Damage to Oral Mucosae Induced by Weekend Alcohol Consumption: The Role of Gender and Alcohol Concentration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the manuscript has been drafted well and the study findings could be applicable even in human beings.

1. The manuscript shows 22% of similarity index
2. The references needs to be rechecked again as there are some overlaps/ repetition.Eg: Reference number 6 & 9.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the manuscript has been drafted well and the study findings could be applicable even in human beings.

Point 1. The manuscript shows 22% of similarity index

Response.

Thank you for your unvaluable comments, for taking your time to revise this manuscript.

The entire manuscript was reviewed with the Turnitin program, which resulted with a 18% of similarity, however it must be said all the information used was duly referenced.

Point 2. The references needs to be rechecked again as there are some overlaps/ repetition.Eg: Reference number 6 & 9.

Response.

Thank you for the observation. All references were rechecked and the reference 6 was removed from the manuscript because there was an error in the citation.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors studied the influence of weekend alcohol consumption to the healthiness of oral cavity using thirty male and female rats. Based on the results they reached the conclusion that the weekend alcohol consumption for a period of 3 months can lead to oral-cavity tissue alterations which could promote tumor growth and the cancer development in the oral cavity. Overall, the discovery of this study is significant since it demonstrates the potential health related problems about oral cavity could be caused by weekend alcohol consumption. Besides, the manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. Combined together, I recommend the manuscript to be accepted by Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1.

Based on the results they reached the conclusion that the weekend alcohol consumption for a period of 3 months can lead to oral-cavity tissue alterations which could promote tumor growth and the cancer development in the oral cavity. Overall, the discovery of this study is significant since it demonstrates the potential health related problems about oral cavity could be caused by weekend alcohol consumption. Besides, the manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. Combined together, I recommend the manuscript to be accepted by Applied Sciences.

Response.

Thank you for your unvaluable comments, for taking your time to revise this manuscript, we are grateful for response. Hopefully this study contributes to health science and help raise awareness about the excessive weekend alcohol consumption and its effects on oral health.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

thank you very much for your paper. I've found it veri interesting, well written and organized. The study protocol is inetresting and could represent a good base for further studies. 

Just some considerations: I suggest to report in conclusion and possibly in the abstract the limitations of the study, considering that it is a study in animals and also lack comparison with a day-to-day alchool use); also, I suggest to take histological pictures of good quality.

Thank you again for your paper 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors

thank you very much for your paper. I've found it very interesting, well written and organized. The study protocol is interesting and could represent a good base for further studies. 

Just some considerations:

Point 1.

I suggest to report in conclusion and possibly in the abstract the limitations of the study

Response.

Thank you for your unvaluable comments, for taking your time to revise this manuscript, we are grateful for response.

As you suggest it was included the limitations of the study in conclusion part you can find it on lines  in yellow color .

Point 2.

Considering that it is a study in animals and also lack comparison with a day-to-day alcohol use)

Response.

We appreciate your comment. In this study, weekend alcohol consumption was evaluated because, as mentioned in the introduction, there is very limited evidence about this pattern of consumption. In addition, due to budget issues, it was not possible to include more experimental groups, however, it is considered for future research in our work laboratory.

Point 3.

I suggest to take histological pictures of good quality.

Response.

Thank you for your observation, the quality of histological pictures was improved, thus they were adjusted in the manuscript.

Thank you again for your paper. 

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The article is interesting and it can improve the knowledge base.

I recommend that the article should be accepted after minor revision.

Main comments are the following:

• How can you control the quantity of the ingested alcohol?

• Line 53: provide a reference

• Line 120: reference 26 doesn’t seem related to the sentence . The article does not directly talk about tongue alterations.

• Line 149 Add few information about the “age” of the subjects (young, adults?)

• Line 161: add information about alcohol treatment: were the 2 treatment in two consecutive days? How many days after the last alcohol intake did death happen?

• Methods: were the slides evaluated by an Expert (One or more)?

• specify how you have reported the final results for each group (average?) . It Is not clear when you report, for example, “ ++/+++/+”. Try to explain.

• Line 204: specify in the table 1 caption that it was a week-end alcohol consuption

• In tables, Repeat the numerosity of each group (or you can specify that each group Is n=5 in the caption )

• A sentence about limitations of the study (e.a. limited numerosity of the sample, doubts about differences in Animals and humans) should be added.

