Glycomic and Glycoproteomic Techniques in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Neurotrauma: Towards Personalized Markers
, Abir Kobaisi 1,†, Wenjing Peng 2,†, Chloe Barsa 1, Mona Goli 2, Ahmad Sibahi 1, Samer El Hayek 3, Samar Abdelhady 4, Muhammad Ali Haidar 1, Mirna Sabra 5, Matej Orešič 6,7, Giancarlo Logroscino 8, Stefania Mondello 9, Ali H. Eid 10,11,* and Yehia Mechref 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a quite comprehensive review on glycomics and glycoproteomics in neurodegenerative disorders and neurotrauma in section 4 to 6. Adequate information has been presented. However, I have major concern on the overall structure of the review and other suggestions on tables/figures.
Major concern:
The technic introduction is too long and "biased". First, the technic intro is 14 pages long, the same length as the biological part (exclude the tables/figures). The title of the review does not suggest a technic review; second, the technic intro only covered part of the glycomics/glycoproteimcs workflow. Many important procedures, such as software, MS acqusition methods and varies quantification methods were not covered. It seemed that the author discussed the technic part they familiar with, but ignored many other critical steps.
Giving the title, I don't think the technic intro needs to be 14 pages long. My suggestion is the reduce the length of technic intro part to half, and summarize all critical procedures in glycomics and glycoproteomics.
Suggestion on tables:
Both table3 and table4 are not well organized. More information is needed, i.e. for each citation in the table, which kind of analysis is performed (glycomics/glycoprotemics?, lectin/MS?), what is the limitation and outlook?
Suggestion on figures:
More figure citation is encouraged, if possible. Figures related to workflow overview or biological pathway analysis will be very useful for the readers.
Author Response
please see the attachement
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a comprehensive review dealing with glycomics and glycoproteomics in neurodegenerative disease and trauma highlighting the importance of detecting alterations in glycosylation as glycosylation is altered in disease and thus could represent a marker for diagnosis and prognosis. The review is well written, pleasant to read and dealing with several aspects of glycosylation. Indeed, it describes post-translational modifications, types and pattern of glycosilations, methodology for glycomics and glycoproteomics highlighting limits and perspectives of the different technologies. Also the authors describe the implications of these technologies for the analysis of body fluids as well as what happens in neurodegenerative disease, neurotrauma but also tumors regarding glycosylation. The review is interesting, up to date and extremely useful for reader. I have only minor suggestion for improving it.
Minor points
-Table 3 and Table 4 are difficult to read in this format. It is a good idea to use tables to summarize important findings and key points but there is too much information written extensively and therefore they become useless. I suggest to change them trying to be more concise in writing so that the tables are more readable and become useful.
-Table 4 does not have a title or a description
-The contribution of each author should be specified in the Author Contribution paragraph.
Author Response
please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision addressed all concerns.
