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 responding to the reviewers' comments/requests. I find the work acceptable for publication with the changes.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please, respond to the comments of the reviewers. Please, add the missing data on the in vivo ectopic bone formation as both reviewers suggested. Finally, please, follow the suggestions on expanding the discussion on possible mechanisms and correct the problems with the Figures as Reviewer 2 suggested.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
In the abstract and conclusion, the authors mentioned about in vivo ectopic bone formation. however, the results regarding the in vivo work are not present in the submitted manuscript.
The authors should include that data if available or remove the in vivo claim in the manuscript.
The authors should comment on how LOC100506178 changes during osteoblast differentiation using ascorbic acid and beta-glycerophosphate, if known.
The study explored the regulatory mechanisms between LINC00968 and miR-3658 during osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs. The study is interesting.
The experimental design is good, but some experiments need to improve.
Some findings need to improve.
The study explored the regulatory mechanisms between LINC00968 and miR-3658 during osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs. The study is interesting, but some concerns need to be addressed.
1.The manuscript mentioned “ectopic bone formation in vivo”, but I do not find the data in “methods and results”, and please add the data.
2. Figure 2B, please provide three times the results of Alizarin Red S Staining and make quantitative analysis.
3. Figure 2C and Figure 3C, please provide the results of ALP activity on day 3 and day 7, because ALP activity is a marker at the early stage of osteogenesis differentiation. In addition, what is the unit of ALP activity in your study.
4. Figure 5 in raw data, the authors need to provide more images of the original western bolts.
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.