model mice” presents interesting issue, but some problems should be corrected.

 

Abstract:

Authors should present what was the aim of their study (e.g. “The aim of the study was…”)

The studied animals should be described (number of animals, basic characteristics)

Specific numeric results accompanied by the numeric results of the statistical analysis should be presented

 

Introduction:

Authors present a number of basic and even very trivial information that should not be presented in a scientific manuscript (e.g. “Obesity, defined as the accumulation of body fat, is recognized as a worldwide problem”) – Authors should be aware that they do not prepare the basic manual for students, or column of the newspaper, but a scientific paper that should be interesting for researchers, so they should understand that their readers will have the basic knowledge.

The Introduction should be brief and present clear justification of the study, instead of presenting everything that they know about

Authors should present what was the aim of their study (e.g. “The aim of the study was…”)

 

Materials and Methods:

Authors should present also the nutritional value of the applied diet (not only the components)

The standard error is not properly applied, as it measures rather a precision for the estimated population mean and does not present the variability of data around the mean (while SD does), so instead of standard error, the SD should be applied.

It seems that Authors did not verify the normality of distribution for continuous variables – they should verify it, and indicate which statistical test was used for verification.

For normally distributed data Authors should present mean and SD values, but for the other distributions – present median, min and max values

Authors should use proper statistical test based on the observed distribution.

 

Results:

It seems that Authors did not verify the normality of distribution for continuous variables – they should verify it, and indicate which statistical test was used for verification.

For normally distributed data Authors should present mean and SD values, but for the other distributions – present median, min and max values

Authors should use proper statistical test based on the observed distribution.

Instead of figures, Authors should present tables, to be easier to follow.

 

Discussion:

The limitations of the study should be extensively discussed

 

Conclusions:

Authors should focus on the results of their own study

 

Author Contribution:

Authors should clearly indicate who wrote the manuscript.

It seems that contribution of some of Authors was only minor and they did not participate in preparing manuscript. There is a serious risk of a guest authorship procedure which is forbidden. In such case (if they did not participate in manuscript preparation) they should be rather presented in Acknowledgements Section and not be indicated as authors of the study.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer’s comment

Re: Manuscript ID: cimb-2564523

　We would like to thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on the previous draft.

1. Abstract:

Authors should present what was the aim of their study (e.g. “The aim of the study was…”). The studied animals should be described (number of animals, basic characteristics). Specific numeric results accompanied by the numeric results of the statistical analysis should be presented.

↓

Thank you for your comments. Further, we apologize for the several lack of information and the explanation was not completely clear. We changed the sentence. We added the sentence about the aim of this study, information of the animal, and changed the writing style (Page 1 line22, 26, 33, and 35, Page3 line142).

 

2. Introduction:

Authors present a number of basic and even very trivial information that should not be presented in a scientific manuscript (e.g. “Obesity, defined as the accumulation of body fat, is recognized as a worldwide problem”) – Authors should be aware that they do not prepare the basic manual for students, or column of the newspaper, but a scientific paper that should be interesting for researchers, so they should understand that their readers will have the basic knowledge. The Introduction should be brief and present clear justification of the study, instead of presenting everything that they know about. Authors should present what was the aim of their study (e.g. “The aim of the study was…”)

↓

Thank you for your valuable comments. I changed the sentence of introduction section (Page2 line43, Page2 line68, 73, Page3 line120).

 

 

3. Materials and Methods:

Authors should present also the nutritional value of the applied diet (not only the components)

↓

Thank you for your comments. We apologize for the lack of description.We added the sentence about nutritional value (Page3 line144).

 

4. The standard error is not properly applied, as it measures rather a precision for the estimated population mean and does not present the variability of data around the mean (while SD does), so instead of standard error, the SD should be applied.

It seems that Authors did not verify the normality of distribution for continuous variables – they should verify it, and indicate which statistical test was used for verification.

For normally distributed data Authors should present mean and SD values, but for the other distributions – present median, min and max values

Authors should use proper statistical test based on the observed distribution.

↓

Thank you for your valuable comments. We agree with reviewer comments. All data was presented SD value. Further, we changed the statistical test method. The method was described in the methods section. Some sentences changed due to the change in the statistical test method (Table2, 3 and 4, Figure1,2,3,4, and 5, Page6 line242, Page6 line251, 257, Page8 line281).

 

5. Results:

It seems that Authors did not verify the normality of distribution for continuous variables – they should verify it, and indicate which statistical test was used for verification. For normally distributed data Authors should present mean and SD values, but for the other distributions – present median, min and max values. Authors should use proper statistical test based on the observed distribution. Instead of figures, Authors should present tables, to be easier to follow.

↓

Thank you for your comments. We agree with reviewer comments. As described in the above, we changed all numerical values in tables and figures, and statistical tests were reanalyzed (Table2, 3 and 4, Figure1,2,3,4, and 5, Page6 line242, Page6 line251, 257, Page8 line281).

 

6. Discussion:

The limitations of the study should be extensively discussed.

 ↓

Thank you for your comments. We added the sentence about nutritional value (Page13 line402).

 

7. Conclusions:

Authors should focus on the results of their own study.

  ↓

Thank you for your comments. We modified the sentence based on reviewer’s comment. (Page13, Conclusion section).

 

 

8. Author Contribution:

Authors should clearly indicate who wrote the manuscript.

It seems that contribution of some of Authors was only minor and they did not participate in preparing manuscript. There is a serious risk of a guest authorship procedure which is forbidden. In such case (if they did not participate in manuscript preparation) they should be rather presented in Acknowledgements Section and not be indicated as authors of the study.

↓

Thank you for your comments. We apologize for the lack of information. All authors were actively involved in preparing the manuscript and this study. We changed the sentence in the Author contribution section. (Page13 line422-427).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf