Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 28th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 9th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 12th, 2016 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 29th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript which has been accepted for publication in Peer J.Please do some minor editing at production, as noted by Reviewer 2

·

Basic reporting

"No Comments"

Experimental design

"No Comments"

Validity of the findings

"No Comments"

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This report was written in clear english and presented clearly.
The authors have addressed my previous queries and comments satisfactory.
I recommend this manuscript for publication in PeerJ.

Experimental design

This paper contributes broadly to MRI research in the areas of white matter pathology and MS model. It has especially tease out the correlation and sensitivity between T1/T2 and DTI parameters to measure changes in WM content.

Additional experimental details have been added as requested.

Validity of the findings

Additional results and discussion have been added to make this paper clearer.

Comments for the author

Minor editing:
line 118: delete "also"
Fig 6: delete "Again"
line 520: "known"

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors,

Two peer reviewers have mentioned very important comments that your team should take into serious consideration.Please do the necessary revisions and resubmit to PeerJ for re-review when the revisions are completed.

·

Basic reporting

"No Comments"

Experimental design

"No Comments"

Validity of the findings

"No Comments"

Comments for the author

1. cuprizone is demylination and remylination model. You just limited your study to validate demyleination process. It would be interested to study both processe and suggest a validation.

2. I suggest you compare your cuprizone model with other MS model.

3. Your diffusion weighted imaging is so limited and you did not compare it with other imaging approaches.

4. Your sample number is low

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This article presents an in-depth MRI study using T1/T2, myelin water fraction and DTI parameters to study demyelination in cuprizone mouse model and supported with myelin and microglia histology.
This paper attempt to address hotly debated topics in MRI, and I would like to see this manuscript published.
The manuscript is in a very good shape. It is very well written and the figures are clear.

Experimental design

This paper aims to test the sensitivity of myelin water fraction imaging using mcDESPOT in cuprizone demyelination model, and compare the results with standard quantitative MR methods.

The experiment is well laid out, but I have a few comments:
Line 101, it is not clear if this total time include DTI. Please add the acquisition time for each modalities, and also for mcDESPOT acquisitions.
What is the b values and the d/D for DTI?
130: What is L-BFGS-B?
151; I don’t understand this sentence “Instead, we synthesized an image from the T1&T2 maps and the TE/TR of the diffusion sequence.” What image?

Validity of the findings

The data presented is robust, and the control is present.

Comments:
Line 238: is there any behavioural difference between control and cuprizone mice?
Line 274: Perhaps should add a comment about large areas of changes shown by T2?

Figure 6. Do you still have the samples to do neurofilament axonal staining? Perhaps FA is sensitive to the arrangement of axonal fibre, so if they are intact, then this would be expected.
FA has been used to study embryonic brain development, where they are still completely unmyelinated.

319: Perhaps you use low/mid b-value ~750 and high b-value ~3000 s/mm2 then you can distinguish between inflammation and demyelination components?

414: Something is missing “decreases in FA after . ”

Lines 410-417 and 419-425 are rather confusing. Perhaps it warrants a table to present/summarize it clearly.
Can you add treatment length, the results of microglia, myelin and axonal staining (if available) in this table? Also add their b-values and directions, in vivo/ex vivo.

446: Performance comparison between DTI and relaxometry data. I think you will need to do regression analyses between the MRI parameters and the myelin and microglia histology staining (and axonal staining?) to test for their correlation strengths.
- What is the effect of microglia infiltration and/or demyelination to the MRI data?
- Are there some areas which has demyelination but not so much increase in microglia activation? Do these areas have different MRI parameters to areas with both strong demyelination and microglia activation?

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.