All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations on your publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Clear observations are found throughout the manuscript.
This part in the paper is clear.
All data are satisfied for publishing.
All of the comments have been addressed and revised. The data provided in the paper is satisfied for publication.
-
-
-
-
The conclusion from 3 reviewers is that your manuscript needs a revision. Please, respond to all comments point by point. I am waiting for your revised version.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The manuscript “Histopathological analysis of zebrafish after introduction of non-biodegradable polyelectrolyte microcapsules into the circulatory system”
The paper contains information of potential interest considering the relevance of the histolopathology of zebrafish species after introduction of non-biodegradable polyelectrolyte microcapsules. However, some critical points still need to be addressed
Abstract:
- The histopathological data in the abstract is a bit confusing! I suggest that histopathological data in several organs of zebrafish as brief sentences should be included.
- Could author(s) please say something about the benefit of this study?
Introduction:
- It is well-written and showed the good introduction; however, Lines 44-48, 51-52, 91-95; some relevant references to quote these sentences should be provided.
Materials and methods:
- Line 115: I am confusing about why the age of zeabrafish, as 4-12 month!
- Line 152: why did author(s) collect data the day 1, 14 and 22 post-injection?
- Regarding the fluorescent protocol, I recommend separating this method into new paragraph! provide information about the antibodies, provide details on the antigens (native, recombinant or peptides) and specificity of the antibodies. Refer to previous publications that validated and used this antibody.
Results and Discussion:
- Please include the figure (s) in Lines 271-273.
-
- Please add the figure in Line 275 (after.., while they were abundant in the sinuses in the organs). Additionally, they … refer to?
-
- Line 294-296: I would recommend adding some discussion to support!!! like literature reviews or scientific reports.
- Many figures displayed as Fig. 3C-3D (Line 299), Fig. 4A,4B (Line 332) or Fig. 9A, 9D (Line 573). All words “Fig.” should be replaced with “Figs.” instead.
- What does it mean about … with dissociation and atrophy of hepatocyte ? (Lines 358-359)
- Is this statement correct? I did not see the figure in the abdominal cavity (Line 369).
- Please add some relevant references in Lines 399-401.
-
- Figure 3: What does “f” in Figure 3D stand for? Why do you think that the release of microcapsules is exhibited? Is it artifact?
- Figure 5: Better replace ‘oocyte’ in Figure 5A with ‘ovary’. What do you mean that it is the focus of inflammation in Figure 5C? Could you please explain in more detail?
- Figure 6: It is not easy to identify the macrophage phagocytizing renal cell and mast cell !!. please add the higher magnification of the 6F. Importantly, I recommend that the mast cell should be replaced by the eosinophil granulocyte instead.
- Figure 7: Could you please indicate the dilated capillaries in this figure?
- Figure 8: What is the mucus in Figure 8B?. I guess that the mucus cell is shown; however, I think that this is the fiber of connective. Moreover, Figs. 8C-8D, they are the lamellar fusion together with epithelial hyperplasia.
- Figures 9: Accordingly, two figures displayed the mast cell; however, I recommend that they should be considered as eosinophil granulocytes as mentioned above. These cells had a diameter of 9-10 µm and large eosinophilic granules in the cytoplasm. Could you please show in higher magnification of this cell?
The manuscript needs recheck due to linguistic errors.
The gap of knowledge should be explained carefully.
Ethical code should be provided.
Study limitations should be provided.
It is quite clear statement of the rationale for your approach to the problem studied.
Fluorescent PMs-PEG detection is quite specific technique. The author(s) may set this method as a subsection and all details concerning antigens and antibodies used in this examination should be given.
-“Fig” or “Figs” Could the author(s) recheck throughout the paper?
-Lines 294-296 and 399-401, could author(s) should quote these sentences?
-What dose “f” in figure 3D stand for?
-Few words are ambiguous or incorrect. Could author(s) recheck them?
Like “oocyte” in figure 5A (ovary?) or “mast cell” in figure 6F and figure 9 (eosinophil granulocyte?)
-Some descriptions are missing or not related to the figures, Like…abdominal cavity in figure 5 and …dilated capillaries in figure 7. Could the author(s) point them out?
This paper is quite clear and understandable. The researcher conveys research in proper and concise manner. However, some valuable data should be provided and amended before publication.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.