Investigating Forkhead Box O Transcription Factor 1 Gene’s Relation to Immunoglobulin E in House Dust Mite-Allergic Asthma Patients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear All,
The relevance of the research described in the manuscript is beyond doubt. The search for biomarkers of HDM allergy in patients with asthma and studying the level of gene expression of Sirt1 and FoxO1 is an extremely important task described in this original study. It should be noted that the research itself was carried out with high quality, and the material itself is well presented.

It seems to me that minimal edits could improve the article:

Lines 93-96: It would be better if the purpose of the research was clearly indicated here.

Lines 98-106: Justification for sample size needs to be added. Why were there 60 patients divided into two groups and not more? Was this preliminary research?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear All,

The relevance of the research described in the manuscript is beyond doubt. The search for biomarkers of HDM allergy in patients with asthma and studying the level of gene expression of Sirt1 and FoxO1 is an extremely important task described in this original study. It should be noted that the research itself was carried out with high quality, and the material itself is well presented. It seems to me that minimal edits could improve the article:

Point 1:

Lines 93-96: It would be better if the purpose of the research was clearly indicated here.

Response: done. Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.

Point 2:

Lines 98-106: Justification for sample size needs to be added. Why were there 60 patients divided into two groups and not more? Was this preliminary research?

Response: Done. This is an original manuscript and the sample size was calculated using the Open Epi program with a confidence level of 95% and power of 80% (chance of detection) which was satisfactory for our results to reach the significance level. Lines 109- 118.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed FOXO1 gene expression in HDM allergic asthma patients. This paper is interesting, and the data presentation and interpretation are reasonable. I have some minor comments.

 

Lines 24 to 25.

The phrase “Total IgE and is strikingly elevated in HDM/AA and ..” is difficult for me to understand. Please change to a better phrase.

 

Lines 99 and 102.

The number of each group was forty, and not thirty.

 

Table 3, Figure 1 and line 215.

D. farina needs to be changed to D. farinae.

 

Table 3 and Figure 1.

Why is the number of both D. pteronyssinus and D. farinae sensitive patients more than D. farinae sensitive patients? Usually, the number of group A ≥ the number of group A and group B overlap.

 

Table 3 and Figure 2.

The SD of FEV1/FVC (%) (17.01%) is very large. It may mean that the patients include severe asthmatics with very low FEV1/FVC. Is the SD correct?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor corrections are necessary as I wrote already.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed FOXO1 gene expression in HDM allergic asthma patients. This paper is interesting, and the data presentation and interpretation are reasonable. I have some minor comments.

 

Point 1:

Lines 24 to 25. The phrase “Total IgE and is strikingly elevated in HDM/AA and ..” is difficult for me to understand. Please change to a better phrase.

Response: done. Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.

 

 Point 2:

Lines 99 and 102. The number of each group was forty, and not thirty.

Response: fixed.

 

Point 3:

Table 3, Figure 1 and line 215. D. farina needs to be changed to D. farinae.

Response: done

 

 Point 4:

Table 3 and Figure 1. Why is the number of both D. pteronyssinus and D. farinae sensitive patients more than D. farinae sensitive patients? Usually, the number of group A ≥ the number of group A and group B overlap.

 

Response: After returning to the original data and patients records, table 3 and figure 1 have edited as 68.75% patients were allergic to D. pteronyssinus, 61.25% to D. farinae and 61.25% were allergic to both mite’s species. It is also edited in discussion section.

 

 Point 5:

Table 3 and Figure 2. The SD of FEV1/FVC (%) (17.01%) is very large. It may mean that the patients include severe asthmatics with very low FEV1/FVC. Is the SD correct?

Response: By revising the original data record we found a mistake in the data entry to the graph prism program. The mistake has been corrected. Results, Table 3 and figure 2 have been edited.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled " Investigating FOXO 1 gene relation to Immunoglobulin E in House Dust Mite Allergic Asthma patients ". The manuscript is well written and easy to read, and provides an interesting overview of the possible asthma phenotypes. The topic is important for classification of asthma patients with allergic components. The authors tried to analyse genetic factors that contribute to allergica asthma. There are no major objections. However, I would recommend adding limitations in the discussion section. Moreover, please add conclusion section after discussions. The list of references includes the vast majority of the available data. please take into account the recommendations in the spirit of improving the quality of the submission.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled " Investigating FOXO 1 Gene Relation to Immunoglobulin E in House Dust Mite Allergic Asthma Patients ". The manuscript is well-written and easy to read and provides an interesting overview of the possible asthma phenotypes. The topic is important for the classification of asthma patients with allergic components. The authors tried to analyze genetic factors that contribute to allergic asthma. There are no major objections. However, I would recommend adding limitations in the discussion section. Moreover, please add a conclusion section after discussions. The list of references includes the vast majority of the available data. please take into account the recommendations in the spirit of improving the quality of the submission.

 

Response: Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. Limitations and conclusion sections were added after the discussions section. The references section was revised and some references were deleted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf