Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CORRELATION BETWEEN OBESITY AND CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN PATIENTS WITH PAPILLARY THYROID CANCER: A STUDY OF 1579 CASES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall well written with no particular concerns about English language grammar or spelling.

Few small issues:

1) The discussion is one long paragraph. It would be much easier to read broken up into several smaller paragraphs.

2) In line 60, "body mass index (BMI)" should replace BMI, as the abbreviation BMI has not yet been explained in the text (only the abstract)
Experimental design: Few issues:

1) Why did the authors collect, as per the materials and methods, data about cholesterol, menopause and TSH? It is never justified about why these parameters may be clinically relevant in thyroid cancer. Furthermore, these data are not taken into account in the multivariate logistic regression analysis either.

2) In line 75 it is mentioned that the authors collected "other clinical data". What was this, and why is it relevant?

3) in line 82, it is mentioned "Subsequently, the pathological characteristics of each group were compared". What pathological characteristics does this isolated sentence refer to?

4) The section "Statistical analysis" seems to misrepresent the role of logistic regression. It is stated that "after adjusting for age and gender, logistic regression was used to analyse the relationship  between BMI...". However, from my understanding, multivariate logistic regression is the process by which age and gender are adjusted for. It is not performed "after" adjusting for age and gender. The similar criticism applies to the subsequent sentences up to line 94.

5) Why did the authors not choose to present data about the relationship between age and gender and poor thyroid cancer outcomes in multivariate logistic regression? Is there an independent correlation between age and these outcomes, and gender and these outcomes?
Validity of the findings: Several issues:
1) There are no p- values provided in Tables 3-5, nor in the results section discussing the logistic regression. THis is particularly relevant looking at the frequent odds ratios of <0.01 among the underweight group, which is likely not statistically significant due to the very low numbers in this group and therefore not of relevance.

2) It is unclear why the authors performed a separate analysis for the subgroup of those with PTMC. This was never referenced in the materials and methods section. It was never explained in the results section how many patients had PTMC either.

3) from line 113 on to line 130, it needs to be clearly stated that these results are from multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, gender etc. It is inadequate to simply provide odds ratios here.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CORRELATION BETWEEN OBESITY AND CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN PATIENTS WITH PAPILLARY THYROID CANCER: A STUDY OF 1579 CASES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Tables and figures are nicely constructed, however P value in tables are missing. Try to use short sentences. Please check the format and grammatical mistakes.
Experimental design: Written very well
Validity of the findings: Need more validation of the output. It is fine, but data needs proper handling.
Additional comments: Line 75: What is other clinical data? How you distinguish TNM stages?
Line 79: What is BMI?
Line 74 : I do not get involvement of menopause in this article? is there any effect on the patient results?
Line 110: What is the difference used in this case. please explain it.
Line 133: Seems data is not constructed accurately, lack of proper handling of the data as i contain both deaths and the new cases of thyroid cancer.
Discussion: Please write it in a paragraph. Please add your result based on regression.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CORRELATION BETWEEN OBESITY AND CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN PATIENTS WITH PAPILLARY THYROID CANCER: A STUDY OF 1579 CASES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is clearly written. There are some grammatical errors which the editor can proofread.
Experimental design: Well done
Validity of the findings: Well done
Additional comments: I thank the author for changing the article to include consideration of my comments. I have no further comments. This is a strong article.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CORRELATION BETWEEN OBESITY AND CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN PATIENTS WITH PAPILLARY THYROID CANCER: A STUDY OF 1579 CASES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: My previous concerns have been addressed well.
Experimental design: My previous concerns have been addressed well.
Validity of the findings: I understand that the authors want to purely focus on the independent effects of BMI on PTC outcomes, instead of the independent effects of age and gender.

In this case, I think it is important that the authors reiterate in Tables 3-6 that these analyses have been performed with multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for age/gender/TSH levels where appropriate. Otherwise it looks like these tables are just performing univariate logistic regression analysis of BMI.