• The manuscript must be edited by a native speaker. In fact, there are some orthographic and syntactic errors, as well as “typos” along the text. Some examples are:

o Line 38 “In this Study, the effect of ethanol consumption on the oral cavity was observed as a site of first contact” check the subjects of the sentence

o Line 156: “ethanol” or “alcohol” instead of “ethane”!

o Line 181 “characteristics of the ephitelium” instead of “type of ephitelium”

o Line 183 describe the characteristics of the infiammatory infiltrate for recognizing It as chronic (mononucleare infiammatory cells?)

o Lines 195—196: move the reference to table 1 at the end of this sentence instead of line 199

o specify that YoU have reported the average of the results for each group

o In tables, Hyperorthokeratinized instead of Hiperorthokeratinized

o Line 202: put here the reference to table 2. “Histological changes in the cheek mucosa are reported in Table 2. In all alcohol-administered groups we observed “. The same later, for table 4.

o 210: put a dot before “It”

o Line 210: Check this sentence: “ It should be noted that group 6 demonstrated nearly the same results in hyperplasia and acanthosis (high-to-moderate presence), that is, in the consumption of alcohol at a concentration of 5%”. The meaning of the last part Is not clear/correct. The same for the next sentence “On the other Hand, in terms of consumption at a concentration of 40% between group 2 and group 5, Epithelial hyperplasia and acanthosis had variations, although they were present in the Four groups.”

o Figure 1 Legend: EH, epithelial hyperplasia instead of HE epithelial hyperplasia;

o In figures Legends, use only the abbreviations present in figures (for example, V for vascularization Is not present)

o Line 237 “similar” instead of “the same”

o Line 249 “this” instead of “that”?

o Table 4 check “Acanhtosis” spelling

o Line 259 “ Figures 2b and 2c” instead of “Figures 1b and 1c”

o Maybe Is Just the image resolution, but inflammatory infiltrate is not so clear in 2b and 2e

o Line 302 close )

o Line 324: check “affectation” . Do you mean alterations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The article is interesting and it can improve the knowledge base.

I recommend that the article should be accepted after minor revision.

Main comments are the following:

Point 1. How can you control the quantity of the ingested alcohol?

Response.

Thank you for your unvaluable comments, for taking your time to revise this manuscript, we are grateful for response.

Alcohol consumption was quantified but this data was already reported in a previous publication in which other interesting dad from this research were analyzed. This article is quoted below:

Morales-González, J.A.; Sernas-Morales, M.L.; Morales-González, Á.; González-López, L.L.; Madrigal-Santillán, E.O.; Vargas-Mendoza, N.; Fregoso-Aguilar, T.A.; Anguiano-Robledo, L.; Madrigal-Bujaidar, E.; Álvarez-González, I., et al. Morphological and biochemical effects of weekend alcohol consumption in rats: Role of concentration and gender. World journal of hepatology 2018, 10, 297-307, doi:10.4254/wjh.v10.i2.297.

 

Point 2.   Line 53: provide a reference

Response.

The missing reference was provided. Thank you.

 

Point 3.  Line 120: reference 26 doesn’t seem related to the sentence. The article does not directly talk about tongue alterations.

Response.

The mention reference was checked and corrected as you suggested.

 

Point 4.  Line 149 Add few information about the “age” of the subjects (young, adults?)

Response.

The age of the subjects was added is available on line 142.

 

Point 5. Line 161: add information about alcohol treatment: were the 2 treatments in two consecutive days? How many days after the last alcohol intake did death happen?

Response.

Alcohol consumption was 2 consecutive days ad libidum and the animals were sacrificed at 8 days after the last alcohol consumption. This information was included in methods on line 170.

 

Point 6. Methods: were the slides evaluated by an Expert (One or more)?

Response.

Thank you for the observation, the initial of the Pathology experts were added and are indicated in methodology  on lines 179-180.

 

Point 6. Specify how you have reported the final results for each group (average?) . It Is not clear when you report, for example, “ ++/+++/+”. Try to explain.

Response.

The symbology indicated in the tables is the result of the average of the samples observed when all the fields in each of the groups are traversed with the microscope. Please see lines 187-189.

 

Point 7. Line 204: specify in the table 1 caption that it was a week-end alcohol consumption

Response.

Weekend alcohol consumption was specified on each table.

