Electrophysiological and Morphological Studies of SOD1 Transgenic Mice: An Animal Model of ALS
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
Tools and Methods
Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
Comments: The Discussion highlights the striking feature while comparing cervical motor neurons of the wild type and SOD1 mutant mice and found that there is selective loss of the dendritic tree whereas the cell body remained active, even after generating pacemaker-like action potentials. It also discusses the electrophysiological findings of the study and mentions the importance of further investigations for getting clear views of the effects. The Conclusion puts forth the overview of the comparison of the morphologic and electrophysiologic responses of cervical motor neurons in wild type and mouse mutants that are good models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Comments: There are few issues found in the manuscript, which are as follows:
· In the 1st sentence of Abstract, the word ‘Amyotropic’ in “Amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS)” must be ‘amyotrophic’.
· Under Materials and Methods, 1st paragraph, 6th sentence, “The size of a mouse is smaller than a rat, and the skeleton is thinner” can better be written as “The size of a mouse is smaller than a rat, and also the skeleton is thinner”.
· In Results, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, “Figure 1 shows membrane potential and membrane resistance from motor neurons recorded from each of mutant animals and wild type” is reframed as “Figure 1 shows membrane potential and membrane resistance from motor neurons recorded from each of mutant animal and their wild types”.
· Under Results, “6th paragraph, 3rd sentence, “The amount of current necessary to evoke an action potential…” is rewritten as “The amount of current necessity to evoke an action potential… ”.
Further comments on the paper
Comments: This manuscript provides an animal model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in describing the electrophysiological and morphological studies of SOD1 transgenic mice. It illustrates the overall methods undertaken for the study. The studies of SOD1 mutants and wild-type were kept under consideration in the overall research and findings.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorDavid O. Carpenter
Institute for Health and the Environment; University at Albany, SUNY, Rensselaer, NY, USA
Article TypeResearch Article
Publication historyReceived: Mon 16, Aug 2021
Accepted: Tue 31, Aug 2021
Published: Sat 02, Oct 2021
Copyright© 2021 David O. Carpenter. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.