Similarly, it is important that from line 116 to 137, the authors continually reiterate that their findings are independent of age/gender/TSH where appropriate via multivariate analysis. Otherwise it looks like this text is simply describing the results of univariate logistic regression analysis of BMI within the cohort and subcohorts.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ADVANCES AND COMPLICATIONS OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN DIABETES THERAPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A major problem with the use of English. The review does not do a good job of summarizing this field.
Experimental design: lacking rigor
Validity of the findings: Many  of the important advances in this field are not included.
Additional comments: This review is concerned with the very important goal of restoring the beta cell deficiency of diabetes but is disappointing in a number of ways. It was obvious from the beginning that the use of the English language was very poorly done, which makes the paper unacceptable. In addition, the authors have not done good job of summarizing the current state of this exciting field. Many important papers are not cited and a number of paper that are included are out of date.

A few specific problems include the following;

Line 51: cognitive dysfunction from hypoglycemia caused by insulin treatment is not a big issue for T2D but is for T1D.

Line 53:  There are many good recent reviews   of islet transplantation. Why select a review from 2001?

Line 77: This is not clear.

Line 94: This is also not clear. A “glucose-related phosphatase” is mentioned but not explained in enough detail.

Line 105: What is meant by “85% of presented beta-cells”. Again, problems with poor use of English.

Line 118: Actually, lineage tracing has show that duct cells can turn into beta cells. (Inada et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2016)

Line 140: For alpha- to beta-cell conversion, papers from the groups of Herrera and Collombat should be cited (Ben-Othman et al., 2017; Thorel et al., 2010).

Line 152: what is meant by “epigenetic reprogramming”?
Line 218:  There is not much excitement about fibroblasts being a very promising source for making new beta cells.
Line 219:  The CASD strategy is not well described.

References:

Ben-Othman, N., Vieira, A., Courtney, M., Record, F., Gjernes, E., Avolio, F., Hadzic, B., Druelle, N., Napolitano, T., Navarro-Sanz, S., et al. (2017). Long-Term GABA Administration Induces Alpha Cell-Mediated Beta-like Cell Neogenesis. Cell 168, 73-85.e11.
Inada, A., Nienaber, C., Katsuta, H., Fujitani, Y., Levine, J., Morita, R., Sharma, A., and Bonner-Weir, S. (2008). Carbonic anhydrase II-positive pancreatic cells are progenitors for both endocrine and exocrine pancreas after birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 19915-19919.
Thorel, F., Nepote, V., Avril, I., Kohno, K., Desgraz, R., Chera, S., and Herrera, P.L. (2010). Conversion of adult pancreatic alpha-cells to beta-cells after extreme beta-cell loss. Nature 464, 1149-1154.
Zhang, M., Lin, Q., Qi, T., Wang, T., Chen, C.C., Riggs, A.D., and Zeng, D. (2016). Growth factors and medium hyperglycemia induce Sox9+ ductal cell differentiation into beta cells in mice with reversal of diabetes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 650-655.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ADVANCES AND COMPLICATIONS OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN DIABETES THERAPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this review, Brovkina and Dashinimaev have chosen to address an interesting and important aspect concerning the potential use of stem cells and regenerative medicine in the treatment of diabetes.  Indeed, the field of regenerative medicine and its application to diabetes, particularly beta-cell replacement and increasing beta-cell mass are areas currently expanding very rapidly making such a review timely and relevant.   Unfortunately, in its present form, this review falls short of the author’s ambitious goals.

1.  There is clearly a need for the authors to improve the English and preferably have the manuscript read and corrected by a native English speaker.  There are many examples throughout where the text is cumbersome and in some places, it is difficult to understand the authors meaning at all.  Examples in the abstract where the text is difficult to understand are lines: 18-19,  … ensures that future application in the clinic is not a matter of if, but when.  lines 20-21 “Indeed a generation of beta-cells mass with the expression of marker genes ….  “ would read more easily as … “Indeed, the generation of functional beta-cell mass …”
Experimental design: 2.  The scope of the review is essentially correct and the review is organized logically and coherently.  In overall depth, the review falls short in some aspects, for example, naturally occurring adult stem cells (somatic stem cells) from skeletal muscle (1), smooth muscle urinary tract  (2) and intestine, blood, skin, brain, adipose (3) and heart tissue all well-reviewed in (4) have all shown promise in treating beta-cell deficiencies.  It would seem appropriate to acknowledge this in new subsection 4 after Mature cell transdifferentiation.
While recognizing the size of the field, the review by Zhou and Melton 2018 (5) should be included in section 2.

