Saida Hidouri

Introduction Perforation of mature ovarian teratomas is rare. This revelation may be misleading. We report a unique case of a ruptured teratoma mimicking an appendicular abscess, emphasizing the value of sharing such an experience to learn from our mistakes as well as the importance of a conservative approach in the treatment of these tumors in children. Case description A 12-year-old-girl presented to the emergency room with a 3-days history of worsening abdominal pain. She reported a fever associated with vomiting and diarrhea. On physical examination, the patient was feverish and displayed generalized tenderness, especially in the right iliac fossa where there was a palpable mass. white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels were significantly elevated. Abdominal ultrasonography confirmed appendicular abscess. Intraoperatively, a perforated right ovarian teratoma was found, and ovarian sparing surgery was performed. No postoperative complications were noted, and histology confirmed the diagnosis of a mature teratoma. Conclusion The differential diagnosis of acute abdominal pain in girls is broad and includes gynecological disorders. Ovarian teratomas can progress silently. In this case, the diagnosis can be made intraoperatively when a complication has occurred. Surgeons and radiologists are not always able to establish a positive diagnosis when there are no obvious clinicoradiological features. Even when the diagnosis is made intraoperatively, treatment must be appropriate and conservative surgery remains a therapeutic option.

Soil contamination by trace metal elements, such as aluminum and barium, presents specific environmental risks, particularly to plant health and agricultural productivity. Excessive accumulation of these toxic elements in plant tissues can alter redox equilibrium and affect homeostasis. This study sought to examine the physiological reactions of Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) under aluminum- and barium-induced stress. The plants were exposed to multiple concentrations of Al or Ba (0, 100, 200, 400 and 600 µM) for 45 days; then, the accumulation potential of Al and Ba, oxidative damage, and antioxidative metabolism were assessed. Key findings showed a proportional distribution of the Al and Ba in roots and aerial parts of the plants, with lower accumulation in the fruits. The occurrence of oxidative damage and the involvement of antioxidant enzymes were demonstrated by increased amounts of malondialdehyde and H₂O₂, enhanced activity of superoxide dismutase, and decreased catalase activity. The study also highlighted that GSH played a primary role in Al detoxification in the roots and fruits, while phytochelatins were more active in Ba-treated plants, particularly in roots and shoots, facilitating Ba sequestration.

Introduction. The cover letter is a critical component of medical journal submissions, often influencing acceptance decisions. However, authors frequently underestimate its importance. This narrative review aimed to provide guidance for authors on writing effective and succinct cover letters. Methods. We conducted a narrative review of literature on the recommended structure and content for drafting a cover letter. Results. An effective and succinct cover letter should include the names of the editor in chief and journal, submission details, ethical statements, authors' agreement, and contact information. Additional elements such as declarations of conflicts of interest, funding sources, and permissions may also be necessary. The cover letter should emphasize the manuscript's uniqueness without merely duplicating the Conclusion. Cover letters remain pivotal for manuscript acceptance and must adhere to specific guidelines.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

The impact of trace metal elements (TMEs) on plants is one current pollution problem, the severity of which is increasing with industrial development, population growth and inappropriate agricultural practices. The latter can have irreversible effects on ecosystems, including species extinction, trophic chain contamination and altered human health, particularly in the case of consumed plants such as zucchini squash (Cucurbita pepo L.). This study aims to investigate the effects of nickel on various physiological and biochemical parameters of zucchini growth, with a particular focus on how this toxic metal impacts the quality of fruit that is consumed by humans. To achieve this, plants aged 45 days were grown for one month on solid media loaded with different concentrations of Ni (0, 100, 300 and 500 µM). The results showed that exposure of plants to Ni resulted in significantly altered growth and higher accumulation of Ni in the shoots (1314 µg·g⁻¹ DW) than in roots and fruits. Concerning non-enzymatic antioxidants, the results showed that Ni toxicity significantly increased total polyphenols, especially in shoots at 300 µM Ni, while flavonoid content decreased in the roots and shoots in response to Ni treatment. Our results also show that nickel tolerance in C. pepo is ensured by a combination of several mechanisms such as an increase in the content of proline. This species can survive and tolerate, to different degrees, toxic cations at concentrations up to 500 µM but with visible symptoms of toxicity such as chlorosis of the leaves. Indeed, based on thresholds of hyperaccumulation, we can qualify Cucurbita pepo as a hyperaccumulator species of nickel.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.