Next Article in Journal
Space-Time Prediction of PM2.5 Concentrations in Santiago de Chile Using LSTM Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Asteraceae Family Plants
Previous Article in Journal
De Novo Transcriptome Analysis of the Lizard Fish (Saurida elongata): Novel Insights into Genes Related to Sex Differentiation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Preliminary Study on the Influence of the Polyphenols of Different Groups on the Digestibility of Wheat Starch, Measured by the Content of Resistant Starch
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Differential Effects of Resveratrol on HECa10 and ARPE-19 Cells

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11314; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211314
by Monika Leśniak 1,2,†, Dariusz Rokicki 3,*,†, Agnieszka Synowiec 1, Aleksandra Filipiak-Duliban 1, Piotr Skopiński 4, Aneta Lewicka 5 and Sławomir Lewicki 6,7
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11314; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211314
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 22 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 8 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemical and Functional Properties of Food and Natural Products)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally well-written, results are presented appropriately.

In vivo studies could follow (and thus this can be added as an objective in the conclusion) to check the impact of resveratrol.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled "The Resveratrol variable impact retinal pigment epithelial ARPE-19 and endothelial HECa10 cells." deal with in vitro assays on this natural compounds to elucidate and explain its potential utility in angiogenic-related pathologies of eye.

The paper fit the journal's aim and scopes because refere to a specific application and potential useful use of this compound.

Neverthless the paper as presented have several weakness that make it in my opinion unacceptable for publication.

TItle is for me not clear please try to revise.
Abstract is not very informative and I suggest to completely revise (some note are in the attached pdf)

Introduction only in part rerfere to the large number of paper related to the research of the resveratrol and eyes pathologies.

Compared to the state of the art of the literature and to the previous studies of the group of reserach the novelty of the present paper appear limited or is not clearly explained.

also the obtained results are not so clear (many of the proposed photographs obtained with light microscope are poorly informative

Discussion of data is very long but is not clear the novelty of the findings expecially related to previous studies

At the end in my opinion the manuscript is not suitable for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

LeÅ›niak et al. submitted the manuscript, "The Resveratrol variable impact retinal pigment epithelial ARPE-19 and endothelial HECa10 cells," is about the evaluation of Resveratrol antiproliferative activity against two cell lines (HECa10 endothelial cell line, and ARPE-19 epithelial cell line) at a concentration of 1-100 µM.

 

The paper's strength is the study's flow, experimental analysis, and explanation of experiments.

 

Some points need to address.

 

1.              There are various studies indicating the antiproliferative evaluation of Resveratrol; authors need to highlight the key findings from previously reported literature.

2.              Please indicate clearly the controls used in these experiments (at least write them down in figure captions)

3.              There are complex sentences in the manuscript which need to be simplified into simpler sentences.

4.               Please mention the purity of Resveratrol or its isomer concentration (such as whether it was trans- or cis- or a mixture of both). Authors could check the vendor page to get these information.

 

 

The manuscript has elements to consider in the current journal if the authors agree to revise the above-mentioned points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have considered all the comments and I appreciated all the modification, the paper present now results in clearer way thecnical part is well described, all the obtained results are commented

I think that the paper is now acceptable in the present form

Back to TopTop