Imaging of Live Cells by Digital Holographic Microscopy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached file for comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. My reply is given in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the author reviewed and summarized the recent efforts in the field of biological imaging via novel microscopic techniques, and in particular digital holographic microscopy (DHM).
Overall, the author did a great job summarizing advances in the field of DHM and provided adequate examples by citing appropriate sources.
I have one comment I'd like the authors to address:
This advanced microscopic technique offers advantages of volumetric reconstruction of the 3D structures, label-free and non-destructive operations, etc. While these aspects are important for bio-imaging, they are not unique for DHM. I was hoping that as a review paper, the author could also provide a brief comparison of DHM to other advanced microscopic techniques, listing pros and cons, and briefly discuss the directions of how researchers could advance the technique in the future.
To name a few other advanced microscopic techniques that also involve wavefront engineering for the author's reference, here are the list:
A. Goy, G. Rughoobur, S. Li, K. Arthur, A. I. Akinwande, and G. Barbastathis, “High-resolution limited-angle phase tomography of dense layered objects using deep neural networks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(40), 19848–19856 (2019)
R. Horisaki, Y. Ogura, M. Aino, and J. Tanida, “Single-shot phase imaging with a coded aperture,” Opt. Lett. 39(22), 6466–6469 (2014).
R. Horisaki, Y. Okamoto, and J. Tanida, “Single-shot noninvasive three-dimensional imaging through scattering media,” Opt. Lett. 44(16), 4032–4035 (2019).
L. Jin, Y. Tang, Y. Wu, J. B. Coole, M. T. Tan, X. Zhao, H. Badaoui, J. T. Robinson, M. D. Williams, A. M. Gillenwater, R. R. Richards-Kortum, and A. Veeraraghavan, “Deep learning extended depth-of-field microscope for fast and slide-free histology,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117(52), 33051–33060 (2020)
Y. Luo, L. Huang, Y. Rivenson, and A. Ozcan, “Single-shot autofocusing of microscopy images using deep learning,” ACS Photonics 8(2), 625–638 (2021).
V. Sitzmann, S. Diamond, Y. Peng, X. Dun, S. Boyd, W. Heidrich, F. Heide, and G. Wetzstein, “End-to-end optimization of optics and image processing for achromatic extended depth of field and super-resolution imaging,” ACM Trans. Graphics 37, 114 (2018)
N. Antipa, G. Kuo, R. Heckel, B. Mildenhall, E. Bostan, R. Ng, and L. Waller, “DiffuserCam: lensless single-exposure 3D imaging,” Optica 5, 1–9 (2018).
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Thank you very much for your valuable review. I added a paragraph in the conclusion section of the manuscript to address your comment. I've included my reply in the file I've attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter proper revisions, I would suggest its publication in Photonics in its current version.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your valuable review. The manuscript has been revised following the suggestions of all reviewers. I hope it is suitable now for publication in the journal PHOTONICS.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
A general proof-read and editing is necessary, especially in sections 2. and 3.4. The typos must be eliminated.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I addressed all of them at my best. My reply point by point is given in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments have been addressed, no further comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The reply is given in the attached pdf file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The reply is given in the attached pdf file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Live cells imaging by digital holographic microscopy” has reviewed the method of digital holographic microscopy and its applications. The authors briefly introduced the development of digital holographic microscopy and described a little information on the principle of digital holographic microscopy.
However, I don’t think the manuscript meets the quality of a review paper in Photonics.
Firstly, the authors didn’t give the basic theory of digital holographic microscopy or the methods to reconstruc the corresponding images.
Secondly, when introduce the set up of digital holographic microscopy, it is too brief to understand how the system works.
Thridly, very less images by digital holographic microscopy were shown in the manuscript. I think there are more recent and better results in the community, but the authors did not give more.
Lastly, the conclusion part is also too short to give the details.
Overall, I would not suggest its publication in Photonics in its current writing.
Author Response
The reply is given in the attached pdf file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all of my questions and concerns in appreciable detail and with clarity. The manuscript is overall improved. I appreciate the authors efforts in making the changes.
A few more things I noticed are below:
1. In the Abstract line 11, “capabilit” is a typo
2. On page 1 line 39, there is a typo in “digitaly recorded”
3. In Figure 3, please make sure the underline tilde for sub-figures a, c, e
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, I don't think the authors have modified the manuscript accordingly, but only try to explain without any revisions. If you look some other review papers, you can require a copy right either from the author or publication journal, so it is not a good excuse to say only originla images were used. It can not meet the the quality of a review paper. Still, I would not suggest its publication as the authors didn't revise the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
