Zhang JH, Chen K, Zhu XM, Zhou H, Jiang JM, Zou YQ, Liu KR, Zhang L, Li Y. Exercise-responsive skeletal muscle genes mechanistically linked to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(13): 113985 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i13.113985]
Reader's ID:
08628847
Submitted on:
March 29, 2026, 08:29
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
The authors integrated multiple GEO datasets, combined bioinformatics methods such as WGCNA and LASSO, and identified four exercise-responsive skeletal muscle genes (LAMA4, PECAM1, PXDN, THBS4), which were subsequently validated in an animal model. The study is clear in its approach and logically coherent. Its value lies in moving beyond the general attribution of exercise-induced improvement in MASLD to simply weight loss or metabolic improvement, instead attempting to pinpoint specific molecular mediators from the perspective of muscle–liver crosstalk. In particular, the detectability of PECAM1 and THBS4 in serum suggests their potential as liquid biopsy biomarkers or myokine-like candidates, offering reference value for the future development of exercise-mimetic drugs or precision intervention strategies.
Reader's ID:
05408889
Submitted on:
March 28, 2026, 01:32
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
This is a well-organized and potentially meaningful study investigating exercise-responsive skeletal muscle biomarkers in MASLD. The integration of multiple GEO datasets, combined with WGCNA, LASSO modeling, validation cohort analysis, and animal experiments, represents a comprehensive approach. The identification of candidate genes involved in muscle-liver communication is of interest and may contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of exercise in MASLD. Nevertheless, one issue should be clarified. In the “Identification of DEGs” section and in Figure 1, the authors indicate that GSE161749, GSE48278, GSE156247, and GSE53598 were included. However, in Figure 2A/2B, the PCA legend appears to include GSE72462 instead of GSE156247. Please clarify which dataset was actually used and correct the figure or text accordingly.
Author's Reply:
Replied on March 29, 2026, 14:31
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable constructive comments on our manuscript.
We sincerely apologize for the careless inconsistency in the description of GEO datasets in our original text and figures. After a thorough recheck of our raw data and analytical pipelines, we would like to make a clear clarification as follows:
The actual datasets included in our DEG identification and PCA analysis were GSE72462, GSE48278, GSE156247, and GSE53598. The mention of GSE161749 in the “Identification of DEGs” section and Figure 1 was a writing error caused by manuscript formatting negligence; meanwhile, GSE72462 shown in the PCA plots (Figure 2A/2B) is the correct dataset we used in the whole analysis.
Notably, this textual description error is merely a typographical mistake and does not affect all raw data analysis, model construction, experimental results, or the main conclusions of our study.
We have already contacted the journal editor and publisher to report this error, and we are carrying out targeted revisions to the manuscript. We will uniformly correct all mismatched descriptions in the main text, figures, and figure legends, and have double-checked the full manuscript to rule out other similar minor errors.
We are extremely grateful for your thoughtful reminder and valuable feedback, which allowed us to correct this error in a timely manner. We will finish all revisions promptly and ensure the manuscript fully meets the publication standards.
Thank you again for your time and kind guidance.
Sincerely,
Li Yun