Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 30th, 2019 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 11th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 6th, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 14th, 2020.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 14, 2020 · Academic Editor

Accept

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 #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 11, 2020 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

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.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The study explored the regulatory mechanisms between LINC00968 and miR-3658 during osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs. The study is interesting.

Experimental design

The experimental design is good, but some experiments need to improve.

Validity of the findings

Some findings need to improve.

Additional comments

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.