1. Mitutsova V et al. Stem Cell Res Ther. (2017) 8:86
2. Zhao T et al., J Mol Histol. (2018) 49:419-428
3.Wang M. et al. Mol Ther. (2018) 26:1921-1930
4. Gurusamy N et al. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. (2018). 160: 1-22.
5, Zhou Q and Melton DA, (2018) Nature 557:351-358.
Validity of the findings: 3.  The conclusions are well stated and in agreement with the objectives set out in the introduction. However, in addition to emphasizing the prospective positive contribution of stem cells to this field, the conclusions should reiterate potential risks inherent in the use of either ESC or iPSC which are the major constraints to advancing this technology to the clinic.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ADVANCES AND COMPLICATIONS OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN DIABETES THERAPY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have significantly improved the legibility of this review and it now reads easily.  The article cites a broad range of literature in the field and the background and context of the review are clearly developed.  The review is within the scope of the journal and the originality stems from the comprehensive nature in which the field has been analyzed.
Experimental design: The field has been reviewed rigorously and the methodologies are outlined clearly and provide an unbiased and comprehensive coverage of the subject. The review is logically organized.
Validity of the findings: The review clearly illustrates the current limitations on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.
Additional comments: There are still a few errors in the English, which I outline here.
In the abstract line 20 diabetes --> diabetic patients.
Same line ... to the plurality... --> to a plurality.
Line 21 beta-cells masses --> beta-cell mass
Line 65 disorders lacks the full stop.
Line 78 should progress --> should help progress
Line 115 replace evidence --> show
Line 252 with biopsies --> for biopsies.
Line 408 of an islets graft --> of an islet graft.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A SYNTHETIC BIOSENSOR TO DETECT PEROXISOMAL ACETYL-COA CONCENTRATION FOR COMPARTMENTALIZED METABOLIC ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - The authors need to be consistent with convention in the references to genes (lowercase italics) and proteins (uppercase, not italics). For example, the abstract and the Figure 1 legend both refer to “three enzymes”, but the names are presented in non-italicized lowercase.
- It would be useful to have a table describing all strains in the main text.
- “Saccharomyces” can be abbreviated as “S.” after the first usage.
- It is strange (but not incorrect) that the x-axis in Figure 2 ranges from high oleate concentration to low concentration instead of the more conventional low  high presentation.
- Figure 3 – why not present both PHB data series in a single graph and both OD data series in a single graph? This would enable easier comparison between the two strains.
Experimental design: - On first glance, it is easy to misinterpret the experimental design. This reviewer first thought that PHB production was being used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the AcCoA-sensing biosensor, when actually PHB is the output of the biosensor. The authors should consider modifying Figure 1 to make this clearer. Also, oleate (since it is used throughout the manuscript) should be explicitly labeled in Figure 1.
- The only data presented as functionality of this biosensor is PHB production. The trends in the PHB titers are consistent with the expected trends of AcCoA abundance and of targeting to the peroxisome, but some sort of validating measurements are needed, such as direct measurement of AcCoA and correlation with PHB titers.
- Figure 2 – the authors state that the error bars refer to “estimated instrument error”. Does this mean that biological replicates were not assessed?
Validity of the findings: - The legend of Figure 1 refers to “rapid” recognition of the tags. How did the authors establish that the recognition is rapid?
- Line 187, the authors refer to “a significant effect”, but no supporting statistical analysis is described.
Additional comments: This manuscript describes the characterization of PHB production as a biosensor of AcCoA availability within the peroxisome. There is a strong demand for an ability to estimate AcCoA abundance within the peroxisome, and more generally, to detect specific metabolites within specific subcellular compartments. The authors detect strong, but indirect evidence of the functionality of their biosensor system. However, there manuscript is lacking a direct correlation of AcCoA abundance in the peroxisome and performance of this biosensor.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A SYNTHETIC BIOSENSOR TO DETECT PEROXISOMAL ACETYL-COA CONCENTRATION FOR COMPARTMENTALIZED METABOLIC ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language is mostly clear and unambigious. The literature is adequately referenced.

