Paper accepted! Waiting for the press now :D Looks like the reviewers like what they saw: Reviewer 1: Applying specific pharmacological tools, they obtained a compelling body of evidence ... ... It should be mentioned that such study needs sophisticated skills and experience and the authors meticulously confronted possible caveats and achieved their goals guided by ideas and knowledge gained in former studies. ... All experiments were carefully planned, performed, and the data were appropriately evaluated, presented and discussed.. Reviewer 2: The results presented here are consistent with the authors’ novel hypothesis ... ... This paper should prompt the field to investigate conditions/stimuli evoking ATP release onto inspiratory MNs, particularly the more sensitive XII MNs. ... The experiments are technically sound, many results are novel, and the manuscript is generally well written. Most of the problematic issues that arose while working through Results were adeptly handled by the authors with their considerations of a number of caveats and possible explanations for the data suggesting involvement of ICAN.. Reviewing Editor: The study appears to be expertly performed and the manuscript is well written.
Posted on: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:24:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015