Next Article in Journal
The Dynamics of β-Amyloid Proteoforms Accumulation in the Brain of a 5xFAD Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease
Next Article in Special Issue
Looking at Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing from the Perspective of an Invertebrate Embryo
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Antimicrobial Peptide Sparanegtin Identified in Scylla paramamosain Showing Antimicrobial Activity and Immunoprotective Role In Vitro and Vivo
Previous Article in Special Issue
Overview of Drug Transporters in Human Placenta
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Aluminium Contamination on the Nervous System of Freshwater Aquatic Vertebrates: A Review

by Marie Closset 1, Katia Cailliau 1, Sylvain Slaby 2 and Matthieu Marin 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 13 October 2021 / Revised: 7 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 December 2021 / Published: 21 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript authors reviewed the recent studies on the assessment of aluminium toxicity on the nervous system of freshwater aquatic vertebrates. Overall, this is a clear, succinct ad well-written review article. I recommend this article for publication in Int. J. Mol. Sci after minor revision.

There are few points that need to be addressed in the paper:

  1. Authors need to provide a graphical abstract to present an overview of the review.
  2. The abstract does not provide a concise and complete summary, the Abstract must be rewrriten.
  3. The information in the table should better presented. For example, I recommend to add new columns for exposure conditions, with Lifespan Stages (embryos, larvae and adults), concentrations (ug L-), Exposure Period with Acute or chronic exposure, as well as the effects should be presented more concise.
  4. The sentence ,,In conclusion, further studies are needed to better characterize Al neurotoxic effects during whole developmental processes with the determination of the critical periods of time, duration, and the quantities that threaten freshwater life." need to be detailed.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer #1 for the work he made. All the remarks were considered to improve the quality of our review. Modifications were made through the manuscript and appear in red text in the document.

  1. A graphical abstract was added.
  2. The abstract was rewritten.
  3. All the data concerning the lifespan stages, the exposure periods and the effects were in our tables. Since these data were not available in another review, it appears important to let them in the table. Moreover, as you can see in the manuscript, a significant work of formatting was made in order to present all these data. Add new columns will not allow to keep this format. 
  4. The last paragraph of the manuscript was amended.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Effects of aluminium contamination on the nervous system of freshwater aquatic vertebrates: a review" provides an up-to-date and important information on the effects of aluminium on aquatic vertebrates. This review compiles scientific data on the neurotoxicity of aluminium and identifies biomarkers of aluminium exposure for aquatic environment biomonitoring in freshwater aquatic vertebrates. It also poses the question of accurate aquatic vertebrates as model organisms that could complement the biological data relating to the developmental aspect.  This data is relevant for a broad public since this the freshwater pollution with heavy metals increased in the last decades. It is perfectly clear to anyone familiar with this field of work that it had to be a great effort for authors to plan and conduct such a study, and I have a great appreciation for this. The manuscript is written in clear language and the background provides sufficient literature review. Overall, a good read.

I fully support the publication of this paper in International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer #2 for the work he made. Some points were corrected, changed and / or amended throughout the manuscript. This appears in red text in the document.

Back to TopTop