Comments:
Line 47 – What does efficiency refer to?
The word sensor is being misused through. The output is not easy to measure.
Figure 2 has data that should be listed as N.D. that is not.
Figure 3 – graphs should not have negative values on either axis.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The experiments are incompletely designed, as it remains unclear to what extent the reporter is specific to the peroxisome. The methods are well described for replication.
Validity of the findings: The claim "With high levels of enzyme expression, we hypothesize that the production of the reporter compound will be rate-limited by the substrate concentration, allowing for relative quantification of the substrate." is not validated. In fact, the results showing that expected knockouts do not improve on the WT could be explained by te

More definitive proof is needed to show that enzymes and PHB are localized.

The claim "the PHB signal is representative of peroxisomal acetyl-CoA concentration" How can this be a sensor without calibration of acetyl-CoA levels? Normalization of expression in both the cytosol and peroxisome is necessary to support this claim. It also requires showing that the availability of acetyl-CoA is limiting, rather than NADPH.

How do you know that in low oleic acid, when peroxisomes are not abundant that Pha enzymes were efficiently translocated and didn’t remain in the cytosol?
Additional comments: N/A


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A SYNTHETIC BIOSENSOR TO DETECT PEROXISOMAL ACETYL-COA CONCENTRATION FOR COMPARTMENTALIZED METABOLIC ENGINEERING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous round of review
Experimental design: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous round of review
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous round of review
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous round of review


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW BASAL ORNITHOPOD DINOSAUR FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some slight grammatical changes have been suggested in the "General Comments to the Author" for more clear English.
Experimental design: Excellently done and no comment.
Validity of the findings: Excellent and no comment.
Additional comments: Line 47: Change meters to meter.

Line 75: It would be beneficial to hear more details on what exactly the restorations entail. This would facilitate confidence in the anatomical description.

Line 93: walker should be walkeri

Line 131: A phylogenetic and osteological description of Oryctodromeus is in post-review revision now. Krumenacker, 2017, a PhD thesis on the osteology, phylogeny, taphonomy, and ontogenetic histology of Oryctodromeus may be useful and is available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324165136_Osteology_phylogeny_taphonomy_and_ontogenetic_histology_of_Oryctodromeus_cubicularis_from_the_middle_Cretaceous_Albian-Cenomanian_of_Montana_and_Idaho

Line 231: Change weaklier to something like “more weakly”

Line 302: Change wedge to wedges

Line 314: Sentence fragment that should be combined with subsequent sentence.

Line 409: It is mentioned in reference to dentary tooth count that: …”in any case, more than 15 teeth were present”. While I don’t myself doubt this. I would suggest briefly mentioning why this is a reasonable hypothesis since the dentary teeth are not visile.

Line 422: “Dental” should be “dentary” and “le” should presumably be “the”

Line 475: I suggest rephrasing “there is apparently then” to something like “then there is an apparent…”

Line 503: Should “artefact” be spelled “artifact”?

Line 514: Do I understand correctly that the presence of seven sacral vertebrae is being estimated here only because of the fusion of neural spines? I am unsure how justified this may be. As mentioned below, a lateral view of the fused neural spines of the sacral vertebrae may help lend evidence to this.

Line 525: Insert “a” between “only” and “few”.

Line 555: Ossified tendons from the dorsal column through to the end of caudal column are also prominent in some specimens of Oryctodromeus. See Krumenacker, 2017 (link above).

Line 595: A study by Jamie Fearon, on the morphometrics of Oryctodromeus forelimbs and other ornithopods may be of use for you in this section: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2016.1078341

Line 708: It may help to have an arrow or other method to highlight the gastroliths in Figures 1A and 1B.

Line 711: Change “to” to “with”.

Line 738: thescelosaurid is miss-spelled

Line 742: “Form” should be “forms”.
Line 765: “display” should be “displays”.

Line 766: “Bird” should be “birds”.

Line 826: A recent paper on the taphonomic setting of Oryctodromeus specimens, and subsequent burrows, may be useful in your discussion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219300835

Line 844: Short hands are mentioned. Can that be quantified/described/figured better in some way? The description mentions they are mostly eroded and covered.

