Reply to Comments of Bassi, Ghirardi, and Tumulka on the Free Will Theorem

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Man uscri pt IDWe would like to tha nk XXX (n ame of Journ al) for givi ng us the opportunity to revise our manu scri pt.We tha nk the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comme nts on prev ious draft.We have carefully take n their comme nts into con siderati on in preparing our revisi on.which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more comp elli ng, and broader. The followi ng summarizes how we respon ded to reviewer comme nts.Below is our res ponse to their comme nts.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorres ponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答:一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors ' responseReviewer #1:Major comme nts4. 5. 6.1. 2. 3. The referee correctly no ted that our Ian guage about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we cha nged the text and the figures to emp hasize that ….To further support the concept that, we have an alyzed ….As depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig. S1…As suggested by the reviewer we have emp hasized our observati ons of XXX in results and discussi on sect ions. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supp leme ntary Fig S. to support … As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Suppl eme ntary Fig.) that summarizes … Minor comme nts 1. 2. 3.4.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title. We have added and impro ved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2. We have added statistics to Fig 5C. We have corrected the typ escri pt errors in the XXX p aragra ph. Reviewer #2: 1. 2. 3. 4. Because of the reviewer' s request, we have p erformed new exp erime nts to better clarify …The new Fig. shows that …This finding suggests that … As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the point that … We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer ' s request we have used XXX to confirm that …The new data are depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig . Because of reviewer ' s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi by qua ntitative RT-PCR the efficie ncy of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supp leme ntary Fig.Reviewer #3: 1. 2. 3. Because of the referee ' s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new exp erime nts to address The new Fig . 6 shows that …. In res ponse to the reviewerdepi cted in Suppp leme ntary Fig. We agree with reviewer that 's requests, we have studied ….The new data are ….However, a rece nt paper has show n that ….We have added this refere nee and mdified the sentence to un derl ineWe have changes Figure 1 with a picture that….The previous one was too week and the gree n fluoresce nee was lost duri ng the conv ersi on in PDF format.Because of review ' s request, we have changed as miosisiblepthe magn ificati on in orderto mai ntai n the same scale bar but also to p reserve details. The differe nee betwee n XXX and XXX is not statistically sig nifica nt. I n order to betterclarify this issue we cha nged the grap hics of our statistical an alysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复: 1nd Revision -authors ' response Referee #1: We want to beg in by tha nking Referee #1 for writi ng that is gen erally in teresting and imp orta nt in the field. criticism and suggesti on. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below. 1. “ the finding in our manu scri pt ” We also appreciated the constructiv 2. 3. 4. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nt dem on strati ng exp erime nt, this result is p rese nted in the revised Fig.The referee suggests dem on strati ng that ….This exp erime nt was p erformed in XXX by comparing … The referee comme nts that it is un clear whether the effect of ….is due to ….T address the referee ' s comme nt, we revised Fig. and dem on strated that r ….To furthe confirm •….Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. dem on strate that Thanks to the referee ' s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in the revised manu scri pt. …;in the new Referee #2: We want to tha nk Referee #2 for con structive and in sightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below. 1. 2. 3. 4. The referee recomme nds to show ….We p erformed the exp erime nt and its result is in cluded in the revised Fig. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nts in Fig. were rep eated several times and rep rese ntative data are in cluded in the revised Fig.Based on the referee ' s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have in cluded new results, which in clude: All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordi ngly. 2nd Revision -authors ' responseWe would like to tha nk the referees for their thoughtful review of our manu scri pt. Webelieve that the additi onal cha nges we have made in res ponse to the reviewers comme nts have made this a sig nifica ntly stron ger manu scri pt. Below is our poin t-by-point res ponse to the referee ' s comments. Referee #1: Referee #1 request two minor editorial cha nges. Both cha nges have bee n made accord in gly in the revised manu scri pt. Referee #2:We sin cerely apo logize to Referee #2 for not comp letely address ing all of the p oi nts raised in the p revious res pon se. We have done so below and added additi onaldata in hopes that this reviewer will be supp ortive of p ublicati on.Referee #2 requests evidenee that ….According to the referee ' s suggestion, a XX assay was p erformed in XXX cells to dem on strate that ….The result is p rese nted in Fig.Page 17, “ the ” E3 was changed to “ an ” E3.Referee #2 asks whether ….We would like to note that we inv estigated ….in ourp revious study and found no evide nee that ….Therefore, in this manu scri pt we focused on 1.2. 3.。

