Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should address several points.

• give a more solid rationale explaining the choice for the examined cell lines;
• alamar blue is a viability test. Proliferation assays should be performed
• references should be halfened. This is not a review paper
• English writing needs to be improved (i.e. L31 "effects"; L 32 "indicate", L90, 91 "referred"...
• reference 15, which is cited several times, is incomplete

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript entitled “Evaluating the effect of tissue selection on the characteristics of extracellular matrix hydrogels from decellularized porcine bladders” the authors characterized the fabrication of hydrogels from a subtype extracellular matrix (sECM) and whole bladder. Below are the suggestions to improve the manuscript.

1. How many times the experiments were carried out in each figure? This information should be mentioned in the figure legends of each figure.
2. Italics should be used for in vivo throughout the manuscript.
3. In figure#7, for the Western blot of myogenin, the authors should do densidometric analysis of the bands and indicate the same quantitatively.
4. The authors should come up with more mechanistic explanations for their results.
5. The authors should have explored the utility of their ECM hydrogels in other applications as well.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all my previous criticisms