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 addressed all of the reviewer's comments and now the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Pedro Silva, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors addressed all reviewer concerns in the revision.
No comment.
The authors responded well and addressed all reviewer concerns.
No comments.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
The authors have revised this paper based on the comments.
The authors need to carefully address the reviewers' comments on methodology and data description and discussion. Also, Introduction section and reference citation need to be improved.
[# 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: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The Result section is verbose and should be more simplified.
No comment.
Line 295 “To verify the temporal pattern of MG and infiltrated M¯ detected by FCM, several representative spinal cords (sham, 1, 7 and 28 dpi) were selected for IHF analysis.” Can you please specify how the representative spinal cords were selected. Like was it random selected or based on some method.
Line 47 “received a laminectomy without contusive injury. Fow cytometry and immunohistofluorescence” should be flow cytometry. Same typo in the background.
Line 210. “There were no significant differences among 7, 14, 21 and 28 dpi (P > 0.05, n = 6). However, the percentages of CD68+ cells in these four groups were significant higher comparing with sham (P < 0.01, n = 6), 1 and 3 dpi (P < 0.05, n = 6).” The authors discussed the increase 3dpi. Can you please elaborate why no significant differences among 7, 14, 21 and 28 dpi in Disscussion.
Figure 1 legend. The conclusive figure that explains the pathway and the whole idea of this research. Name it a flow chart should be more appropriate.
This article is written in English clearly.
Suggestion:
Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in INTRODUCTION. Please cite all references used in this paper properly.
no comment.
This study found that the total Mø/MG gradually increased and peaked at 7 dpi, and maintained at high levels 14, 21 and 28 dpi.
suggestion:
1) In Abstract Results, " the activated MG increased nearly to 90% " should be changed to " activated MG increased to nearly 90% ".
2) Please check the scales of immunofluorescence images carefully.
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.