如何回复审稿⼈意见（ResponsetoReviews）Williams, Hywel C. (2004) How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51 (1). pp. 79-83. ISSN 0190-9622Access from the University of Nottingham repository:/doc/32e91535cd1755270722192e453610661ed95a17.html /859/2/How_to_reply_to_referees.pdf Copyright and reuse:The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see:/doc/32e91535cd1755270722192e453610661ed95a17.html /end_user_agreement.pdfA note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contacteprints@/doc/32e91535cd1755270722192e453610661ed95a17.htmlHow to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for publicationHC Williams PhDManuscript to be considered as a “special article” or e-blue for JAAD Corresponding author:Prof. Hywel WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based DermatologyQueen’s Medical CentreNottingham NG7 2UHTel: +44 115 924 9924 x43000Fax: +44 115 970 9003e-mail: hywel.williams@/doc/32e91535cd1755270722192e453610661ed95a17.htmlConflict of interest: NoneAbstractBackgroundThe publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and step-wise process that involvesresponding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such commentsObjectiveTo provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximises chance of subsequent acceptanceMethodsLiterature review and review of the author’s experience as a writer and referee ResultsWhere possible the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending their article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees’ comments is suggested that includes the three “golden rules” of (i) responding completely (ii) responding politely and (iii) responding with evidence.ConclusionResponding to referees’ comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees’ concerns in a courteous, objective and evidence-based way.Word count 147Key words: Referee comments, reviewer comments, responseIntroductionPlenty of guidance is available on conducting good research1,2, and websites of most scientific journals give clear and helpful instructions on what is suitable for submission and how to submit. Yet where does one obtain guidance on replying to referees’ (peer reviewer) comments once the manuscript is returned? I could find little in the literature dealing with this important topic3-7.This article attempts to address this gap by providing some helpful tips on how to reply to referees’ comments. In the absence of any systematic research to determine which strategies are “best” in terms of acceptance rates, the tips suggested below are based simply on my personal experience of publishing around 200 papers and of refereeing over 500 papers, as well as working as an editor for 3 dermatology journalsI have presented some aspects of the work previously in two workshops with groups of British Specialist Registrars in dermatology, and I am grateful to them for helping me to develop the learning themes.I have deliberately not entered into any discussions on the quality of peer review8 or the value of peer review in publication since it is still hotly debated if peer review really helps to discriminate between good and bad research or whether it simply improves the readability and quality of accepted papers9. Instead, I have decided to stick to providing what I hope is helpful and practical guidance within the system that already exists .That letter arrives from the journal…After labouring for many months or years on your research project and having written many manuscript drafts in order to send off your final journal submission, a letter or e-mail from the journal arrives several weeks later indicating whether the journal editor is interested in your paper or not. At this stage, it is every author’s hope that the paper is accepted with no changes, yet such an experience is incredibly rare – it has happened to me only twice, and these were both commissioned reviews. More commonly, one of the following scenarios ensues:ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONIf you are lucky, the letter will ask for only minor revisions. In such circumstances, it is probably best to simply get on with these without invoking too much argument. If you send the revised paper back to the editor quickly, it is still likely to be fresh in his/her mind, and you will probably get a speedy acceptance.MAJOR REVISIONS NEEDEDThe commonest form of letter is one that lists 2 or 3 sets of referees’ comments, some of which are quite major. In such circumstances, you will need to work hard at reading and replying to each referee in turn following the layout and three golden rules (Box 1) that I will develop later in this paper. Such a process can take days to complete, so do not underestimate the task. Only you can decide whether such an investment of time is worthwhile. My advice is always to revise and resubmit to the same journal if the comments are fair, even if responding to them takes a lot of time. Some authors go weak at the knees when requested to do a major revision, and instead simply send the paperelsewhere. This is understandable, but the authors should still try and make improvements to the paper in light of the referees’ comments. Authors should also be aware that in