Comments to Authors

Comments to Authors

1. The grammar, spelling, and punctuation in this manuscript need attention. Improper

grammar greatly decreases the flow of the manuscript and alters meaning in many

locations.

2. Overall, the number of samples per treatment is unclear. The sample size should be

clearly stated in every treatment including in the culture experiments. The sample sizes

should be reflected in the figure legends as well. Was a power analysis performed to

ensure significance could be reached?

3. The abstract should include quantitative data to support claims.

4. The authors report performing a series of experiments with varying concentrations of

FSH but do not show any results except for 0 UI/ml FSH and 0.3 UI/ml FSH. The non-culture control is not used for comparison. It is recommended that all results are included

in the report.

5. There is insufficient description of the total numbers of animals used, the size of cages

where animals were housed, the number of animals per cage, the feed type, and the

description of surgical procedures for transplant. There should be an ethics statement

regarding the humane treatment of animals.

6. For IHC, the concept of integrated optical density (IOD) was introduced but was the

assessment performed double-blind? In addition, no values for IOD are reported only

non-quantified images of sections are included.

7. For 2MD-FITC-Dextran treatment, further elaboration is required for the statement “six

mice for each condition”. A full accounting of the sample sizes and treatments is needed.

In addition, please report your section thickness.

8. Figures 1, 2, and 3 – the scale bar is too small to be visible, as is the value associated

with it. There is no IOD data reported to support the use of these figures as a

comparison or representative samples. These figures are of little to no value without

quantification.

9. Figure 4 is un-necessarily confusing and it is recommended that A & B be separated into

their own independent figures. It is questionable whether C adds any value as there is

no quantification of these results and it is unknown if this is a representative sample.

10. There are numerous inconsistencies between information stated in the results sections

and information presented in figure 4. Double check your significance statements

between these two sources of information.

11. There are statements claiming significance without supporting quantified data presented

(for example pg 11, line 10). All quantified data should be represented in the results

section.

12. There are many statements in the discussion that overstate the importance/significance

of the results especially considering not all results are shown (example: pg 12 first

paragraph).

13. Page 13 lines 7 & 12 refer to “highest” FSH concentration but it is unclear the value of

that concentration. In the methods it is mentioned that there is a 0.6 UI/ml FSH treatment

group but in the results the authors concentrate on the 0.3 UI/ml FSH treatment. Which

dosage is the “highest”. The 0.6 UI/ml FSH results (and all other results) need to be

included in the paper.

14. Page 15 line 10, the authors refer to “other groups” but these results are not presented.

This is especially concerning as the non-culture control values are never presented in

the paper.

15. Citations needed for discussion on page 13 starting at line 37 and in other areas of

discussion.

16. Overall, the discussion is hard to follow due to grammatical, spelling and punctuation

issues. There are numerous claims made without supporting results.