The Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)-Preventing Mechanism of Natural Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.
- Line 13- Please rephrase “in the old”
- Line 14- Rephrase “and according to the aging the population of patients should increase”
- Line 21-23 -The authors repeat the same phrase.
- Line 27-29- Please rephrase.
- Line 95, line 173 – Please replace “lots of”
- Line 156 – Please remove “et al.”
- Line 245-247 – Please rephrase this paragraph.
- Line 283-284 – Please rephrase.
- Line 286 – The authors need to first introduce the abbreviation “PSCs” and “MSCs” as pluripotent stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells.
- Line 296-298 – Please state which challenges need to be solved.
Author Response
Really thank you so much for the reviewer’s generous and informative comments and based on them I amended the manuscript like below.
The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.
- Line 13- Please rephrase “in the old”
Ans) I changed the word as ‘in old people’.
- Line 14- Rephrase “and according to the aging the population of patients should increase”
Ans) I rephrased this sentence.
- Line 21-23 -The authors repeat the same phrase.
Ans) I rephrased this sentence.
- Line 27-29- Please rephrase.
Ans) I rephrased this sentence.
- Line 95, line 173 – Please replace “lots of”
Ans) I changed the word as ‘many’.
- Line 156 – Please remove “et al.”
Ans) I removed the words, “et al”.
- Line 245-247 – Please rephrase this paragraph.
Ans) I rephrased this paragraph.
- Line 283-284 – Please rephrase.
Ans) I rephrased this sentence.
- Line 286 – The authors need to first introduce the abbreviation “PSCs” and “MSCs” as pluripotent stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells.
Ans) I added the abbreviation “PSCs” and “MSCs” in the first introduce them.
- Line 296-298 – Please state which challenges need to be solved.
Ans) I added several items/challenges which need to be solved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, Park and co-workers review the use of natural products for the prevention of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), with an emphasis on mechanistic principles and insights. They discussed three major mechanisms – anti-oxidative stress effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and anti-carbonyl stress effects. Overall, the angle of this review is novel. However, the authors did not elaborate on sufficient efforts to make it comprehensive. The discussion/figure is too brief and therefore does not carry too much information. I suggest a major revision for now to let the authors polish their work further. Below are some useful comments.
- A general introduction is needed before section 1. The author shall explain the history/background using lay language, followed by a quick overview of the paper structure.
- It is unusual for a review paper to have only 1 figure. As there is plenty of space, consider summarizing the major findings of the papers discussed in section 3 as a table or multiple tables.
- The clinical studies regarding AMD prevention are underlooked in the manuscript. Please search and include relevant trials, including their trial number and major findings. Add necessary discussion/table when necessary.
- I would recommend adding more perspective/outlook paragraphs as a new section, or to the existing conclusion.
- Please carefully proofread and correct minor typos (e.g. line 226, carbonly -> carbonyl).
Author Response
In this manuscript, Park and co-workers review the use of natural products for the prevention of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), with an emphasis on mechanistic principles and insights. They discussed three major mechanisms – anti-oxidative stress effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and anti-carbonyl stress effects. Overall, the angle of this review is novel. However, the authors did not elaborate on sufficient efforts to make it comprehensive. The discussion/figure is too brief and therefore does not carry too much information. I suggest a major revision for now to let the authors polish their work further. Below are some useful comments.
Reply) Dear Reviewer. Thank you so much for your generous and kind comments for polishing our work further. And according to the comment the manuscript will be edited by MDPI Publications.
- A general introduction is needed before section 1. The author shall explain the history/background using lay language, followed by a quick overview of the paper structure.
Ans) I added the background of this work and explained the outline of this manuscript.
- It is unusual for a review paper to have only 1 figure. As there is plenty of space, consider summarizing the major findings of the papers discussed in section 3 as a table or multiple tables.
Ans) I added two figures and one table that they make the readers to easily understand this paper.
- The clinical studies regarding AMD prevention are underlooked in the manuscript. Please search and include relevant trials, including their trial number and major findings. Add necessary discussion/table when necessary.
Ans) I added the ongoing clinical trials about early (dry) AMD drug.
- I would recommend adding more perspective/outlook paragraphs as a new section, or to the existing conclusion.
Ans) I added them in the Discussion section.
- Please carefully proofread and correct minor typos (e.g. line 226, carbonly -> carbonyl).
Ans) I amended the typo.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the reviewer's comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did a great job in addressing my comments – I have no more questions. Accept as it is.
