Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It has been a pleasure to read and comment on this review. It is very timely as mitochondrial dysfunction in preeclampsia has been investigated for quite some time. Overall the narrative is very well written. Some of my comments to improve readability of the review is to create a summary table of currently used mitochondria-targetting antioxidants rather than long text on each agent.

Also, I would encourage authors to include some narrative around different phenotypes of preeclampsia, particularly early- and late-onset preeclampsia and whether mitochondrial dysfunction plays a different role in these different phenotypes.

Clinical translation of these pre-clinically tested agents especiallly MitoQ and MitoTempo has been discussed - this information should also be included in a summary table.

Regarding the use of Vitamic C and E in prevention of preeclampsia, the authors have not discussed the DAPIT study - this is one of the largest RCT in pregnant women with diabetes to prevent preeclampsia  that also shown that Vitamin C&E did not manage to prevent preeclampsia but when they looked at the subanalysis of those with low anti-oxidant levels they saw some significant. This discussion should be included also.

Minor comment:

Why do some section include where some of the authors word was published. Seems rather unusual.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presented is a detailed document on a current topic that lacks studies to prove the compelling advantage of antioxidant therapy in treating or preventing preeclampsia.
The document must be accepted as presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In their manuscript, the Authors aimed to review the existing literature and offer insights on the potential of mitochondrial antioxidants in treating PE.

The topic is of interest because oxidative stress has been identified as one of the crucial players in pathogenesis of PE, garnering a great deal of attention by several research groups. Sections are well-written and updated in terms of references. It could be considered a good state-of-art for beginners. However, the paper is lacking in considering current approaches in PE prevention, such as aspirin (from ASPRE trial). This aspect should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf