24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3046)
>虫友互识 (349)
>休闲灌水 (148)
>导师招生 (137)
>文献求助 (110)
>论文投稿 (94)
>考博 (68)
>博后之家 (58)
>论文道贺祈福 (57)
>招聘信息布告栏 (46)
>找工作 (41)
>硕博家园 (40)
>教师之家 (39)
>考研 (37)
>基金申请 (36)
>公派出国 (16)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

flyingwill

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

爱生活爱科研

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 5588.6
散金: 335
红花: 4
帖子: 1128
在线: 191.7小时
虫号: 468629
注册: 2007-11-27
性别: GG
专业: 机械测试理论与技术

[交流] 审稿意见出来了，这结果好吗

虫友们新年好！

前天审稿意见出来了，不知道为什么，只回来一个审稿人的意见，另一个审稿人的呢。我把意见贴在下面，请老虫们帮咱看一下这意见属于小修还是大修。

除第4条外，其它都还能细细解释，第4条有点棘手。

当局者迷，多谢虫虫分析与高见！

-------------------------------------------
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript describes a method for xxxxxxxx. Although the general motivation of the work is well written, some derivations of equations are not clear enough to explain the basic principles of the method.  Before acceptance the following points should be clarified and revised.

1. The role of the correlation length T of the surface roughness is described in the introduction.  But it is not included in the equations and the condition on it is neither mentioned.
2. Eq.(7) and the next equation are not correct in their arguments.  The same for the equation following Eq.(8).
3. I cannot derive Eq.(11) from Esq.(6) and (10).
4. What is the physical condition for the size of the small region for averaging?
5. I cannot understand the derivation of Eq.(15).
6. Ref.[40] describes not the spectral correlation method but the angular correlation method.
7. The length L should be indicated in Fig.1.
8. I cannot comprehend the correspondences of Eqs.(21)-(23) with those derived before.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

英文综述是否需要润色及查重已经有5人回复
救命帖已经有5人回复
限项规定已经有5人回复
为什么nbs上溴没有产物点出现呢已经有9人回复
招博士已经有3人回复
存款400万可以在学校里躺平吗已经有35人回复
最失望的一年已经有18人回复
求推荐英文EI期刊已经有5人回复

观察，思考，存疑，提问，求证

1楼 2009-01-01 09:11:02

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

田鼠117

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 976.5
散金: 2
红花: 1
帖子: 159
在线: 22.9小时
虫号: 372111
注册: 2007-05-15
专业: 乳腺肿瘤

大家帮忙看看审稿意见,发表的可能性大吗?

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

谢谢大家了,意见描述很多,有些还是关于实验的,可惜我现在不可能再补做实验了,所以大家看我是否该放弃呢?谢谢
Reviewer #1:
1) The hematopoietic chimerism (engraftment level of human hematopoiesis) of transplanted mice is not reported.
这句话是什么意思,要我补数据吗?
2) Figure 1B, the AAV proteins do not appear to have the expected ration of 1:1:10. A short comment on this issue would be appreciated.
这个我可以解释

3) Figure 2&3: With the notable exception of Figure 3A, in most experiment a clear difference between transduced and negative control samples cannot be seen. This makes the interpretation of successful gene transfer difficult.

4) Figures 2&3: Can the RT-PCR primers distinguish between AAV DNA and RNA?

5)  To show a proof of transduction, additional PCRs would be helpful to detect AAV backbone DNA (not RNA) sequences, if possible using quantitative or semi-quantitative approaches.

6) The levels of correction noted at the level of protein expression appear to be minor. This should be discussed and approaches to reach therapeutically meaningful levels of correction should be considered.

7) The Discussion largely repeats the thoughts presented in the introduction and results sections and somehow fails to discuss the work in the context of the literature, such as state of the art of thalassemia correction using lentiviral vectors.

Reviewer #2: Major issues:
1. rAAV titers reported here are low.  Other labs routinely make one or two orders of magnitude more concentrated vectors. In Figure 1, what is the number of plasmid molecules for each dilution of the dot-blot?  At the vg/ml concentration reported here, it is very difficult to detect the rAAV capsid protein bands on SDS-PAGE gels even when 5-fold concentrated, so purity evaluation is difficult.  In Figure 1, how were the AAV capsid proteins in the SDS-PAGE gel detected, since the figure looks like a Western blot, not protein staining?

2.The infectious titer of the rAAV preps were not determined, therefore MOI is incorrectly used since MOI is the number of infectious rAAV units per cell.  Change this to "vector genomes per cell" throughout the manuscript, figures, and tables.

3. Details about the culture conditions during the 2 hour ex vivo rAAV transduction are missing.
4. How was separation or removal of single-stranded rAAV DNA from the RNA preparation accomplished prior to RT-PCR analysis?  How do the authors know they are detecting RNA expressed from the vector?
5. What are the timepoints used in Figure 4?  Is Figure 4Ac from transduced mice?  Why weren't untreated NOD/SCID mice included in the Mass Spec analysis (Figure 4B)?