Next Article in Journal
Phosphodiesterase-4 Inhibition Reduces Cutaneous Inflammation and IL-1β Expression in a Psoriasiform Mouse Model but Does Not Inhibit Inflammasome Activation
Next Article in Special Issue
In Situ Cell Signalling of the Hippo-YAP/TAZ Pathway in Reaction to Complex Dynamic Loading in an Intervertebral Disc Organ Culture
Previous Article in Journal
Endothelial Progenitor Cells: An Appraisal of Relevant Data from Bench to Bedside
Previous Article in Special Issue
Activation of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α Signaling Pathway Has the Protective Effect of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
 
 
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 23
10.3390/ijms222312875
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

Efficacy for Whitlockite for Augmenting Spinal Fusion

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(23), 12875; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312875
by Su Yeon Kwon 1,†, Jung Hee Shim 2,†, Yu Ha Kim 2, Chang Su Lim 1, Seong Bae An 1,* and Inbo Han 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(23), 12875; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312875
Submission received: 1 November 2021 / Revised: 24 November 2021 / Accepted: 25 November 2021 / Published: 28 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Regeneration for Spinal Diseases 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

The authors are using whitlockite to generate scaffolds for bone regeneration to treat mouse spinal defects.  Their description of the production and characterization of scaffolding material is adequate.  However, the cellular component of the study has serious problems.

 

Specific Comments

Materials

The authors used ASCs, but failed to provide information regarding these cells.  What species were they derived from?  Were they purchased or obtained from an internal source?  How where they cultured and maintained prior to the use?  This information is essential for the interpretation of the results.

The ASCs were cultured in eluted medium derived from bone grafts for 24 hours.  What does this mean and what is the rationale?

Figure 6 is useless and does not provide clear images of cells.

Mice were care for, what does this mean?

Histology

Tissue decalcified with EDTA, what was the percentage of EDTA and what was the buffer?

Immunohistochemistry for 10 min.  This is a very short incubation period.

Need to describe antibodies: polyclonal/monoclonal? Mouse Specific? Etc.  Were secondary antibodies used? Controls?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: well written.

Introduction: Too long. Should be reduced.

M&M: Line 164: Write number of approval from ethical committee.

Results: well written and presented. No further improvements.

Discussion: Write about the strengths and limitation of your paper. Please discuss further improvements. here are some inspiration for discussion (doi: 10.2147/IJN.S205880 and doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2019.3854).

Conclusion. Well written.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text has been satisfactorily modified.  However, the photographs in Figure 6 are not sufficient quality for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing it out. As your advice, we tried to get better quality photos, but unfortunately failed. So we decided to remove the image of cell morphology, and leave only the statistical graph. Also check all English spellings. Thank you.

Back to TopTop