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.
The authors have fully responded to the reviewers' comments and the quality of the paper has significantly improved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Now the revised manuscript has been adequately corrected and responded to my comments.
No comment
No comment
Dear Authors:
Please respond to the reviewers' comments point by point and then, resubmit it to the journal.
Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The paper is of interest, however, it requires clarifications
METHODOLOGY
DMSO was used as a solvent, per figures legend. What was its concentration.
Please provide this information in the materials and methods.
MT2/1 antagonists, luzindoie was used. Please clarify, when it was added. Prior addition of melatonin? If yeas how many hours before. Note that you use 10-4-10-3 M range for melatonin and 50 uM for luzindole
Results
mM range of melatonin was used. How this relates to MT1 and MT2. For membrane bound receptors nM range would be expected. Is there an issue in the uptake of the ligand into spheroids?
Interpretation
You did not measure hair growth properties, you only measure behavior of DP spheroids. Please correct the title and interpretation
Discussion
Please discuss limitations which are obvious
Mention that skin cells produce melatonin (Slominski A, Pisarchik A, Semak I, Sweatman T, Wortsman J, Szczesniewski A, Slugocki G, McNulty J, Kauser S, Tobin DJ, Jing C, Johansson O (2002) Serotoninergic and melatoninergic systems are fully expressed in human skin. FASEB J 16, 896-898; full text FASEB J (April 23, 2002) 10.1096/fj.0.1-0952fje), which can undergo rapid metabolism) ((Kim TK, Kleszczynski, Janjetovic Z, Sweatman T, Lin Z, Li W, Reiter R, Fischer T, Slominski AT (2013) Metabolism of melatonin and biological activity of intermediates of melatoninergic pathway in human skin cells. FASEB J 27, 2742–2755: doi: 10.1096/fj.12-224691), issues highly relevant to the subject..
Mention the possibility of indirect action through its metabolite(s) (Exp Dermatol 26:563–568, doi: 10.1111/exd.13208. PubMed PMID: 27619234)
References
.
DMSO was used as a solvent, per figures legend. What was its concentration.
Please provide this information in the materials and methods.
MT2/1 antagonists, luzindoie was used. Please clarify, when it was added. Prior addition of melatonin? If yeas how many hours before. Note that you use 10-4-10-3 M range for melatonin and 50 uM for luzindole
Results
mM range of melatonin was used. How this relates to MT1 and MT2. For membrane bound receptors nM range would be expected. Is there an issue in the uptake of the ligand into spheroids?
Interpretation
You did not measure hair growth properties, you only measure behavior of DP spheroids. Please correct the title and interpretation
See basic reporting
See basic reporting
1 The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 327, 424 – the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service.
Overall the experiments appear to be well performed
This area is of potential interest
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.