Myricetin protects against 6-OHDA induced dopaminergic neurodegeneration in rats

By Live Dr - Sun Jan 11, 1:31 pm

22 February 2007

Dear Dr Ma,

Submission no.: NR-D-07-5404
Article title: Myricetin protects against 6-OHDA induced dopaminergic neurodegeneration in rats
Corresponding author: Dr ZeGang Ma

Your paper has been seen by our reviewers and I have received the Section Editor’s evaluation. Regretfully, I have to tell you that the Section Editor does not recommend acceptance of your paper in its present form and I am therefore declining it.

I append below an evaluation sheet prepared by the Section Editor outlining several concerns about the paper and suggesting changes and additions. However, the study is interesting and potentially suitable for this Journal. It may be that the problems emerged in the review could be fixed with the addition of new data and new illustrations (strictly within the length limit of our articles, which should not exceed the equivalent of four printed pages in the Journal) and an extensive revision. Therefore, if you and your colleagues feel able to answer all the criticisms raised and are willing to submit a new version, we would be interested in considering it.

I hope that you accept the challenge of resubmission. I will, of course, need a covering note referring to the submission number of your original paper (above), giving your response to our comments, and listing the changes made, which should be attached using the “Response to Review” item. If you decide to re-submit the paper to us, please consult again our Instruction to Authors, not only as regards the length of the paper: there is a limit to the length of the Abstract, we do not accept abbreviation such as PD, SN, DA, TH; the Conclusion should be very short. The English form of the manuscript is not as good as the Section Editor suggests and you will need the help of a native English-speaking colleague. What is a “performed protein”? “has the ability to protect” should be ‘protects’; “evidence to demonstrate the…” should be ‘evidence of a…’; “carefully isolated” should be ‘isolated’ (unless you specify that certain other things you do carelessly); “the present study was to investigate” is not English and it should be ‘we investigated’ or something similar; “were significantly decreased” should be ‘decreased’; “the contents of DA” should be ‘the dopamine content’; “significantly prevented” should be ‘prevented’; “this might be why” should be ‘this may be why’ (you misuse the verb ‘might’ throughout the paper); “to investigate the restoration” should be ‘to investigate that the restoration’; and so on, throughout the paper. The four Tables occupy too  much space and you should find a more effective way of presenting those data. I am not sure that you can use the phrase “dopaminergic neurodegeneration” when referring to ‘dopamine-neuron degeneration’. Please take these comments seriously and apply you revision to the entire manuscript. A re-submitted version would not be considered if it does not comply with these requirements.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Giorgio Gabella, MD DSc
Editor in Chief


Section Editor’s evaluation
Review on MS NR-D-07-5404

by Ma et al

In this study, Ma et al investigated the possible protective effects of myricetin on 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) induced neurodegeneration in the substantia nigra (SN)-striatum projection. The authors can show that myricetin does not totally prevent but significantly reduces the toxic effects of 6-OHDA. By using a reasonable combination of different methods (HPLC, TH-immunohistochemistry, RT-PCR and Perl´s iron staining), the authors can convincingly demonstrate that the neuroprotective action of myricetin is mediated via a reduction of oxidative stress due to its iron-chelating action. The results are convincing and in general well discussed. The paper is clearly written at all and of appropriate length and style.

I have only two major concerns:

1) It would be nice if the authors could include 2 figures showing some original data in addition to the statistics given by the 4 tables. I suggest one combined figure showing HPLC traces RT-PCR results (TH and GAPDH bands) for the conditions control, 6-OHDA and myricetin for the lesioned side, and a second figure showing a panel of 6 photographs of the lesioned side, 3 of TH-immunolabelled cells and 3 of iron-staining for the 3 different conditions.

2) The authors mention that in a previous study they could show that iron-staining cells are of glial but not neuronal type. Which type of cells showed increased iron staining after 6-OHDA treatment in the current study? And how is the relationship between changes in iron-staining and neuroprotective effect of myricetin if iron-stained cells are exclusively of the glial type (discussion)?

Minor points:

4) Abstract, 3rd line: “electrochemical”

5) Discussion, 2nd page: “redox reactivity”

6) Discussion of HVA increase with myricetin: The authors discuss that HVA did not decrease because of an compensatory increase in DA release. However, DA and DOPAC levels were actually decreased after 6-OHDA and only partly restored by myricetin while HVA showed an increase exceeding the normal level. How can this be explained more clearly? And, is this not contradictory to the following statements related to neuroprotective vs compensatory effects?: “Myricetin could significantly inhibit 6-OHDA induced decrease of TH positive neurons, which indicated that the upregulation of DA content after myricetin treatment was a neuroprotective effect rather than compensatory effect. The following RT-PCR results also confirmed that myricetin had neuroprotective effect against 6-OHDA toxicity.”

Leave a Reply