distribution翻译如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)

2021年1月19日发(作者：soulmate是什么意思)
Dear Editor,

We
have
studied
the
valuable
comments
from
you,
the
assistant
editor
and
reviewers
carefully,
and
tried
our
best
to
revise
the
manuscript.
The
point
to
point
responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:




Responds to the rev
iewer’s comments:

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:
in page 3, line 40, we fed rats...
Response:
According
to
the
reviewer
’
s
comment,
we
have
corrected
the
sentence.
Furthermore, we have had the manuscript
polished with a professional assistance in
writing.




Comment 2:

page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first
names).
Since
this
paper
has
been
published,
the
volume
and
page
Nos
should
be
provided.
Response:
Thank
you
for
your
careful
work.
We
have
added
the
volume
and
page
numbers for reference 40.



Reviewer 2
Comment:
I
would
like
to
thank
the
authors
for
their
efforts
in
addressing
the
criticisms
with
additional
experiments.
The
one
criticism
that
they
did
not
address
was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium
diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not
affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed
in the Discussion section.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we
further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in
the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.



Reviewer 3
Comment 1
:
In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper
is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not
quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are
numerous
instances
like
that
in
the
methods
section;
these
should
all
be
changed
“according to those described by…..”

Response:
We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this
phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.



Comment 2:
There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues
even
in
this
basically
well
put
together
MS.
For
example,
while
authors
may
have
been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or
“Whatever” in line 395.

Response:
Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical
issues in
our manuscript. According to
the comments from
you and the editors, we


polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.


Comment 3:

In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side
of
lipid
metabolism
as
well
as
thermogenesis
issues
.
For
example
all
animals
consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet
groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work
indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of
dietary
energy.
Further
even
though
Zemel
et
al
(#34)
indicated
lipogenesis
was
enhanced
in
the
low
Ca
diets
that
was
in
2000
and
you
should
have
monitored
expression
of
FAS
and
UCP
either
as
mRNA
abundance
or
actual
FAS/UCP
changes
via
proteomics
or
blotting
techniques.
In
any
case
these
controls
are
missing here and not
emphasized in the
MS.
Casual reading
of this
paper
would
lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function
of increased or decreased lipolysis.
While lipolysis appears to be a major player,
lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness.
In Fig 8 you
also
show
a
decline
in
cAMP
for
the
low
Ca
diet.
Well
beta
agonists
or
cAMP
enhancers
regulate
transcription
of
adipose
and
liver
FAS
(in
rats
(J
Biol
Chem
271:2307,
1996)
and
recently
with
large
animal
models
(Hausman
et
al
J
Animal
Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In addition