certain fields of research, their work is likely to end up with the same referee when they send their paper to another major specialty journal. It will not go down well with that referee if they see that the authors have completely ignored the referees’ previous comments. So generally speaking, my advice is to put in the time needed to make a better paper based on the referees’ comments, and resubmit along the lines suggested. If you do submit to another journal, you should consider showing the “new” journal the previous referees’ comments and how you have improved the article in response to such comments – some journal editors feel positively about such honesty (Bernhard JD, personal written communication, November 2003).JOURNAL REQUESTS A COMPLETE REWRITEOnly you can decide if the effort of a complete rewrite is worth it. If it is clear that the referees and editor are interested in your paper and they are doing everything they can to make detailed and constructive suggestions to help you get the paper published, it might be a safer bet to follow their wishes of a complete rewrite. It might be difficult for the editor to then turn you down if you have done exactly what was asked of you. If on the other hand, the request for a complete rewrite is a cold one, ie without suggestions as to exactly what needs to be done and where, then it might be better to reflect on the other comments and submit elsewhere. Sometimes, referees may recommend splitting a paper if the paper is part of a large study that tries to cram in too many different results. Such a request from one of the referees may appear like a gift to the author –two for the price ofone. But a word of warning - if you are going to redraft the original paper into two related papers, there is no guarantee that both will be accepted. The best thing under such circumstances is to have a dialogue with your editor to test how receptive they would be to having the paper split into two.UNSURE IF REJECT OR POSSIBLE RESUBMISSION?The wording of some journal response letters can be difficult to interpret. For example, phrases such as “we cannot accept your paper in its current form, but if you do decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a substantial revision”, may sound like a reject, yet in reality, it may indicate an opportunity to resubmit. If you are unsure on how to “read between the lines”, ask an experienced colleague, or better still someone who works as a referee for that journal. Failing that, you could simply just write back to the editor to ask for clarification. Sometimes, a journal will ask you to resubmit your article in letter format rather than as an original paper. You then have to decide if the effort versus reward for resubmission elsewhere is worth it, or if you are content to accept the “bird in the hand” principle and resubmit your original paper as a letter.THE OUTRIGHT REJECTIONUsually this type of letter is quite short, with very little in the way of allowing you an opportunity to resubmit. Outright rejection may be due to the manuscript being unsuitable for the journal or because of “lethal” methodological concerns raised by the referees that are non-salvageable eg by doing a crossover clinical trial on lentigo maligna with an intervention such as surgery that has a permanent effect on patient outcomes in the firstphase of the crossover study. Sometimes the editors, who are always pushed for publication space, simply did not find your article interesting, novel or important enough to warrant inclusion. You will just have to live with that and submit elsewhere. Dealing with outright rejection of your precious sweat and toil may not be easy, especially if the journal has taken ages to get back to you. You have two main choices at this stage. If you feel that the referees’ comments are grossly unfair or just plain wrong, you can write to the editor to appeal the decision and ask for new referees. The success of such appeals depend on how confident you are that their decision was “out of order” and whether the real decision for rejection was indeed those comments transferred to you. Appeals such as this are rarely successful – I have done it twice with the BMJ, and both have failed.The other (better) option is to stop snivelling, pick yourself up and resubmit elsewhere. If you do this, it is important that you read and objectively assess the referees’ comments from the journal that has turned down your paper. This is for two reasons (i) those comments may improve the article and (ii) as stated earlier, your paper may end up with the same referee even if you send it to another journal. If you are really convinced that your paper is earth shattering, then you should not automatically resubmit to a journal that might be easier to get your paper accepted into. Sometimes, it has been my experience that a paper that was rejected by a medium-ranking dermatology journal is subsequently accepted by a higher-ranking one – such is the unpredictability of peer review and journal editor preferences9.The three golden rules of structuring your response letterRULE ONE: ANSWER COMPLETELYIt important that all of the referees’ comments are responded to in sequence, however irritating or vague they may appear to you. Number them, and repeat them in your covering letter using the headings such as “Reviewer 1” then “Comment 1”followed by “Response”. What you are doing here is making the editor’s and referees’ jobs easy for them – they will not have to search and cross reference lots of scripts in order to discover what you