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.
Please proofread the complete manuscript and correct typos and grammatical errors.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jun Chen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
No comments except usage of English language. The authors are requested to double check with their language flow throughout the manuscript.
No comments
No comments
No comments
The manuscript needs a major overhaul prior to be publication ready. Authors might want to submit with necessary changes suggested by reviewers.
[# 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. #]
• The article is clear and unambiguous, and the Literature references are sufficient to explore the field background/context provided.
• The structure of the article conforms to an acceptable format but the setup of the pages changes, for example, animal experimental design has a layout different from the rest
The aim and scope are well defined Research question well defined
All underlying data that have been provided are not robust to sustain the claim that the authors did.
Conclusions are not well stated
For example
1) Need a deep explanation on how the mitochondria membrane density and the number in cistae could be related to the pathology (fig 1)
2) Bodipy is a non-specific marker of the lipid body, is it possible to test this with an IF for the specific marker (fig1E)
3) Only 1 marker of autophagy is not enough to test the hypothesis (fig 2)
4) Missed proof of concept of wnt pathway involved in the mechanism (fig5)
the authors are really clear in defining the aim of the paper, and they have done a good job but they should go deep in more experiments to test their hypothesis.
I have deeply reviewed the manuscript. It is well designed and organized.
Manuscript can be accepted in its present form.
I suggest that you put full abbreviations, for example at page 6 you mentioned about TEM, ROS, MDA, GSH but only short forms, it would be helpful if you put full abbreviations at the beginning.
I suggest changing the resolution of the Figure 3 (A, C.D, E), after zooming in the gene names are not clearly visible. I also suggest highlighting important gene names in the figures, that you described in your manuscript.
I suggest starting the gene names with first letter capital in table1.
I suggest changing the Figure 4D, highlighting the interactions of CAV1 with LRP6 (as you have discussed it in the introduction).
No comments
The storyline of the manuscript is novel, emphasizing the unique role of CAV1 in kidney stone formation. Overall, the findings are encouraging.
No clear and professional English used especially in the methodology section
Methods are not described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
The authors need to follow the high technical and professional standard to draft the manuscript.
Some techniques used in the article has not been included in the methodology section.
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.