Protective Effect of Iris germanica L. Rhizome-Derived Exosome against Oxidative-Stress-Induced Cellular Senescence in Human Epidermal Keratinocytes
, Youngeun Ji 3, Youngseok Kim 3, Si-Jun Park 2, Junoh Kim 3 and Seunghee Bae 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find my comments for your manuscript.
1. In the Abstract, please add 2-3 lines on the therapeutic effects of plant-derived exosomes on various dermatologic conditions
2. Keywords to be arranged alphabetically
3. Line no. 85, In this study ….may be in a separate paragraph
4. A brief diagrammatic representation may be added to depict the effect of stress on keratinocytes in the introduction.
5. The biggest drawback in the presented research is that Gene expression was normalized to that of GAPDH. GADPH is the single house keeping gene serving as internal control.
Internal controls, mainly housekeeping genes used for the quantification of mRNA expression. Studies have revealed that at least two or three housekeeping genes should be used as internal standards because the use of a single gene for normalization could lead to relatively large errors.
The researchers are suggested to use multiple housekeeping genes as internal controls to increase the reliability of their data thus allowing for more robust normalization of gene expression.
6. The manuscript needs to be run on Grammarly for spell and grammar check.
Best Wishes
Minor editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Introduction: More explanations should be included for Iris germanica L. Any bioactive molecules from this plant must be summarized.
2) The first main issue is that the extraction of exosomes. How about the purity, quality and quantity, and the main components of the dextran phage? The MASS identification for proteins and lipids of this phage must be further investigated in detail.
3) More type of primary cell lines available for skin should be included for verifying the conclusions.
4) The discussion should mainly focus on the main findings of this paper, particularly the mechanisms behind the effects of exosomes.
The language should be improved in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Happy day
The paper can be published as it is.
However, if there is a chance, I recommended re-write the introduction part and highlight the task of the paper at last paraghraph.
More space should given to the images.
Generally, the paper is interesting, simple and informative.
No comment in the pdf file
With my pleasure
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The present article “Protective effect of Iris germanica L. rhizome-derived exosome against oxidative stress-induced cellular senescence in human epidermal keratinocytes” is dedicated to possible application of the plant compounds in therapy. This study follows the modern tendency investigating the traditional medicine by the methods of molecular and cell biology as well as evidence-based medicine to reveal the detailed mechanisms of action of the compounds of interest.
The manuscript left positive impression as a completed study. However, there are some suggestions and questions.
1. The exosomes purified from the Iris germanica L. rhizome-extract represent a water solution of nanoparticles which inherent a tendency to precipitate, and it, obviously, requires the special techniques to dilute it properly. How the concentration of exosomes was estimated and controlled during experiments?
2. Line 271. The size of exosomes is presented as an average; however, it is suggested to add a standard deviation.
3. A Water-Soluble Tetrazolium-1 (WST-1) assay in combination with MTT assay were applied for estimated of cell viability, but the protocol described slightly differs from the standard one. Which concentration of DMSO on the final stage was added?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for incorporating the suggestions. Wish you all the very best.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed this reviewer's comments nicely and the revised version are acceptable in this journal.
