Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorMarcelo MoriState University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
- Senior EditorDavid JamesUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
In this paper Homan et al used mouse models of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and different specific target deletions in cells to rule out the role of Complement 3a Receptor 1 in the pathogenesis of disease. They provided limited evidence and only descriptive results that despite C3aR being relevant in different contexts of inflammation, however, these tenets did not hold true.
Weaknesses:
(1) The results are based on readouts showing that C3aR is not involved in the pathogenesis of liver metabolic disease.
(2) The description of the mouse models they used to validate their findings is not clear. Lysm-cre mice - which are claimed to delete C3aR in (?) macrophages are not specific for these cells, and the genetic strategy to delete C3aR in Kupffer cells is not clear.
(3) Taking this into account, it is very challenging to determine the validity of these data, also considering that they are merely descriptive and correlative.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Homan et al. examined the effect of macrophage- or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1 KO on MASLD/MASH-related metabolic or liver phenotypes.
Strengths:
Established macrophage- or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1 KO mice.
Weaknesses:
Lack of in-depth study; flaws in comparisons between KC-specific C3aR1KO and WT in the context of MASLD/MASH, because MASLD/MASH WT mice likely have a low abundance of C3aR1 on KCs.
Homan et al. reported a set of observation data from macrophage or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1KO mice. Several questions and concerns as follows could challenge the conclusions of this study:
(1) As C3aR1 is robustly repressed in MASLD or MASH liver, GAN feeding likely reduced C3aR1 abundance in the liver of WT mice. Thus, it is not surprising that there were no significant differences in liver phenotypes between WT vs. C3aR1KO mice after prolonged GAN diet feeding. It would give more significance to the study if restoring C3aR1 abundance in KCs in the context of MASLD/MASH.
(2) Would C3aR1KO mice develop liver abnormalities after a short period of GAN diet feeding?
(3) What would be the liver macrophage phenotypes in WT vs C3aR1KO mice after GAN feeding?
(4) In Fig 1D, >25wks GAN feeding had minimal effects on female body weight gain. These GAN-fed female mice also develop NASLD/MASH liver abnormalities?
(5) Would C3aR1KO result in differences in liver phenotypes, including macrophage population/activation, liver inflammation, lipogenesis, in lean mice?
(6) The authors should provide more information regarding the generation of KC-specific C3aR1KO. Which Cre mice were used to breed with C3aR1 flox mice?