have done – it will all be there in one clean document.Typing out or paraphrasing the referees comments as a means of itemising the points also achieves two other things (i) it forces you to listen to what the referees actually said, rather than what you though they might have said when you first read their comments and (ii) it helps you to understand how many separate points are being made by the referee. Quite often, you will just receive a paragraph with several comments mixed up together. In such a situation, you can split the paragraph into 2 or 3 separate comments (comment 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) and then answer them in turn. Even if some of the comments are just compliments, then repeat these in your cover letter followed by a phrase such as “we thank the referee for these comments”. RULE TWO: ANSWER POLITELYRemember that nearly all referees have spent at least an hour of their personal/family time in refereeing your paper without being paid for it. If you (as a lead author) receive a huge list of comments, it usually means that the referee is trying very hard to help you improve the paper to get it accepted. Reject statements are usually short, and do not allow you an open door to resubmit.It is quite all right to disagree with referees when replying, but do it in a way that makes your referees feel valued. Avoid pompous or arrogant remarks. Whilst it is only human nature to feel slightly offended when someone else dares to criticise your precious work, this must not come across in your reply. Your reply should be scientific and systematic. Get someone else to read your responses before sending them off.Try to avoid opening phrases such as “we totally disagree” or “the referee obviously does not know this field”. Instead try and identify some common ground and use phrases starting with words such as “We agree with the referee…..but…”. A list of helpful phrases that I have developed over the years is given in Box 2 for guidance.RULE THREE: ANSWER WITH EVIDENCEIf you disagree with the referee’s comments, don’t just say, “we disagree” and then move on. Say why you disagree with a coherent argument, or better still, back it up with some facts supported by references that you can cite in your reply. Sometimes those extrareferences are just to back the point you make in your covering letter, but occasionally you may add them to the revised article. Some kind referees go to the trouble of suggesting missed references or how you might reword important areas of your document. Providing the references or rewording makes sense to you, just go ahead and incorporate them. It is quite legitimate to use the referee’s comments to add some extra text and data if their comments require it, although if this amounts to more than a page, you would be wise to suggest it as an option to the editor. Another option is to suggest that the extensive additions would be better placed in another subsequent article.Sometimes, if there is no clear published data to strongly support your methodological approaches, you can discuss this with an expert in the field. If he/she agrees with your approach, then you can say so in your reply eg “Although other approaches have been used in the past, we have discussed this statistical methods with Prof Teufelsdr?ch who agrees that it was the appropriate analysis”.Tips on dealing with other scenariosREFEREES WITH CONFLICTING VIEWPOINTSAt first, this scenario might appear very difficult to the novice, yet it should be viewed as a gift. You, the author, have the choice of which viewpoint you agree with the most (or better still, the one which is right!). Then it is simply a question of playing one referee off against the other in your reply. You can always appeal to the editor by asking him/her to make the final decision, but give them your preferred option with reasons.THE REFEREE IS WRONGReferees are not Gods, but human beings who make mistakes. Sometimes they do not read your paper properly, and instead go on at length about their hobbyhorse whereas in fact you have dealt with their concerns elsewhere in the paper. Try to resist the temptation of rubbing their nose in it with lofty sarcastic phrases such as “If the referee had bothered to read our paper, …”,. but instead say something like “We agree that this is an important point and we have already addressed it on page A, paragraph B, line C”.Sometimes the referee is just plain wrong about something. If so, it is silly to agree with the referee, and you are entitled to a good argument. If you are confident that you are right, then simply argue back with facts that can be referenced - the editor can then adjudicate who has the best evidence on their side.THE REFEREE IS JUST PLAIN RUDEAnyone who has done clinical research will realise just how difficult it can be, and there is no place for rudeness from referees. I find it sad that senior academics can sometimes forget their humble beginnings when they referee other’s work. Nearly all journals provide clear guidance to their referees to avoid remarks which they would find hurtful if applied to their own work, yet some ignore such advice and delight in rude or sarcastic comments, possibly as a result of envy or insecurity. In such circumstances, all you need to do is to complain to the editor and ask for another non-hostile review.THE DREADED “REDUCE THE PAPER BY 30%” REQUESTSuch a request typically comes form the editor who is pushed for space in his/her journal.I have to confess that for me, this is the comment that I dread most of all