Aging and the Impact of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation on the Expression of Type I and Type VI Collagen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present differences in collagen I and collagen VI between chronological and photoaged skin.

I have some comments:

1. Methods: What were the criteria for classifying into healthy or sun-damaged groups? With this lacking the study can not be reproduced. Also, in the examples you give you mention eating fruit, smoking, pollution, etc. You do not mention anything about diet, pollution, or smoking in the rest of the text. If more elements are included in the causation of aging then the groups should also be divided as such: E.g. Chronological aging with photo exposure + poor diet; chronological + photo + eats fruit; chronological minus photo and eats fruit + non-smoker.. etc. Otherwise please explain if the individuals in the study were homogenous/alike between groups as to eating fruit, pollution, and smoking. Or were these factors not taken into account?

2. Tables and Figures: Table 1: Please explain what Index A and B are. Also please describe what units are used. The numbers alone (1 or 3.7 are meaningless without explanation). All tables should be self-explanatory and be read without the need to consult the text. Also, all abbreviations should be written in full as a footnote or legend. The same applies to Fig. 3

3. Figure 5: Please include an image with better resolution in Fig. 5. Histological images should be clear and with visible details when zoomed in. Histological images of low quality are useless. Also, see comments for Table 1 and fig. 3. Same applies to fig. 4

Minor:
Throughout the text, abbreviations should be given in full first time mentioned, including in the abstract.

The English needs improving. Some sentences are difficult to understand.

Author Response

Foteini Biskanaki,                                                                   February 3, 2023

24 KO

Ilion, Greece

GR-13122,

Tel/Fax: +30-2130376816

E-mail: [email protected]

 

Editor

Cosmetics

 

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your consideration of our Manuscript ID: cosmetics-2240168entitled “Aging and Impact of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in the Expression of Type I Collagen and Type Collagen VI”.

All the reviewers’ comments were up to the point, helping us to improve the manuscript. All corrections were highlighted yellow in final text.

 

Below, I will try to reply point by point to your comments.

 

Comment 1: Methods: What were the criteria for classifying into healthy or sun-damaged groups? With this lacking the study can not be reproduced. Also, in the examples you give you mention eating fruit, smoking, pollution, etc. You do not mention anything about diet, pollution, or smoking in the rest of the text. If more elements are included in the causation of aging then the groups should also be divided as such: E.g. Chronological aging with photo exposure + poor diet; chronological + photo + eats fruit; chronological minus photo and eats fruit + non-smoker.. etc. Otherwise please explain if the individuals in the study were homogenous/alike between groups as to eating fruit, pollution, and smoking. Or were these factors not taken into account?

 

Response 1:  The sample was archival material from the First Pathology Laboratory of the Medical School, whenever the characterization of tissues was already done (photoaged or biological aging or youthful skin). Also, we knew the age of each sample and its condition. The photos available at work are from personal archival material and we were allowed to publish them in the magazine to show more clearly the difference in the clinical picture of skin with photo-aging and biological aging. In these cases (Figures 1, 2) we knew details of their diet, etc. But, these factors we do not take these into account in our research because we didn't have them for the tissues.

 

Comment 2: Tables and Figures: Table 1: Please explain what Index A and B are. Also please describe what units are used. The numbers alone (1 or 3.7 are meaningless without explanation). All tables should be self-explanatory and be read without the need to consult the text. Also, all abbreviations should be written in full as a footnote or legend. The same applies to Fig. 3

Response 2: In the paragraph '' Characteristics of Tissue Samples '' we explain what Index A and Index B is. Also, we mention at the beginning that we have used a scale of 1 to 5, positively (weak +, weak to moderate ++, moderate ++ +, moderate to Severe ++++, and Severe +++++) for the evaluation of the severity of solar elastosis. In order not to be tiring in the text we do not repeat every time we use it. But if it is considered necessary we could fix it.

 

Comment 3: Figure 5: Please include an image with better resolution in Fig. 5. Histological images should be clear and with visible details when zoomed in. Histological images of low quality are useless. Also, see comments for Table 1 and fig. 3. Same applies to fig. 4

 

Response 3: Figure 5 was replaced with a better resolution.

 

Thank you for your collaboration,

Best regards,

Dr. F. Biskanaki

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is very interesting paper pointing at most iportant findings to me i.e. that solar elastosis, observed in skin tissues with photaging, did not appear to be affected in relation to age. Great obervations!  

Author Response

Foteini Biskanaki,                                                                   February 3, 2023

24 KO

Ilion, Greece

GR-13122,

Tel/Fax: +30-2130376816

E-mail: [email protected]

 

Editor

Cosmetics

 

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your comments of our Manuscript ID: cosmetics-2240168entitled “Aging and Impact of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in the Expression of Type I Collagen and Type Collagen VI”.

There are some corrections that were highlighted yellow in the final text.

Best regards,

Dr. F. Biskanaki

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all comments, but still, the criteria for what was considered healthy skin is missing.

1. If only the age of the patient was known and the grouping into healthy or not was done according to the histology then the assessment is only subjective and the presented results on healthy skin or not can not be confirmed as such.

2. If you decide to mention smoking, water intake and diet in the example photos you should mention that those factors were unknown for your sample. Please point out that the photos are just clinical examples, and are not part of the study.

3. Figure 5 is still very unclear. A paper that specifically describes histology must include images of better quality.

Author Response

Foteini Biskanaki,                                                                   February 11, 2023

24 KO

Ilion, Athens,  Greece

GR-13122,

Tel/Fax: +30-2130376816

E-mail: [email protected]

 

Editor

Cosmetics

 

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you again for your comments of our Manuscript ID: cosmetics-2240168 entitled “Aging and Impact of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in the Expression of Type I Collagen and Type Collagen VI”.

Point 1: If only the age of the patient was known and the grouping into healthy or not was done according to the histology then the assessment is only subjective and the presented results on healthy skin or not cannot be confirmed as such.

Response 1: Healthy skin was skin without solar elastosis. The archival material had been studied by pathologists of the School of Medicine in the past. We study the expression of collagen I and VI in these skins. So, we knew from the beginning if the tissue was healthy (young skin without lesion or skin with biological aging) or if it had solar elastosis (photoaging). To sum up, we knew the age of the patient, the part of the body that had been taken biopsy, and if it had solar elastosis or not.  If it hadn't solar elastosis, it had characterized healthy skin.

Point 2:  If you decide to mention smoking, water intake and diet in the example photos you should mention that those factors were unknown for your sample. Please point out that the photos are just clinical examples, and are not part of the study.

Response 2: It was corrected. We pointed out that the photos are just clinical examples, and are not part of the study. The corrections were highlighted green in revised version 2.

Point 3: Figure 5 is still very unclear. A paper that specifically describes histology must include images of better quality.

Response 3: It was replaced in Figure 5 with better quality.

Best regards,

Dr. F. Biskanaki