 

Point. 8. In tables, Repeat the numerosity of each group (or you can specify that each group Is n=5 in the caption )

Response.

The number of the groups was eliminated, instead only the name of each study group was left. The sample size was added at the end of the tables.

 

Point. 9. A sentence about limitations of the study (e.a. limited numerosity of the sample, doubts about differences in Animals and humans) should be added.

Response.

As you suggest, the limitations of the study were included in conclusion, please see lines 423-429.

 

Point 10. The manuscript must be edited by a native speaker. In fact, there are some orthographic and syntactic errors, as well as “typos” along the text. Some examples are:

• Line 38 “In this Study, the effect of ethanol consumption on the oral cavity was observed as a site of first contact” check the subjects of the sentence

Response.

The phrase was corrected.

 

 

• Line 156: “ethanol” or “alcohol” instead of “ethane”!

Response.

Ethane was corrected to ethanol.

 

• Line 181 “characteristics of the ephitelium” instead of “type of ephitelium”

Response.

It was corrected to epithelium of the surface layer and was specified the characteristics of the epithelium, please see lines 185-187.

 

• Line 183 describe the characteristics of the infiammatory infiltrate for recognizing It as chronic (mononucleare infiammatory cells?)

Response.

Chronic inflammatory infiltrate was considered according to mononuclear inflammatory cells with predominance of lymphocytes, this information was already included in the methodology.

 

• Lines 195—196: move the reference to table 1 at the end of this sentence instead of line 199

Response.

The reference of table 1 was move, now is visible on line 202.

 

• Specify that you have reported the average of the results for each group

Response.

The average of the results for each group was indicated in methodology and below each table.

 

• In tables, Hyperorthokeratinized instead of Hiperorthokeratinized

Response.

The tables were corrected, thank you.

 

• Line 202: put here the reference to table 2. “Histological changes in the cheek mucosa are reported in Table 2. In all alcohol-administered groups we observed “. The same later, for table 4.

Response.

The phrase was modified as you suggest.

 

• 210: put a dot before “It”

Response.

“It” was added, please see line 218.

 

• Line 210: Check this sentence: “ It should be noted that group 6 demonstrated nearly the same results in hyperplasia and acanthosis (high-to-moderate presence), that is, in the consumption of alcohol at a concentration of 5%”. The meaning of the last part Is not clear/correct. The same for the next sentence “On the other Hand, in terms of consumption at a concentration of 40% between group 2 and group 5, Epithelial hyperplasia and acanthosis had variations, although they were present in the Four groups.”

Response.

The sentences were checked and corrected. Please see line 218.

 

 

• Figure 1 Legend: EH, epithelial hyperplasia instead of HE epithelial hyperplasia;

Response.

The legend of figure 1 was corrected, please see line 242.

 

• In figures Legends, use only the abbreviations present in figures (for example, V for vascularization Is not present)

Response.

Figures legends were checked and corrected.

 

 

• Line 237 “similar” instead of “the same”

Response.      

The indicated error was modified, please see line 248

 

• Line 249 “this” instead of “that”?

Response.

The typo was corrected, please see line 262

 

• Table 4 check “Acanhtosis” spelling

Response.

The spelling on table 4 was corrected.

 

• Line 259 “ Figures 2b and 2c” instead of “Figures 1b and 1c”

Response.

The figures were corrected, please see line 274.

 

• Maybe Is Just the image resolution, but inflammatory infiltrate is not so clear in 2b and 2e

Response.

            The quality of the images was improved.

• Line 302 close )

Response.

It was checked and corrected, please see line 316.

 

• Line 324: check “affectation” . Do you mean alterations?

Response.

Affectation was changed by alteration, please see line 339.

Reviewer 5 Report

1. The topic and results of this study have important reminders for society.
2. In the research, the current social phenomenon is discussed, which has a very good research contribution.
3. The experiment clearly divided the samples into six groups, making the comparison of the results quite clear.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1.   The topic and results of this study have important reminders for society.

Point 2.  In the research, the current social phenomenon is discussed, which has a very good research contribution.

Point 3.  The experiment clearly divided the samples into six groups, making the comparison of the results quite clear.

Response.

Thank you for your unvaluable comments, for taking your time to revise this manuscript, we are grateful for response. Hopefully this study contributes to health science and help raise awareness about the excessive weekend alcohol consumption and its effects on oral health.