because it is often accompanied by 3 referees’comments, the response to which usually involves making the article longer than the original submission. A general reduction in text by 30% basically requires a total rewrite (which is slow and painful). It is usually easier to make a brave decision to drop an entire section that adds little to the paper. Ask a colleague who is not involved in the paper to take out their editing knife and suggest non-essential areas that can go – even though the process of losing your precious words may seem very painful to you. Discussion sections are usually the best place to look for radical excisions of entire paragraphs. Background sections should be just one to two paragraphs long – just long enough to say why the study was done, rather than anexhaustive review of all previous literature. Please do not skimp on the methods section unless you are referring to a technique which can be put on a website or referenced.ConclusionReferees are human beings. The secret of a successful resubmission is to make your referees feel valued without compromising your own standards. Make your referees’ and editor’s life easy by presenting them with a clear numbered and structured response letter. Provided you have made a good attempt at answering all of the referees’ comments in a reasonable way by following the three golden rules, many referees and editors are too weak at the stage of resubmission to open another round of arguments and resubmission. In my experience, I spend up 90 minutes on the initial refereeing of a manuscript, but only around 20 minutes on a resubmission. But if you miss out some comments completely or your manuscript changes do not correspond with what you said you have done in your covering letter, this you will entice your referee to spend hours going through your paper with a fine toothcomb and a possible deserved rejection.Like a good marriage, resubmitting your manuscript in light of your referees’ comments is a process of give and take. AcknowledgementThe author wishes to thank Dr. Jeffrey Bernhard for his constructive comments and for references 5 to 7.References1.Lowe D. Planning for medical research: a practical guide to research methods.Astraglobe Ltd., Cheshire, England, 1993.2.Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London,19913.Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to reviewers' comments on submittedarticles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:105-7.4.DeBehnke DJ, Kline JA, Shih RD. Research Committee of the Society forAcademic Emergency Medicine. Research fundamentals: choosing an appropriate journal, manuscript preparation, and interactions with editors. Acad Emerg Med.2001;8:844-50.5.Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. Williams & Wilkins,Baltimore, 1998.6.Huth EJ. Writing and publishing in medicine (3rd ed). Williams & Wilkins,Baltimore, 19997.Rothman KJ. Writing for epidemiology. Epidemiology 1998;9:333-37.8.Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786-909.Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784-6.。

Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.1.Title: XXX2.Manuscript type: Article3.Corresponding author: XXX4.Full author names: XXXSincerely,Prof. XXXSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,XX Key Laboratory of Controllable ChemistryReaction & Material Chemical Engineering,XX University,Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.2015-03-05Responses to comments of EditorThank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.➢2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those ofearlier papers which are no longer novel.➢4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.We have revised our manuscript againWe have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。

精品文档List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds t o the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××......逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are v ery sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s su ggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions..。

英文回复审稿人意见模板Template for Responding to Reviewer Comments in English:Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript titled [Title of Manuscript]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Below, we have addressed each of your comments and provided explanations or revisions accordingly:1. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].2. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].3. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].We believe that the changes we have made address the concerns raised and improve the quality of the manuscript. Please review the revised version and let us know if any further modifications are required. We are grateful for your thorough review and look forward to your feedback.Thank you once again for your time and expertise.Sincerely,[Your Name].[Your Affiliation].英文审稿人意见回复模板:尊敬的[审稿人姓名]，感谢您抽出时间审阅我们的稿件《[稿件标题]》。

