Non-Invasive In Vivo Bioimaging in Pigs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The introduction should be discussed more elaborately. Authors should include sections in the introduction titled "Scope and Objectives" and "Why This Technique" to clarify the research goals and justify the choice of method.
2. Figures Discussion: The figures in the manuscript should be discussed in greater detail within the text. Each figure needs to be analyzed thoroughly to emphasize its relevance and how it contributes to the study's findings.
3. Addition of Schematics and Comparative Tables: Authors should add at least one or two original schematic images and comparative tables to strengthen the article. These additions will provide a stronger foundation and clearer visual representation of the study's concepts.
4. Inclusion of Specific Points: Authors should include separate sections on the following topics:
Risk assessment
Regulatory and ethical issues
Challenges and limitations
Efficacy and sensitivity
Imaging mechanisms
Diagnostic applications
5. Recent Citations: The manuscript should also include more recent citations to ensure the research is up-to-date and relevant.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of a very interesting topic. A lot of researchers would be interested in reading and understanding this topic. However, in its current state, when you finish reading it you are left with more questions than answers. It does not mean that what has been developed is bad, but it is insufficient for a first approach to the topic, and very superficial and obvious for someone who already knows about the topic. I consider that they should choose the public for which it is directed. Being a review, I suggest that it is useful to someone who wants to get into the topic, because someone who already knows about the topic will look for details, examples and methodology in original publications.
In this sense, I suggest starting with generalities and foundations of the imaging method, making a comparison with others. Advantages and disadvantages. As well as where its greatest utility is observed. For example, a functional study can be done with PET, but with PET you cannot track a marked cell that you injected. Mark the differences. What equipment is used for this technique in small animals and in pigs. How feasible is it to obtain equipment for pigs?
After making this approach to the topic, begin to develop its advantage of using this technology in pigs, and after that, the examples and what is now developed in the manuscript are very good. In this way, it is a useful document for someone who wants to know this technology and its application in pigs.
Minor comments:
Figure 1. It would be very useful to add a row where the necessary equipment is specified to perform it, because in many occasions the limitation to use one equipment or another is the availability of the equipment.
Luciferase bioimaging in pigs: What technology do you use to detect it? Is it a commercial equipment? Did they manufacture it or how can it be detected? This is relevant information for the reader.
Figure 2 and 3: Please describe the figures. Make comparisons and/or comments on the figures. As they are, they only refer to the original article and it is very likely that if I am reading this review, I may not want to read the original article. So it is better to describe the figure in detail and additionally include the original source, in case I am interested in knowing more details.
There are several paragraphs where there is text very similar to the manuscript: In Vivo Luciferin–Luciferase Reaction in Micro-Mini Pigs Using Xenogeneic Rat Bone Marrow Transplantation. Please reword it differently so that it is not detected in a similar way, or put the text in quotation marks and cite it. Check the iThenticate report. I especially suggest doing this on lines 97-103, 112-117, 135-137, and 246-251.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved significantly. I suggest it be published
