Forced Swim Alters the Radiolabeling of Blood Constituents from Wistar Rats
, Eric H. F. F. Frederico 4, Márcia C. Moura-Fernandes 4,5, Daniel Batouli-Santos 4, Alexandre G. Meirelles 4,6, Carmem Santos-Fernandes 4, Tiago Eduardo-Santos 4, Marco A. S. Gama 4, Laisa L. Paineiras-Domingos 4,7,8, Danúbia C. Sá-Caputo 4,7,8, Redha Taiar 9,*, Nasser R. Asad 2,4 and Mario Bernardo-Filho 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors ,
the topic of the paper is quite interesting and meets the aims and scope of the journal but it has some problems.
However, I have some suggestions for the paper as follows:
Introduction
you should to refer the aim of the study clearly as well as the research questions.
Results
in line 163-164 and 168-169 is it possible to prove it statistically?
Discussion
it should be changed in order to answer to research questions. you should write the limitations of your research
Conclusions you should write directions for future research.
Author Response
Point 1: Introduction - you should to refer the aim of the study clearly as well as the research questions.
Response 1: We agree with the referee’s suggestion and we have re-written the introduction. Line 82-90 and 99-100.
Point 2: Results - in line 163-164 and 168-169 is it possible to prove it statistically?
Response 2: The statistical results were rewritten in each figure session. Lines 134-135, 145-147, 158-160, 170-171, 182-184.
Point 3: Discussion - it should be changed in order to answer to research questions. You should write the limitations of your research.
Response 3: The discussion was rewritten and the limitations were better reported. Lines 220-221, 256-260, 263-268.
Point 4: Conclusions - You should write directions for future research.
Response 4: The directions for future research were signalized. Line 270-273.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting study and well described. Here are some points to improve the manuscript:
Fig 4 Here it is not clear the meaning of NS and CS abbreviation. It will be useful to describe better these in figure legend or in the text (line 162-163) Fig 6 Here it is not clear the meaning of ns abbreviation. It will be useful to describe better this in figure legend or in the text line. English correction by a native speaker is needed. Some oxidative stress markers in plasma and RBC will sustain better your speculation in line 223-225:These defense mechanisms could require some time to their express and block the 223 oxidative stress effects, explaining the data obtained with fixation of 99mTc on plasma proteins from 224 rats submitted to swimming after recovery (Figure 6).
Author Response
Point 1: Fig 4 Here it is not clear the meaning of NS and CS abbreviation. It will be useful to describe better these in figure legend or in the text (line 162-163) Fig 6 Here it is not clear the meaning of ns abbreviation. It will be useful to describe better this in figure legend or in the text line.
Response 1: All figures were reviewed and their respective captions, duly inserted.
Point 2: English correction by a native speaker is needed.
Response 2: TheEnglish language was corrected throughout the text.
Point 3: Some oxidative stress markers in plasma and RBC will sustain better your speculation in line 223-225. These defense mechanisms could require some time to their express and block the 223 oxidative stress effects, explaining the data obtained with fixation of 99mTc on plasma proteins from 224 rats submitted to swimming after recovery (Figure 6).
Response 3: These considerations have been added to the text. Line 256-260.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the present article, the authors have attempted to demonstrate a method to measure stress level by monitoring the 99mTc labelling efficiency of the blood samples from the subjects undergoing stress. Wister rats were used as animal model and forced swimming was used as stress. The research idea appears to interest readers. But, unfortunately, with due respect to the good efforts of all the authors, the current article requires to be presented in a better form than what it is now in order to understand the methods and the results. Following are the major points where the authors are being requested to improve:
In every figure, there should be legends mentioning what bar is what or what color of the bar represent which part of the data. None of the figure have this information either in the graph or in the legend. Without these mentioned in the figure or legend, it is impossible to read and understand the figures. The authors have mentioned two terms in sequence while explaining a graph where there are two types of data plotted, but there is no clear indication if the reader should read the graphs in that order! A scientific data must be presented in a way that there should not be any ambiguity in the readers’ mind. The discussion and conclusion can be reviewed properly only after the above problems are fixed. An appreciable background information was presented in the introduction with proper references but, the idea of the current work was mentioned in one line. It is important to elaborate the present idea a little more to establish the ground for the claimed hypothesis in the conclusion. The methods should be more elaborative since the current article is a methodology focused one. English grammar and spell check are recommended by a native English speaker or an authorized organization.Hence, I recommend the current article to be reconsidered after major revisions suggested above.
Author Response
Point 1: In every figure, there should be legends mentioning what bar is what or what color of the bar represent which part of the data. None of the figure have this information either in the graph or in the legend. Without these mentioned in the figure or legend, it is impossible to read and understand the figures. The authors have mentioned two terms in sequence while explaining a graph where there are two types of data plotted, but there is no clear indication if the reader should read the graphs in that order! A scientific data must be presented in a way that there should not be any ambiguity in the readers’ mind.
Response 1: All figures were reviewed and their respective captions, duly inserted.
Point 2: The discussion and conclusion can be reviewed properly only after the above problems are fixed.
Response 2: The discussion and the conclusion were. Lines 220-221, 256-260, 263-268, 270-273.
Point 3: An appreciable background information was presented in the introduction with proper references but, the idea of the current work was mentioned in one line. It is important to elaborate the present idea a little more to establish the ground for the claimed hypothesis in the conclusion.
Response 3: We agree with the referee’s suggestion and we have re-written the introduction. Line 82-90 and 99-100.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
your corrections in the text are satisfying .
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes made more clear the manuscript results and limitation of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the suggestions made by the reviewers within the scope of the manuscript and thus improved the overall merit of the manuscript. Hence I recommend the present article to be published in its present form.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
