Reviewer's report
Title:Liver regeneration: Immunohistochemichal study of intrinsic hepatic
innervation after partial hepatectomy in rats.
Version:2Date:17 September 2014
Reviewer: Yuki Ohya
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
In this article, the authors evaluated the neural sprouting after partial
hepatectomy using immunohistochemistory of PGP9.5 and GAP-43. These data
might be helpful to researchers in this field, because the authors evaluated the
expression of neural makers PGP9.5 and GAP43 at several time points after PH.
However, the major issue is that there are few new findings here. And, figures
and tables should be organized.
1. Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be combined.
2. Table 2 and Figure 3 show the similar results.
3. Table 4 and Figure 6A show the similar results.
4. Table 3 and Figure 6B show the similar results.
5. “PTs(+)/total PTs %” in the in Table 1 should be written more precisely, or the
results can be expressed in a figure as in like Figure 6B.
6. Are the magnifications of Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4 40X? Is this correct?
7. Although figure title of figure 5 has “40X”, Figure 5 has “10X”. Since this is
confusing, that should be corrected. Or, size bars might be useful in the figures.
Are these magnifications correct?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. “arrow heads” in legend of Figure 5 should be “arrows”.
2. There is a spelling mistake in “diefferences” (Page 7 Line 233)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Liver regeneration: Immunohistochemichal study of intrinsic hepatic
innervation after partial hepatectomy in rats.
Version:2Date:17 September 2014
Reviewer: Yuki Ohya
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
In this article, the authors evaluated the neural sprouting after partial
hepatectomy using immunohistochemistory of PGP9.5 and GAP-43. These data
might be helpful to researchers in this field, because the authors evaluated the
expression of neural makers PGP9.5 and GAP43 at several time points after PH.
However, the major issue is that there are few new findings here. And, figures
and tables should be organized.
1. Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be combined.
2. Table 2 and Figure 3 show the similar results.
3. Table 4 and Figure 6A show the similar results.
4. Table 3 and Figure 6B show the similar results.
5. “PTs(+)/total PTs %” in the in Table 1 should be written more precisely, or the
results can be expressed in a figure as in like Figure 6B.
6. Are the magnifications of Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4 40X? Is this correct?
7. Although figure title of figure 5 has “40X”, Figure 5 has “10X”. Since this is
confusing, that should be corrected. Or, size bars might be useful in the figures.
Are these magnifications correct?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. “arrow heads” in legend of Figure 5 should be “arrows”.
2. There is a spelling mistake in “diefferences” (Page 7 Line 233)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Liver regeneration: Immunohistochemichal study of intrinsic hepatic
innervation after partial hepatectomy in rats.
Version:2Date:17 September 2014
Reviewer: Yuki Ohya
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
In this article, the authors evaluated the neural sprouting after partial
hepatectomy using immunohistochemistory of PGP9.5 and GAP-43. These data
might be helpful to researchers in this field, because the authors evaluated the
expression of neural makers PGP9.5 and GAP43 at several time points after PH.
However, the major issue is that there are few new findings here. And, figures
and tables should be organized.
1. Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be combined.
2. Table 2 and Figure 3 show the similar results.
3. Table 4 and Figure 6A show the similar results.
4. Table 3 and Figure 6B show the similar results.
5. “PTs(+)/total PTs %” in the in Table 1 should be written more precisely, or the
results can be expressed in a figure as in like Figure 6B.
6. Are the magnifications of Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4 40X? Is this correct?
7. Although figure title of figure 5 has “40X”, Figure 5 has “10X”. Since this is
confusing, that should be corrected. Or, size bars might be useful in the figures.
Are these magnifications correct?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. “arrow heads” in legend of Figure 5 should be “arrows”.
2. There is a spelling mistake in “diefferences” (Page 7 Line 233)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant