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.
Dear authors,
After the suggestions and considerations made by the reviewers, my opinion is favorable for the publication of your manuscript in PeerJ.
Best Regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michael Wink, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript is interesting for the area of Anatomy and pertinent for publication in PerrJ - Zoological Science. Some considerations have been made by the reviewers and myself in the attached files. Please consider them and resubmit your article.
Best regards.
The manuscript entitled as 'Enzyme histochemical characterization of orbital
glands in fetuses of Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)' is really well written and planned. Mainly it focued on glands which have different functions in various animals. The information about the enzyme histochemical nature of prenatal orbital glands in Indian buffalo seems to be unavailable.
The enzyme histochemical characterization of orbital glands was carried out on the lacrimal gland; superficial and deep gland of third eyelid obtained from total 6 buffalo fetuses immediately after their natural deaths or dams death. A lot of parameters Glucose 6 phosphatase (G-6-Pase), Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD), Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Hydrogen Diaphorase (NADHD), Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate Hydrogen diaphorase (NADPHD), Dihydroxy phenylalanine oxidase (DOPA-O), Tyrosinase, non-specific esterase (NSE) and Carbonic anhydrase (CAse) were evaluated.
Findings were evaluated deeply with tables and graphics.
The manuscript entitled as 'Enzyme histochemical characterization of orbital
glands in fetuses of Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)' is really well written and planned. It is suitable to be published in the journal.
These glands have different functions in various animals. The information about the enzyme histochemical nature of prenatal orbital glands in Indian buffalo seems to be unavailable and this makes this work valuable.
the study was planned on orbital glands of 6 full term freshly died fetuses from animals with dystocia.The frozen sections of all these glands were subjected to standard localization
protocols for Alkaline Phosphatase (AKPase), Glucose 6 phosphatase (G-6-Pase), Lactate
dehydrogenase (LDH), Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase
(G-6-PD), Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Hydrogen Diaphorase (NADHD), Nicotinamide
Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate Hydrogen diaphorase (NADPHD), Dihydroxy phenylalanine
oxidase (DOPA-O), Tyrosinase, non-specific esterase (NSE) and Carbonic anhydrase (CAse).
The results revealed a mixed spectrum of reaction for the above enzymes in LG, SGT and HG which ranged from moderate (for LDH in SGT) to intense (for most of the enzymes in all three glands). However, DOPA-O, Tyrosinase and CAse did not show any reaction.
The manuscrip entitled as is' Enzyme histochemical characterization of orbital glands in fetuses of Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)' is well designed and suitable to be published in the journal.
No comment
No comment
No comment
• The research work is relevant, the experiment was well-designed, relevant and the results are valid
• There are some minor suggestions and corrections to incorporate, that are mentioned in annotated pdf file (uploaded).
• Verify all the references in the reference section and prepare the list as per the reference format of the journal provided in the instruction for author's
Line 41: nearly entirely not looking appropriate.
Line 56: Not clear, can be redrafted for better understanding
Line 65: Expand TE
Line 69: Replace e.g. by such as and remove in from sheep, porcine and American bison
Line 73: types and mention species
Line 74: replace was by were
Line 75: Remove "also reported"
Line 77: Add "as per best of our knowledge" after found
Line 87: Add location of slaughter houses
Line 116: glands of third eyelid (whether superficial or deep)
Line 117: capitalize The
Line 122: Rewrite as any reaction or evidence of melanin activity
Results can be summarized in two paragraphs
Line 128: Table not included in text
Line 134: Add comma after calves and remove it after while
Line 144: fetuses
Line 145: catalysts
Line 174: was
Line 178: no activity was reported
No comments
This is an interesting study and the authors have collected histochemical characterization enzymes of orbital glands using cutting edge methodology. The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards to writing the manuscript and results.
In the study the objective is well defined and it carried out in controlled fashion. Positive and negative controls were also carried and made a conclusion. Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Findings of this manuscript is well define and justified with previous research in this field. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The introduction part having only few information on the enzyme histochemical characterization of the orbital glands in animals, it also did not compare with other species. The paper is generally well written and structured. Result part can be more elaborate and meaningful. Citation is well written and cover all review of literature points, literature well referenced & relevant. Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout the research paper. Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. Research is well defined, relevant & meaningful. Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described.
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.