木虫 (知名作家)
沉墨于心，不没于物 ![]()
|
★
leili(金币+1,VIP+0):谢谢分享！ 1-9 20:34
ok !
哥帖一份哥以前收到的审稿意见，希望对楼主有用：
Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
The authors reported some evidence supporting the onset of apoptosis in postmortem muscle based on characteristic feature of this cell death process including structural changes affecting cell nuclei, DNA fragmentation using the TUNNEL method and caspase 3 activity measurement at different sampling time. This was done on three bovine muscles including Longissimus dorsi (LD), Semitendinosus (ST) and Psoas minor (PM). With reference to the changes affecting the considered modification, they concluded that, in all muscles studied, apoptosis was set up although at different rates and to a variable extent. The paper is correctly written and the discussion interesting.
Major comments
In muscle tissue, DNA fragmentation is seldom observed except under severe pathological conditions, which is not the case here. In addition, the nuclei labeled in green in Figure 2 often overlapped the laminin labeling. I am wondering whether these nuclei are those of mononucleated cells located in the extracellular matrix such as fibroblasts or really myofiber nuclei? A higher light microscope magnification will be needed to verify. This will not however change the conclusions since, if DNA of monucleated cell nuclei is fragmented, this would mean that apoptosis is going on in the tissue. Could the authors provide a higher magnification view of the picture?
Minor comments
The authors indicate the full name of the muscles selected only in the abstract. Why this was not done in section 2.1? In addition, it is probably not Psoas Minor but Psoas Major, isn’t it?
In section 2.1 or at the beginning section 3, the authors must justify the muscle choice made.
Page 6, lines 91-93: the sentence is difficult to understand, please rephrase it.
Page 7, line 97: indicate the different sampling time selected
Page 9, line 157: Write “structurally intact” instead of “structural intact”. |
|
回复此楼
