Electrophysiological and Morphological Studies of SOD1 Transgenic Mice: An Animal Model of ALS

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

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).

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are few issues found in the manuscript, which are as follows:

·       In the 1^st sentence of Abstract, the word ‘Amyotropic’ in “Amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS)” must be ‘amyotrophic’.

·       Under Materials and Methods, 1^st paragraph, 6^th 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, 1^st paragraph, 1^st 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, “6^th paragraph, 3^rd 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.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team