1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to t he comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specificdifferences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I canonly say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p. 7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gra……….., Ph.D. ProfessorLaboratory of Plant Nutrition andEcological Environment Research,Huazhong Agricultural University,Wuhan, 430070, P.R.ChinaE-mail: .....................Jun 10, 2009RE: HAZMAT-D-09-00655Dear Editor，We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us constructive suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Here we submit a ne w version of our manuscript with the title “………………………”, which has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. We mark all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.Sincerely yours,……………….., Ph.D. Professor------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a point-to-point response to the two reviewers’ comments.Reviewer #1:General comments:Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting experimental investigation to assess the photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene plastic with goethite under UV irradiation. The research work is clearly presented but the conclusions, the introduction and other parts of the paper relate the results obtained with unjustified claims about the impact of the work. In addition, the background information provided in the introduction part needs significant enrichment. In particular: Answer: Thank you for the comments on the paper. We have revised the manuscript as suggested since we consider that some sentences or descriptions in the Conclusion part are not so accurate based on the results.Page 3, line 46: recycling is not available…Even though a large amount of agricultural plastic waste in burnt or buried in the fields, some quantities of specific categories of good quality agricultural plastic waste are recycled in several countries while research efforts and projects are in progress to improve the corresponding percentage. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer:Yes. Your opinions inspired us and we revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised paper, the sentence “Recycling is not available for economy,” was changed to “In order to reduce costs, the thickness of application agriculture films in some regions in China is less than 0.005 mm result in diffcult to recycle, And because the process of recycling is expensive and time-consuming, only a small percentage of the agricultural plastic waste is currently recycled at the end of cultivation in China [4]”(Page 3 line 49-52).Page 3, line 76: biodegradable and photodegradable….There are developments in the area of biodegradable materials that indicate the opposite. Concerning photodegradable materials, they are not considered to represent a solution as they have not been proven to be biodegradable. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer: Thank you for reminding us the improper description on the study. We have the improper parts revised accordingly and hope that this new manuscript will be convincing ( Page 3 line 52-55).Page 4, line 65: find an eco-friendly….The best eco-friendly disposal for agricultural plastic waste is recycling and fornon-recyclable materials, energy recovery. Degrading materials produced from fossil sources is not an eco-friendly disposal! The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that some of the descriptions in the previous copy were really not so accurate and a little bit arbitrary due to our poor English level and the study on recent literature. After consulting more references, we therefore revised paper to be more reasonable and convincing.Page 4, line 66: to carbon dioxide and water….Conversion of fossil oil based materials into carbon dioxide and water is much worse than converting renewable-based materials into carbon dioxide and waterAnswer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate, due to our poor study on recent literature. The sentence “it is very important to find an eco-friendly disposal of plastic waste where they degrade to carbon dioxide and water under the sunlight irradiation without producing toxic byproducts.” has been deleted.Page 6, line 112: volatile products….Define the products.Answer: We have defined the volatile products in Page 6 line 124-125.Page 9, line 185: eco-friendly disposal….The claims of the authors that this technique is an eco-friendly one are not justified. The conclusions and other parts of the paper need to be rewritten and limit the scope of the presented research work to the technical objectives without deriving unjustified general conclusions and claims about the impact of this work.Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate. The sentence “The development of this kind of composite polymer can lead to an eco-friendly disposal of polymer wastes.” was changed to “The present paper intends to study goethite as photocatalytst for degradating plastic. Further attention could be focused on the application of the technique.” (Page 9 line 192-194).Reviewer #3:1. Title and abstract should indicate that the work has been done with PE-Goethite composite film.Answer: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We agree and therefore change the title to: Solid-phase photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene–goethite composite film under UV-light irradiation.2. Please revise the first paragraph of 'Introduction'. It is difficult to understand. In general, the language of the paper should be revisited.Answer: The Introduction part has been rewritten both in contents and in English. We particularly revised some sentences since they are not correct or so confusing.3. Materials and methods - Details of the chemicals to be furnishedAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s s uggestions have been adopted and the details of the chemicals has been shown in Page 4 line 79-83.4. Characterization are required for PE (Molecular weight, grade) and Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM-EDS and XRD)Answer: The revie wer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the characterization for PE has been shown in Page 4 line 79. The Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM and XRD) has been reported by Liao et al. (2007), We clarify that in the revised manuscript in Page 5 line 91-93.5. A schematic diagram of the experimental set up to be givenAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Fig. 1 in the present paper. The original Fig. 1. was changed to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.6. Results - A rate equation should be proposed from the time-weight data Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the rate equation a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Table. 