Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Changes in Ascorbic Acid Content during Fruit Development and Ripening of Actinidia latifolia (an Ascorbate-Rich Fruit Crop) and the Associated Molecular Mechanisms
Next Article in Special Issue
Beyond Genetics: Metastasis as an Adaptive Response in Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro Tumor Cell-Binding Assay to Select High-Binding Antibody and Predict Therapy Response for Personalized 64Cu-Intraperitoneal Radioimmunotherapy against Peritoneal Dissemination of Pancreatic Cancer: A Feasibility Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exosomal Carboxypeptidase E (CPE) and CPE-shRNA-Loaded Exosomes Regulate Metastatic Phenotype of Tumor Cells
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

CD146+ Pericytes Subset Isolated from Human Micro-Fragmented Fat Tissue Display a Strong Interaction with Endothelial Cells: A Potential Cell Target for Therapeutic Angiogenesis

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(10), 5806; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105806
by Ekta Manocha 1,*, Alessandra Consonni 2, Fulvio Baggi 2, Emilio Ciusani 3, Valentina Cocce 4, Francesca Paino 4, Carlo Tremolada 5, Arnaldo Caruso 1 and Giulio Alessandri 1,5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(10), 5806; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105806
Submission received: 29 April 2022 / Revised: 18 May 2022 / Accepted: 19 May 2022 / Published: 22 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Your article is significantly improved, thank you for accepting of suggestions. All congratulations to all the efforts and job you performed.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her constructive comments in improving the manuscript and its further consideration for the purpose of the publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

After some research it appears you can do statistics on n=2, but specific tests are required. I am not a statistician. To make sure the authors are using the correct statistical measures they really need to consult a statistician.

Not withstanding the statistics, I am  satisfied by the authors comments. However, minor changes are required.

  1. Please define acronyms at first instance. There are  acronyms defined in the methods but these come after the results/data e.g., MFI. Please check that you have not missed anything.
  2. How many cells were cultured in proliferation assays? Include in methods
  3. How many pericytes and HUVECs were used to make a 1:5 ratio for the spheroid assays? Include in methods.
  4. Fig 4D and E graphs are misleading. HUVECS are in all treatment conditions, however in the graph, it looks like HUVECs are only in the first bar.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her constructive comments and further consideration of the manuscript. We have made the following changes as per the suggestions. We hope you will find the modified version of the manuscript suitable for the purpose of publication.

 

 

  1. Please define acronyms at first instance. There are  acronyms defined in the methods but these come after the results/data e.g., MFI. Please check that you have not missed anything.

 

  • Thank you for the comment. All the acronyms have been expanded at the first place only in the main text of the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted.

 

  1. How many cells were cultured in proliferation assays? Include in methods

 

  • The number of cells used in proliferation assay is mentioned in the methods section (Page-13, Line-510). We have highlighted the information.

 

  1. How many pericytes and HUVECs were used to make a 1:5 ratio for the spheroid assays? Include in methods.

 

  • Thank you for the suggestion. We have now added and highlighted the imperative information in the methods section (Page-12, Line-451).

 

  1. Fig 4D and E graphs are misleading. HUVECS are in all treatment conditions, however in the graph, it looks like HUVECs are only in the first bar.

 

  • We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have changed the captions in the images and bar graph of Fig. 4D and 4E by replacing the term “HUVECs” with “Control”.

 

Back to TopTop