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.
I thank the authors for following through on all the concerns and suggestions. The current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The overall framework, structure, and flow of the manuscript are sound and well organized. However, on top of the reviewers' comments, here are some additional concerns. It would be helpful if the authors could provide more explanation on the detailed process of 'pharmacological inhibition of FGFRs', in particular, were the four concentrations of DMSO predetermined or how were they selected? Line 208: How long was the exposure duration?
[# 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. #]
This study focuses on the role of FGF in skeletal development. The main aim of this study is clear. Most of the parts in this manuscript are well-prepared and clearly written.
The experimental design answers the aim of the study. However, there are several issues that can be clarified:
- The experimental design should be clearly explained in brief in the methods section of the abstract.
- It is better to provide reference(s) for the statement in Line 133 – 134.
Most of the results are statistically- sound and well-presented.
I suggest adding the significance of this study to more significant perspectives or future perspectives in the conclusions.
Line 60 – 61: It is better to cite this sentence.
Please double-check all abbreviations used. Some were not appropriately introduced, e.g. Line 82: CLP, Line 95: SHH, etc.
I think the authors should add the significance of this study to more significant perspectives or future perspectives at the end of the introduction and conclusions.
Suggestion: Maybe the authors can add the number of samples used in the methods section even though it was mentioned in the results section.
Figure 1 consists of Figure 1A, 1B and 1C. There are no in-text citations for A, B and C, only Figure 1 in general.
It is better to enlarge the font used in the Figure 2 – Figure 6.
Line 263 – 267: these sentences sound like methods.
No comment
No comment.
no comments
The study has been well planned and executed. The write-up is all good and well elaborated. Hence no criticism from me.
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.