All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
We would like to inform you that after careful consideration by our peers, we are happy to inform you that your work has been accepted for publication with PeerJ. Please work closely with the production team for the proofread copy.
Best wishes.
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Academic Editor.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Authors have carefully addressed all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.
No comments
No comments
No comments
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to our journal. We have received feedback from peer reviewers, and I would like to inform you that the manuscript is currently categorized under "Moderate" for revisions.
I kindly request you to carefully review the feedback provided by the reviewers and respond to each point raised in detail. In particular, Reviewer 1 emphasized the importance of including specific target genes and citing recent reports. Reviewer 2 suggested the inclusion of information on microbiome shifts due to natural molecules.
It is essential that you address these specific points in your response, providing comprehensive explanations and incorporating the necessary revisions into your manuscript. Additionally, all reviewers have collectively suggested a language check for the manuscript. Therefore, please ensure that your revised work meets the highest standards in terms of language and clarity.
We appreciate your attention to these comments and look forward to receiving your point-by-point responses and the revised version of your manuscript. If you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Thank you for your dedication to the improvement of your work. We anticipate reading your revised manuscript soon.
Best wishes.
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Academic Editor.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
no comment
This review paper delves into existing studies that explore the relationship between dysbiosis of gut microbiota and Alzheimer's disease, the role of gut microbiota-derived metabolites in AD patients, and available treatment strategies in both Western and Chinese medicine. Below are my suggestions and comments:
1. The authors assert that the gut microbiota composition differs between AD patients and healthy individuals (Lines 123-124). It would be intriguing to include statistical data or numbers representing various gut microbiota compositions in both diseased and normal individuals.
2. The manuscript could benefit from a discussion on whether specific target genes are affected during microbiota imbalance in AD conditions. Elaborating on this aspect would enhance the comprehensiveness of the paper.
3. Only two papers/studies from the year 2023 are discussed. It would be valuable for the authors to incorporate more recent studies to provide an up-to-date overview of the field.
4. The language throughout the manuscript could be improved for clarity and coherence. Additionally, there is a repetition of the same word in line 133 (decreasing trend... Actinobacteria and Actinobacteria…”) and consider bolding the subheadings to enhance visual organization. This should be addressed during the revision process.
5. This review primarily focuses on Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, I suggest that the authors consider expanding the scope to include the link between microbiota and other neurological disorders, such as Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, and so on (one paragraph).
no comment
no comment
no comments
no comments
Gut Microbiota and Its Metabolites in Alzheimer's Disease: From Pathogenesis to Treatment
Line no – 133- Term Actinobacteria repeated
Line 143-144- Some more evidence can be added to the point - Variations in the gut microbiota can trigger the onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD), while the pathological changes in AD lead to ecosystem disruption by altering the gut environment
Interaction between Gut Microbiota and Traditional Chinese Traditional herbal Medicine for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease can be added to the article
The overall article is good; however, the above points can be considered for the betterment of the manuscript.
English grammar should be checked.
no comment
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.