Next Article in Journal
Rotating Magnetic Field Increases β-Lactam Antibiotic Susceptibility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains
Next Article in Special Issue
Contribution of the Transcription Factors Sp1/Sp3 and AP-1 to Clusterin Gene Expression during Corneal Wound Healing of Tissue-Engineered Human Corneas
Previous Article in Journal
Distinct and Overlapping Functions of Miscanthus sinensis MYB Transcription Factors SCM1 and MYB103 in Lignin Biosynthesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Complexation of CXCL12, FGF-2 and VEGF with Heparin Modulates the Protein Release from Alginate Microbeads
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 22
Issue 22
10.3390/ijms222212392
Review Report
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparing the Osteogenic Potential and Bone Regeneration Capacities of Dedifferentiated Fat Cells and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells In Vitro and In Vivo: Application of DFAT Cells Isolated by a Mesh Method

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(22), 12392; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222212392
by Kiyofumi Takabatake 1, Masakazu Matsubara 2,*, Eiki Yamachika 2,3,*, Yuki Fujita 4, Yuki Arimura 2, Kazuki Nakatsuji 2, Keisuke Nakano 1, Histoshi Nagatsuka 1 and Seiji Iida 2,4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(22), 12392; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222212392
Submission received: 29 October 2021 / Revised: 14 November 2021 / Accepted: 16 November 2021 / Published: 17 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the the conducted research, the authors chose the appropriate methodology allowing for the performance of the intended research. Authors should explain why they did not include the expression results of the surface markers. I think about positive (CD105, CD73, CD90)

and negative markers (eg.CD34 and CD45). Have tests been performed to show which cells (adipocytes and chondrocytes) differentiate the isolated stem cells into? Information about such a test should be included.
The conclusions could be more advanced.

Author Response

In the conducted research, the authors chose the appropriate methodology allowing for the performance of the intended research. Authors should explain why they did not include the expression results of the surface markers. I think about positive (CD105, CD73, CD90) and negative markers (eg.CD34 and CD45). Have tests been performed to show which cells (adipocytes and chondrocytes) differentiate the isolated stem cells into? Information about such a test should be included.

The conclusions could be more advanced.

→Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with you. We have performed FACS on adipose stem cells. The results showed CD105, CD73, CD90 positive and CD34 and CD45 negative. However, we have not performed FACS on DFAT cells which were isolated by us because in this study we only focus on the DFAT cells differentiation into bone tissue.

In the future, we will analyze the characteristics of DFAT cells established by the mesh method in detail using FACS. We have added the comment of our study limitation in discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is hard to read. Many important concepts and findings are hidden because of poor English throughout the entire manuscript. The mesh method here described is interesting and the core of the investigation reported.

Do the authors have any idea about the difference seen in Figure 3. This must be discussed in terms of potential mechanisms of osteogenic differentiation of DFAT.

Author Response

The manuscript is hard to read. Many important concepts and findings are hidden because of poor English throughout the entire manuscript. The mesh method here described is interesting and the core of the investigation reported.

→We have checked and modified the English quality throughout the entire manuscript. This paper has been edited and rewritten by an experienced scientific editor, who has improved the grammar and stylistic expression of the paper.

 

Do the authors have any idea about the difference seen in Figure 3. This must be discussed in terms of potential mechanisms of osteogenic differentiation of DFAT.

→We have discussed about the difference osteogenic differentiation. We have mentioned that differences between DFAT cells and ASCs in their rate of differentiation into bone tissue and differences in expression markers were thought to be due to the composition of these cell populations. We have modified and added the comments in discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the introduced changes, the paper can be published
Back to TopTop