Next Article in Journal
Immune Modulating Brevetoxins: Monocyte Cytotoxicity, Apoptosis, and Activation of M1/M2 Response Elements Is Dependent on Reactive Groups
Next Article in Special Issue
A 3D-Printed Polycaprolactone/Marine Collagen Scaffold Reinforced with Carbonated Hydroxyapatite from Fish Bones for Bone Regeneration
Previous Article in Journal
Adsorption Characteristics and Enrichment of Emodin from Marine-Derived Aspergillus flavipes HN4-13 Extract by Macroporous Resin XAD-16
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Novel Gelatinase from Marine Flocculibacter collagenilyticus SM1988: Characterization and Potential Application in Collagen Oligopeptide-Rich Hydrolysate Preparation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Fish Collagen Peptides Protect against Cisplatin-Induced Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Injury by Inhibiting MAPK Signaling Pathways in Mouse Thymic Epithelial Cells

Mar. Drugs 2022, 20(4), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/md20040232
by Won Hoon Song 1,2,†, Hye-Yoon Kim 2,3,†, Ye Seon Lim 2,3, Seon Yeong Hwang 2,3, Changyong Lee 2,3, Do Young Lee 2,3, Yuseok Moon 2,4, Yong Jung Song 2,5 and Sik Yoon 2,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Mar. Drugs 2022, 20(4), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/md20040232
Submission received: 18 February 2022 / Revised: 17 March 2022 / Accepted: 24 March 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomedical and Pharmacological Applications of Marine Collagen)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is pleasant reading this article. The authors design a well-constructed hypothesis about Fish Collagen Peptides Protect Against Cisplatin-Induced Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Injury. Besides, I have some concerns and suggestions about the manuscripts.

Title: 1. Words like “Inhibiting p38 MAPK, JNK, and ERK” in the title should modify its looks like a conclusion.

  1. p38 and its phosphor form in figure 8 are not informative, replaced with another replicate.
  2. b-Actin blots are the same in fig A and B, western blot control in figure 4. And the same thing is in figure 10. Why this?

Author Response

We attached the file for a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

The manuscript is well written and experiments are well performed. In my opinion, it is interesting, and I recommend its publication in the Journal after the following points:

 

-Why did the authors use SB203580, SP600125, U0126, and NAC for treatments?

-Add references for the material and method section.

-How did the authors select the protective dose of FCP and NAC, …?

-Provide the graphical abstract.

-How did the authors quantify the western results in fig 10? Explain in the method section.

-The discussion part can be improved by providing a more critical discussion of recent related literature.

Author Response

We attached the file for a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded adequately to my previous comments. I have no more comments.

Back to TopTop