(完整版)如何回复审稿人意见(ResponsetoReviews)

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