Line 860: The dorsomedial inclination of the ilia- I have noticed this as well in small neornithischians. Could this be taphonomic. I myself think you are on to something, but perhaps justify why you think the orientation is not taphonomic in origin.

Line 862: Like the above comment, I would tighten up your justification for a seven centra sacrum if you can’t actually see the centra.

Line 879: I would suggest putting the word “possible” before fossorial. While your evidence and suggestions here are sound, they cannot be considered definitive.

Line 884: In reference to the use of the word “carcasses”, could it be argued the animals were buried alive?

Line 886: “They” should be “the”.

Figure 1: A formal scale bar in each image would be beneficial.

Figure 8c: Would it be possible to see a lateral view of the sacral neural spines to see the fusion better? It would help document the condition as described.

Overall I think this is a good contribution of a small new possibly fossorial ornithsichian. The authors have done well in citing the literature, describing the animal, interpreting taphonomic data, and justifying their conclusions.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW BASAL ORNITHOPOD DINOSAUR FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting is generally good - minor edits and corrections on the language are provided below.
Experimental design: All methods and approaches are generally sound.
Validity of the findings: Taxonomic and phylogenetic results are supported by the data. Taphonomic and ecological interpretations are less well supported and somewhat speculative, but this is openly acknowledged by the authors.
Additional comments: This paper describes some exceptionally preserved and very significant ornithopod dinosaur specimens from the Early Cretaceous of China as a new species. The manuscript is generally sound, with a strong case being made for the taxonomic distinctiveness of the new species, a generally sufficiently detailed description, and an appropriate phylogenetic analysis. Our comments are generally minor, and primarily address minor typographical errors and requests for clarifications and in some cases additional detail.

One more substantial problem with the manuscript is the clade names applied to the phylogenetic topology in figures 11 and 12. The authors strictly use clade names as defined phylogenetically by previous authors, but because their recovered topology differs substantially from that of previous work, this leads to clades with very strange taxonomic contents. It is particularly difficult to countenance, for example, that the clade names Thescelosauridae and Thescelosaurinae (which are family and subfamily groupings in the Linnean system) should include within them all iguanodontians, including hadrosaurs and species like Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus. We make the strong recommendation that the authors do not use Thescelosauridae and Thescelosaurinae on their chosen topology – just avoid using these clade names (there is no reason that all previously defined clade names need to be applied to their tree).

Line 21: “subcomplete” is unclear. Maybe “nearly complete”?

Line 101: Misspelling of “Orodromeus”

Line 111: Misspelling of “makelai”

Lines 115–118: As above, best to avoid using Thescelosauridae and Thescelosaurinae in this paper.

Line 126: Full stop required.

Line 133: “In the present analysis, we have not coded the basal ornithopod Oryctodromeus cubicularis, from the middle Cretaceous Blackleaf Formation of southwestern Montana and the Wayan Formation of southeastern Idaho, USA (Varricchio et al., 2007; Krumenacker, 2010), pending the formal description of the numerous partial skeletons from the Wayan Formation (Krumenacker, 2010).” - PhD thesis from Krumenacker (2017) has a description of nearly complete Oryctodromeus with material from Wayan Fm.

Line 137: “run TNT” > “run in/using TNT”

Line 139: Perhaps the authors could clarify why some of the characters (#110, #149, #152, #205, #208) were ordered in Dieudonne et al. (2016) but not in this study?

Line 143: A number of institutional abbreviations are used in the tables that are not defined here. Also, the correct abbreviation for the Natural History Museum, London, is NHMUK.

Line 169: We’re confused about the use of “JMOL” as the prefix to both specimens of Changmiania when PMOL is stated in the institutional abbreviations on Line 143.

Line 200: Isn’t fusion of the premaxillae also present in Changchunsaurus?

Line 214: Perhaps the authors could state whether or not it is possible to determine if the rostral end of the premaxilla was edentulous from both specimens.

Line 225: “NHM” should be “NHMUK” throughout.

Line 230: “progressively weaklier expressed” > “progressively less expressed”?

Line 232: “significantly lesser than” > “significantly less than”

Line 242: “resent” should be “present”

Line 243: “up to a weak basal cingulum” is confusing as the cingulum is at the base of the crown – “down to a weak basal cingulum” would be more appropriate.