1in the present paper.7. A few data are required to show the influence of process parameters such as goethite loading, intensity of UV radiation.Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the influence of goethite loading has been shown in Fig. 2 in the present paper. And the influence of intensity of UV radiation has been shown in Fig. 3 in the present paper. The original Fig. 2 was changed to Fig. 4 and The original Fig. 3 was changed to Fig. 5 in the present paper.8. Until other intermediates are isolated, upto Eqn.(7) (line 162) is sufficient. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and We changed the Eqns as recommended. Eqs. (8)-(12) are deleted and Eqn.(7) was change to “–(CH2CH2)–+ .OH →degradationproducts” (Page 9 line 184).9. Figure 3 and 4: 3 pairs are required, namely (i) Only PE film before and after irradiation, (ii) PE-Goethite film (0.4wt %) - before and after irradiation (iii)PE-Goethite film (1.0 wt %) - before and after irradiation.Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the original Fig. 3 and 4 was changed to Fig .5 in the present paper.10. Point 3 above is also applicable for SEM photographs. Please rearrange and clearly mark the difference between the films before and after irradiation for both SEM and FTIR results.Answer: Thank the reviewer and editor’s for the comments. During the revision of the paper, we did a supplementary experiment got some new SEM photographs, whichhas been shown in Fig. 4 in the present paper. And The FTIR results has been rearranged in Fig.5 in the present paper, respectively.11. It should be clearly mentioned in the conclusion that the degradation was more when goethite loading and intensity of light both were moreAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the conclusions has been changed in Page 9 line 192-198.。

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXXwas ambiguous. Therefore, we changed the text and thefigures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized ourobservations of XXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) inSupplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme(Supplementary Fig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXXparagraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the revi ewer’s request, we have performed newexperiments to better clarify… The new Fig. shows that…This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data ofXXX to clarify the point that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of thereviewer’s request we have used XXX to confirm that…The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed theefficiency of RNAi by quantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel inSupplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panelof Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added newexperiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that…. 2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied….The new data are depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper hasshown that …. We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. Theprevious one was too week and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much aspossible the magnification in order to maintain the samescale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statisticallysignificant. In order to better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Re feree #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.Accordi ng to the referee’s suggestion, the experimentdemonstrating…; in the new experiment, this result ispresented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experimentwas performed in XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effectof ….is due to …. To address the referee’s comment, werevised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To further confirm….Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. Insummary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numberswere corrected in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed theexperiment and its result is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig.were repeated several times and representative data areincluded in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have includednew results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were correctedaccordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response t o the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to thereferee’s suggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells t o demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that weinvestigated ….in our previous study and found noevidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused。