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.
All issues pointed out by the reviewers were adequately addressed and the revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Overall, the logic of this manuscript is clear, and the description is appropriate.
The assay and data are suitable.
The findings are convincing.
The authors have addressed most of the reviewer's questions and significantly improved the manuscript quality.
Please address the concerns of both reviewers and amend the manuscript accordingly.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
In this study, the authors mainly demonstrated that the β-sitosterol, isolated from the leaves of Trema orientalis (Cannabaceae), can obviously promotes the BF-2 cell viability and proliferation. Overall, the logic of this manuscript is clear, but the data are not convincing, and there are some issues that should be addressed.
One cell line is not enough for analyzing β-sitosterol’s function, so, the authors should test its function in other cell lines.
The novelty is good, but the data are not robust.
1: One cell line is not enough for analyzing β-sitosterol’s function, so, the authors should test its function in other cell lines.
2: The references are too old; the authors should cite the new and latest references.
3: In Figure 4 and 5, the authors should label the detail information in the figures.
4: The introduction part is too short and simple; the authors should carefully expand it.
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.