-
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