The Role of Wine in Modulating Inflammatory Processes: A Review
, Creina Stockley 2, Francesca Colombo 1, Simone Biella 1, Francesca Orgiu 1, Mario Dell’Agli 1 and Patrizia Restani 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review entitled “The role of wine in modulating inflammatory processes: a review” report a collection and critical assessment of data present in the scientific literature, where inflammation was linked with the intake of wine. In vitro and in vivo models as well as human trials were considered, with the purpose to identify the most suitable inflammatory biomarkers, and the most useful models/methods for the quantification of these biomarkers and their variations from moderate wine consumption. In my opinion, this review is well organized and written, and for this reason should be accepted after minor revision.
All abbreviation should be described when used for the first time
Line 13. Add an end point of the sentence.
Line 97: please add the reference number
Author Response
We'd like to thank the reviewer n. 2 for the positive comments to the article and for the suggestions.
The manuscript has been revised according to the changes and corrections suggested. In particular:
-Abbreviations have been checked and described when used for the first time
-The full-stop in the sentence at line 13 has been added
-Reference numbers at line 97 have been added.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “The role of wine in modulating inflammatory processes: a review” by Di Lorenzo and colleagues reviews the literature about wine effects on inflammation, both in vitro and in vivo. The review is well-written and the search parameters were also well set. The final selected articles were chosen wisely and describe quite satisfactorily the state of the art of the current literature about the topic.
Classification of results is well organized in 3 mayor sections (in vitro, in vivo animal models, in vivo human trials) and tables summarize the most relevant findings from an inflammatory point of view.
The difficulty in finding common patterns and comparing results are to be attributed to the differences in experimental design among the many papers, which is a common problem in most nutraceutic and omic studies.
Only few minor editing errors are present (missing full stops in some sentences, typos e.g. in line 147, etc) but I recommend publication after this minor revision.
Author Response
We'd like to thank the reviewer n. 1 for the positve comments to the article and to have underlined the difficulty in comparing experimental studies performed in different models. We checked and corrected the editing errors throughout the text.
