Manuscript entitled “Methyl jasmonate protects microglial cells against β-amyloid-induced oxidative stress and inflammation via Nrf2-dependent HO-1 pathway” explored the anti-inflammatory effect of Methyl jasmonate on microglia in vitro. The manuscript title and beyond hypothesis seem novel and topic of the neurobiological field. However, there are some points need further consideration prior to final acceptance.

1. There are numerous typos errors and grammatical issues through the manuscript. I recommend deep and fundamental English revise.
2. I found that some syntax errors through the manuscript. For instance, the term hyper-secretion term is not common and should be replaced with the term overproduction.
3. In material and methods section, the culture protocol and other experiments should be explained in details. For instance, authors are asked to mention the final concentration of FBS used for microglia expansion. The number of passages used for different analyses should also be inserted into the manuscript.
4. In condition that cells were treated with MeJA and Aβ, the concentration of FBS should be also implicated.
5. The exact protocol for the addition of MeJA and Aβ to cell culture should be completely described in detail.
6. In the panel consisted of transfection of mouse microglial cells with relevant siRNA against the Nrf2, I could not find data related to transfection rate. Therefore, some assays are essential to show the transfection rate for better justification.
7. I think that authors missed the statistical analysis section in the Material and Method section. The type of analysis and replicates should be included in this section.
8. The statistical analysis and relevant statistical differences should be pointed in the results.
9. The IF staining lacks scale bars. Please include the scale bar.
10. I suggest the authors to re-order the groups in different panel in a same manner. For example, the order of groups in IF (DCDFH) panel was different from the other panels.
11. I suggest the authors to bring the total level of MDA in different group rather than normalized to the control cells.
12. The molecular weight of each factors should be indicated in the front of each immunoblot in the western blotting panel.
13. Authors should re-check the statistical differences between the Aβ and Aβ +MeJA related to the p-NFKβ, TLR-4 and TNF-α.
14. It is better that authors express data in IF panels as semi-quantitative data by expressing the percent of fluorescent positive cells.
15. Authors could bring some facts about the potency of TLR signaling in cell dynamic growth. For this purpose, authors could refer to the following articles; Cell Tissue Res. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1007/s00441-019-03119-2 and J Cell Physiol. 2019 Nov;234(11):19451-19463.
16. The discussion should be re-write in detail with description of the current data and compare to the previous data.
17. In conclusion, authors could not definitely introduce the MeJA as putative drug for AD and other neurodegenerative disorders.
18. The limitation of the current experiment is mandatory to be inserted at the end of discussion section.
19. Replicates for each panel should be mentioned in the Figure legends.