Submited on: 08 Aug 2011 03:18:01 PM GMT
Published on: 09 Aug 2011 06:57:48 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Although the manuscript is not novel in terms of providing new hypotheses or data, it serves an important purpose in providing a conceptual introduction to the area of NK cells, free from the minutia that can distract from conveying the main concepts.  The authors nicely go back through the history of the field, and a more extensive review of recently described details could be the subject of another review.  There are, however, some aspects of the main concepts missing, and some of the conclusions are debatable.   It is surprising there is no discussion at all of what the activating ligands are for NK cells, despite having a figure showing a generic activating ligand.  Similarly, it would be useful to have some discussion of a central concept called hybrid resistance, a phenomenon that helps convey the concept that not all self MHC needs to be missing for NK cell activation.  The concept that NK cells are adept at killing ‘free moving’ cells and do not readily attack parenchymal cells within organs is also not discussed.  In terms of enhancing the potential clinical relevance of the discussion, it would be useful to add the role NK cells play in generating immune tolerance in antibody treatment regimens used in experimental transplantation tolerance.

     

    One of the author’s conclusions is that "The strategy adopted by NK cells invariably differs from T cells". It is not clear to me that the strategy of NK cells is really that much different than T cells and B cells. T cells and B cells also possess receptors that send negative co-inhibitory signals when they encounter ligands on self cells (e.g. CTLA-4/B7; PD-1/PD-L; Fas/Fas-L; FcgRIIb/IgG etc.), although self MHC is not their primary inhibitory ligand for B and T cells. Thus NK cells and T and B cells, to a substantial degree, play by the same rules. All require activating ligands and all can be inhibited by interaction with self ligands. The primary difference is that negative signals to the T and B cells are often overcome by additional positive signals from co-stimulatory receptors and T cell help, while negative signals to NK cells are primarily overcome by downregulation of the inhibitory ligand, MHC class I.

     

    The two models discussed on page 4 should include citations to the originators of each model.

     

    'Tolerance' would be useful additional keyword

     

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NK cell function is one of our areas of interest

  • How to cite:  Anderson C .Review of: The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy[Review of the article 'The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy ' by Sreerama K].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW001012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
I am highly grateful to the reviewer Dr. Colin Anderson for having gone through completely our article > The Natural killer cell- missing self recognition strategy. I am glad that Dr. Colin raised a few queries out of the article. I am happy to respond to queries : As mentioned by Dr. Colin the article is a conceptual introduction in the subject. Primarily the article is written tor the benefit of graduate students as NK cells and Missing self have not appeared in the text books and also for a few teachers who did not go through the extensive literature on NK cells. With regard to the activating ligands: I was also having the doubt in this line. I contacted one of my co author, Dr. T Lakshmikanth in this line. He indicated that the activating ligands have not yet been defined. It is just indicated as aL. It is true as indicated by Dr. Colin that Not all MHC class I needs to be missing for activating NK cell. There is a calibration model, the upset in the balance or depletion of MHC class I would be sufficient for the activation of NK cells. With regard to the parenchymal cell killing- I did not survey the literature in this line. Certainly, I shall go through now. Another important query raised by Dr. Colin is The strategy adopted by NK cells invariably differs from T cells I confess here that it is my statement. While teaching immune cells in the class room, intuitively, the idea came that NK cell identifies the target cell having missed Missing-Self (MHC class I), whereas the T- cytotoxic cell identifies the target cell which presents viral peptides through MHC class I. I hereby request Dr. Colin to appreciate this point of view. Citation in page no. 4. Ya the number of references are less in this article. Tolerance as a key word. We did not use the word Tolerance in our article to envisage our concept. Once again, I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Colin Anderson for going through our article in detail and also critically. with regards s.Krupanidhi
Responded by Prof. Krupanidhi Sreerama on 15 Oct 2011 07:59:03 AM

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    1. The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy, is an interesting topic chosen by the authors for a review article.

    2. Authors may include more tables and figures necessary to justify the interpretations and conclusions presented in the article.

    3. Authors may also add data on various diseases to bring in a heterogenous awareness of the topic.

    4. Structure and length of the article can further be strengthened by the inclusion of data as mentioned in comment 3.

    5.  With various diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, obesity, diabetes etc; it is essential to touch upon the immune system under such conditions to increase the value of this paper for an international audience.

    6. The quality of the article is currently targeted towards undergrad and graduate students. Authors may taget research audience as well.

    7. Further illustrations, tables and data need to be included to strengthen the article.

    8. The topic is well documented in the literature and the authors may justify by crediting the original research scientists. References to this effect may be included.

    9. Considering the above mentioned points, the keywords, abstract and summary information may be modified.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    My interest lies in this area is in age related diseases.

  • How to cite:  Karri S .The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy [Review of the article 'The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy ' by Sreerama K].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00942
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is a very important article and has specific relevance to the current developments and advances in the field of immunotherapy including immunotherapies to cancer. I find this article highly suitable for publication and will be very informative for a broad range of audience.



     



     

  • Competing interests:
    NO
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    My experience / expertise in this area pertains broadly to hematology, specifically to red cell biology and myeloid leukemia.

  • How to cite:  Sathyanarayana P .The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy[Review of the article 'The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy ' by Sreerama K].WebmedCentral 2011;2(8):WMCRW00900
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    Although the hypothesis highlighted in the article is interesting, for a systematic review, a more thorough and detailed study would be preferable.

     

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Jaseja H, Badaya S, Tonpay P. Immuno-prophylaxis against development of cardiac valvular complications in patients with rheumatic fever: A proposed method . WebmedCentral IMMUNOLOGY 2010;1(9):WMC00758
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Satisfactory experience.

  • How to cite:  Jaseja H .The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy [Review of the article 'The Natural Killer Cell - 'Missing-Self' Recognition Strategy ' by Sreerama K].WebmedCentral 2011;2(8):WMCRW00894
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse