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.
Thank you for addressing the remaining issues pointed out by the reviewer and revising the manuscript accordingly. I am pleased to inform you that the revised version is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address remaiing concerns of the reviewer and revise your manuscript accordingly.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This manuscript is interesting and well written, and the authors have responded adequately to my requests. However, I suggest that the authors to review the text because there are some mistakes. In particular:
- Line 67: change “homeostas” with “homeostasis”;
- Line 63: insert a space between the word “osteoporosis” and the references;
- Line 64: insert a space between the fullstop and the next sentence;
- Line 65: insert a space between the fullstop and the next sentence;
- Line 97: insert a space between the word “protocol” and the parenthesis;
- Line 247: change “goup” with “group”;
- Line 251: Change "effectly” with “effectively”;
- Line 318: Change "traubecular” with “trabecular”;
- Line 321: Change "therapic” with “therapeutic”;
- Line 331: Change "agiogenesis” with “angiogenesis”;
- Line 343: Change "experimential” with “experimental”;
- Line 348: Change "compaired” with “compared”;
- Line 359: Change "conclued” with “concluded that”;
- Line 367 and 368: Change " celluar” with “cellular”;
- Line 421: Change " therapeautic” with “therapeutic”
It is possible that some errors may have escaped me. I suggest a revision of the manuscript.
experimental Design is correct and well done
the obtained results are clear and in line with the described conclusions and the data reported in literature.
none
Please address the concerns of both reviewers and amend the manuscript accordingly.
[# 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. #]
Remarks to the Author:
The article “Daidzein alleviates osteoporosis by promoting osteogenesis and angiogenesis coupling’’ is an interesting study detecting the anti-osteoporosis effect of diadzein by enhancing bone formation causing.
However, the existing data are partially supportive of the authors' conclusions. Additional experiments are needed to fully support their findings. Major revision is needed in recommending this manuscript for publication.
Major Issue:
1. Authors have mentioned that Cav-1 inhibited the migration and proliferation of bone marrow cells by downregulating the EGFR/AKT/PI3K signaling pathway. However, they have shown these in only one cell line hence invivo model is essential to further confirm this conclusion.
Minor issues:
1. Authors mentioned that diadzein enhances bone cells migration. However authors have only showed the genetic expression of VEGF and Angpt1 in rat bone marrow endothelial cells. Authors should include the protein level of these molecules along with VEGFR.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This manuscript is interesting and well done, however I propose some suggestions. In particular:
- The title indicates “Daidzein alleviates osteoporosis by promoting osteogenesis and angiogenesis coupling”, but no indication of this isoflavone and its activities on osteoporosis in general and caveolin-1 in particular, are indicated in the introduction. Please insert these information (see Bellavia et al. Flavonoids in Bone Erosive Diseases: Perspectives in Osteoporosis Treatment. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, February 2021, Vol. 32, No. 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2020.11.007 ).
- I suggest changing/removing the colours in the graphs where there is no colour legend, as it can lead to confusion for the reader. In particular, in Figure 5 B and F;
the study is experimentally correct and well done.
the study is not very innovative, in fact, the effect of daidzein on caveolin, its effect on endothelial cells and its effect on osteoporosis are known. This work brings it all together.
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.