Next Article in Journal
Profibrotic Molecules Are Reduced in CRISPR-Edited Emery–Dreifuss Muscular Dystrophy Fibroblasts
Next Article in Special Issue
Targeting Diabetic Retinopathy with Human iPSC-Derived Vascular Reparative Cells in a Type 2 Diabetes Model
Previous Article in Journal
Neuromodulatory Signaling in Chronic Pain Patients: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exosomes as Future Therapeutic Tools and Targets for Corneal Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/cells14171322
Review Report
cells-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
Review
Peer-Review Record

Mechanisms of Corneal Nerve Regeneration: Examining Molecular Regulators

Cells 2025, 14(17), 1322; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14171322
by Bianca Bigit, Victor H. Guaiquil, Ali R. Djalilian * and Mark I. Rosenblatt *
Reviewer 1:
Paola Bagnoli
Reviewer 2:
Alexander Ljubimov
Cells 2025, 14(17), 1322; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14171322
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 18 August 2025 / Accepted: 22 August 2025 / Published: 27 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanism of Cell Signaling During Eye Development and Diseases—Second Edition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mechanisms underlying corneal nerve regeneration has been extensively discussed.

The present review is well written and organized.

  1. Although the authors are well experienced in the field, they need to elucidate the added value of their review in respect to additional reviews in the same field.
  2. The authors also need to emphasize their contribution to the field and how their findings might help to understand the mechanisms underlying corneal nerve regeneration.
  3. How future research might help to elucidate all aspects underlying corneal nerve repair should be better discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. The review is comprehensive and important. This reviewer only has some minor issues with the text:
  2. Please change the noun to adjective: e.g., cornea to corneal, where appropriate. For instance, lines 29 and 32.
  3. Laminin-2 is now called laminin-211 (line 169).
  4. Line 171. Please change α3β1, α6β1, and β1 to α3β1, α6β1, and α6β4.
  5. Line 235. The authors might like to mention that NGF receptors may have opposing functions during wound healing (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8312850)
  6. In the miR section, it is important to disclose the targets of the functional miRs. If these targets are unknown, please list this as a limitation of the relevant studies, requiring further in-depth experimentation.
  7. More emphasis on neurotrophic keratopathy and diabetic keratopathy may be advantageous, with pertinent citations.
  8. There are some more recently tested molecules that may be beneficial for corneal regeneration. Also, some general papers may need to be cited:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28966630/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10434-y

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop