The Function of BDNF and Its Receptor in the Male Genitourinary System and Its Potential Clinical Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the article is well built and sustained . It is a very good interpretation of all the information from the literature about the molecular biology and genetics about the subject. It is very good according to the message: it is informative one. But I consider that the only "missed" information is the lack of the conclusions, and, consequently connection with the title: for the clinicians, for the pathologists, for the patients. for geneticists, or for the future their own plans. Think about your readers, maybe like me, pathologists, and think about what "take home messages". I think this is only "escape", because even the molecular medicine and molecular biology offer the scientific information either to colleagues or patients,
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Tan et al. systematically summarized the literature of BDNF and its receptor in the male genito urinary system and its potential clinical application. The supporting literatures are abundant and the hard work of authors should commended. However, some drawbacks of this article prevent it from publication.
1. The structure of this article is not well-organized. Subtitles are missing. The main points of each paragraph were not well presented.
2. Since the authors stated that BDNF and its receptors TrkB and p75 participate in a series of normal physiological activities, the function of p75 and downstring pathways were not sufficiently described, such as In Figure 1.
3. In figure 2 and 3, the effect of BDNF were not presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an interesting review about the function of BDNF and its receptor in male genitourinary system.
However there are some concerns:
1. The title of paragraph 3.1, 3.2, 6.1 and 6.2 are missing.
2. The title of paragraph 7 (7.1-7.3) is confussing.
The whole paragraph should be rewritten, in oder to be clear.
What do the authors mean with "Maker" (paragraph 7.2)
Do the authors suggest to give of BDNF protein as supplement? how can be applicable?
3. The conclusion of the review is missing
4. It is strongly suggested to include also other data bases for their literature research (eg. scopus)
5. The abbrevation list is missing. There are abbreviations without any explanation, eg what is "CNI rats". What do you mean?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors’ response and revision solved my concerns. The quality of the manuscript has been improved. I would like to recommend its publication on CIMB
