Therapeutic Role of Microglia/Macrophage Polarization in Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments

This review, titled "Therapeutic Role of Microglia/Macrophage Polarization in Intracerebral Hemorrhage," summarizes the significance of the polarization state of microglia/macrophages in the pathogenesis of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The authors effectively highlight the use of pharmacological agents to shift the polarization state from M1 to M2 in microglia/macrophages. The following suggestions are provided for further clarification and improvement:

Minor Comments:

1. Table 1: Please include specific references for the roles of immune cells in ICH in the last column of the table, adjacent to the roles mentioned.
2. Provide global statistics on the prevalence of ICH in the Introduction to enhance the manuscript's rigor.
3. Table 2: Include information on the mode of administration for the pharmacological agents listed, specifically regarding their therapeutic effects in ICH.
4. Do brain cells such as oligodendrocytes or pericytes play a role in the pathogenesis of ICH?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for considering my article, entitled " Therapeutic role of microglia/macrophage polarization in intracerebral hemorrhage, Ref.:  ctn-3346344", for the minor revision.

 

-Based on the suggestions, the changes have been made throughout the text. The changes highlighted by track change program.

Note: We noticed some writing errors in Figure-2. We revised and re-uploaded it.

 

Sincerely,

Rasit 

 

To Reviewer-1:

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?
Is the English used correct and readable?

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments

This review, titled "Therapeutic Role of Microglia/Macrophage Polarization in Intracerebral Hemorrhage," summarizes the significance of the polarization state of microglia/macrophages in the pathogenesis of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The authors effectively highlight the use of pharmacological agents to shift the polarization state from M1 to M2 in microglia/macrophages. The following suggestions are provided for further clarification and improvement:

Minor Comments:

1. Table 1: Please include specific references for the roles of immune cells in ICH in the last column of the table, adjacent to the roles mentioned.: Done.
2. Provide global statistics on the prevalence of ICH in the Introduction to enhance the manuscript's rigor.: Added with the new reference.
3. Table 2: Include information on the mode of administration for the pharmacological agents listed, specifically regarding their therapeutic effects in ICH.: Included.
4. Do brain cells such as oligodendrocytes or pericytes play a role in the pathogenesis of ICH?: Their roles stated as last paragraph under subheading “3.1. Local immune cells”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the role of microglia/macrophage polarization in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The topic is timely and highly relevant given the need for novel therapeutic approaches to ICH, which remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The authors have successfully synthesized a complex body of literature to highlight the potential of immunotherapeutic strategies targeting microglia and macrophages in ICH.

The review is well-structured and covers a broad range of topics from the basic immunology of ICH to potential therapeutic interventions. However, the authors might consider expanding the discussion on the molecular mechanisms underlying microglia/macrophage polarization and how these mechanisms contribute to ICH pathophysiology.

The manuscript cites a wide range of studies, providing a solid foundation for the arguments presented. I recommend that the authors ensure that the literature review is up-to-date by including any recent publications that may have been missed.

The figures and tables provided are helpful in visualizing complex processes. I suggest the authors consider adding a figure that summarizes the key pathways and therapeutic targets discussed in the review to aid reader comprehension.

While the manuscript provides a thorough overview of the immunological aspects of ICH, it could benefit from a stronger emphasis on the clinical implications of these findings. The authors should consider discussing how these insights might influence current and future clinical management strategies for ICH.

The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points of the review. I suggest the authors also provide a perspective on future research directions and the potential impact of these findings on patient outcomes.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for considering my article, entitled " Therapeutic role of microglia/macrophage polarization in intracerebral hemorrhage, Ref.:  ctn-3346344", for the minor revision.

 

-Based on the suggestions, the changes have been made throughout the text. The changes highlighted by track change program.

Note: We noticed some writing errors in Figure-2. We revised and re-uploaded it.

 

Sincerely,

Rasit 

 

To Reviewer-2:

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?
Is the English used correct and readable?

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the role of microglia/macrophage polarization in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The topic is timely and highly relevant given the need for novel therapeutic approaches to ICH, which remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The authors have successfully synthesized a complex body of literature to highlight the potential of immunotherapeutic strategies targeting microglia and macrophages in ICH.

-The review is well-structured and covers a broad range of topics from the basic immunology of ICH to potential therapeutic interventions. However, the authors might consider expanding the discussion on the molecular mechanisms underlying microglia/macrophage polarization and how these mechanisms contribute to ICH pathophysiology.: Additions have been made throughout the text. However, in order not to detract from the integrity of the subject, very large molecular details have been avoided.

-The manuscript cites a wide range of studies, providing a solid foundation for the arguments presented. I recommend that the authors ensure that the literature review is up-to-date by including any recent publications that may have been missed.: Updates have been made regarding references.

-The figures and tables provided are helpful in visualizing complex processes. I suggest the authors consider adding a figure that summarizes the key pathways and therapeutic targets discussed in the review to aid reader comprehension.: Figure 2 was drawn to summarize the basic immunological steps in the pathological pathway (with 7 summarized steps). The figure also shows an example of potential therapeutic intervention (from step 2 to arrow 6). We agree with the reviewer's suggestion, but in our opinion, more details would complicate the focus of the readers of this article on the main topic. Moreover, many of therapeutic need further study in terms of specific mechanisms. We hope that the reviewer agrees with us on this.

-While the manuscript provides a thorough overview of the immunological aspects of ICH, it could benefit from a stronger emphasis on the clinical implications of these findings. The authors should consider discussing how these insights might influence current and future clinical management strategies for ICH.: This issue has been emphasized as the last paragraphs of “Discussion”.

-The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points of the review. I suggest the authors also provide a perspective on future research directions and the potential impact of these findings on patient outcomes.: They have been added with “Future perspective and Conclusions” subtitle after the “Discussion”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf