Next Article in Journal
Fisetin Modulates Toll-like Receptor-Mediated Innate Antiviral Response in Chikungunya Virus-Infected Hepatocellular Carcinoma Huh7 Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanisms of Resistance and Strategies to Combat Resistance in PD-(L)1 Blockade
Previous Article in Special Issue
Macrophages and Epithelial Cells Mutually Interact through NLRP3 to Clear Infection and Enhance the Gastrointestinal Barrier
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Uptake and Advanced Therapy of Butyrate in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

by Shinji Ota and Hirotake Sakuraba *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Submission received: 5 October 2022 / Revised: 14 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 25 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GI Tract Immunology and Mucosal Immunity)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript in my opinion is very interesting,  
as the authors wrote ,butyrate utilization and uptake are impaired in IECs and its role in the treatment of IBD coul be useful.

Mauscript is well written.

I suggest to add a table with the main papers so the reviewers can focus immediatly the most important topic.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, Ota et al. review the role of butyrate in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The article is well-written and sheds light on butyrate absorption and metabolism in IBD patients and their impact on drug therapy.

The authors need to address the following concerns to make the article acceptable:

  1. Although the article touches upon most of the critical aspects of butyrate metabolism, the primary concern is that all the topics have been just briefly touched upon without any comprehensive discussion. For every topic, the authors need to provide details of in vitro and in vivo studies. For e.g., the role of MCT1 in IECs has been extensively studied and well-established through several models. However, the authors highlight only a few selected studies and base their conclusions. They need to provide more evidence and further discuss the topic. Similarly, they need to be comprehensive for all the other topics.
  2. To improve the flow of the article, a brief background on IBD pathogenesis, different players involved in it, and then links to butyrate would be useful.
  3. In the section "How does the gut microbiota influence the response to advanced therapies?" the authors should discuss how butyrate alters gut microbiota composition and affects therapies. Conversely, they must also discuss if treatments alter gut microbiota and butyrate metabolism.
  4. The authors need to add an additional section (it could be the conclusion section) discussing the implications of the butyrate literature on the diagnosis and/or treatment of different disorders.
  5. A table or a figure on the controversial role of butyrate would enhance ease of understanding.
  6. The conclusion section does not clarify the role of butyrate, which is the article's main topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript “Butyrate uptake and advanced therapy in inflammatory bowel disease”, authors have written abstract in well convincing manner. A well written of introduction with relevant background.  However following points need to be addressed.

1.    In first paragraph of page 2, authors have described role of butyrate and immune system partially. Authors should introduce role of butyrate in context of immuno-inflammation.

2.    Title should be redefined as some part is mismatched with introduction. For example, “butyrate uptake and advance therapies of butyrate…….”

3.    In section 4, second paragraph is not written in details and confusing with context of cAMP pathways

4.    In section 7, authors discussed superficially on advance therapy with butyrate and novel therapy targeting SCFA transporters.

5.    In section 7, authors discussed superficially worsening role of butyrate in colitis, needs to discuss in detail.

6.    Conclusion is not written in broad manner, should be re-write.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have a done a good job addressing most of my concerns. The article can be accepted in the present form!

Reviewer 3 Report

In revised manuscript, I have no further comments.

Back to TopTop