Line 247: “on the labial” should be “on the labial surface”

Line 250: “and inverted” should be “an inverted”

Line 251: “The dorsal portion of the ventral process is slightly longer rostrocaudally than its ventral part.” > maybe “The ventral process becomes more rostrocaudally restricted ventrally?”

Lin 275: Consistent use of either palpebral/supraorbital. “Palpebral” is used by the authors in-text, but “supraorbital” is used in the figures.

Line 276: “The caudal process of the palpebral is robust, perfectly straight” Maybe the authors should remove “perfectly”. The palpebral does look straight in dorsal view but it looks a bit curved in lateral view.

Line 277: remove comma between “particularly” and “long”.

Line 279: remove comma after “postpalpebral”

Line 281: “a wide visor” – “visor” is a rather odd descriptive term and difficult to understand exactly what the authors mean.

Line 284: “craniocaudally”. Perhaps the authors should use “rostrocaudally” for consistency?

Line 314: “borer” > “border”

Line 325: “its rostrocaudal end remains equal along its whole height.” We may have misunderstood this but do the authors mean “rostrocaudal width/length”?

Line 332: Another closed bracket required after “(e.g., Archaeoceratops (IVPP V11114)”

Line 332: What is Butler & Han (2009)? As far as we know this paper doesn’t exist!

Line 341: “it largely overlaps the squamosal process of the postorbital, reaching the postorbital process of the latter (Fig. 6B).” We don’t think the latter part is necessary so perhaps just “it largely overlaps the squamosal process of the postorbital (Fig. 6B).”

Line 344: “which forms the forms the” includes some unnecessary words.

Line 386: “appears” > “appear”

Line 388: “Changchunsosaurus” > “Changchunsaurus”

Line 411: don’t need “relative” at the start of this sentence because “relatively” is used later

Line 422: “dental teeth” > “dentary teeth”

Line 422: “le” > “the”?

Line 447: “still complicates” > “further complicates”

Line 449: The six cervical vertebrae is an absolutely remarkable character. Are the authors certain there is no reconstruction or modification of the specimens in this region? Is the count of six verifiable in both specimens?

Line 457: For Scelidosaurus, the authors should use the recent paper by David Norman in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. Eight cervical vertebrae are present in Scelidosaurus. Nine were present in Scutellosaurus, as reported by Colbert (1981).

Line 503: It’s unclear what you mean by “it can also be an artefact of preservation”.

Line 553: “anterior dorsals vertebrae” > “anterior dorsal vertebrae”

Line 598: Kulindadromeus should be italicised.

Line 620: full stop at the end of the sentence.

Line 620: Maybe the authors could expand on the description of the hands here. From Figure 1 the hands seem much better preserved in the referred specimen than the holotype.

Line 655: Butler (2005) argued for an elongate ischial symphysis in Lesothosaurus, although this is reduced through ontogeny if the synonymy of Stormbergia and Lesothosaurus is correct.

Line 655: Please mention that the pubis is not visible.

Line 669: Author don’t mention that the 4th trochanter is covered by sediment (I assume) in both specimens.

Line 671: “referred specimens”. There’s only one referred specimen so it should be “referred specimen” throughout?

Line 678: It is unclear what “it is more salient distally” means.

Line 685: “expended” > “expanded”

Line 690: “cranial view” should that be dorsal view? Also Figure 10D description.

Line 691: “Left digit I is partly exposed.” I can’t see it on holotype or Figure 10D – but it does seem to be partially visible on the right foot of the referred specimen. Maybe the authors could expand on it a bit more and talk about the digit 1 ungual here or around Line 703.

Line 738: “thescelosautid” misspelt “thescelosaurid”

Line 742: “Jeholosauridae” > “Jeholosaurinae”

Line 747: Remove comma after 75 degrees

Line 752: Polarity is misspelled

Line 771: “characteristic” > “characteristics”

Line 794: “Cruelly” is a bit dramatic and could just be cut.

Line 805: “peaceful lifestyle posture” > “peaceful posture”

Line 815: Pompei is double ‘ii’

Line 831: “Oryctodromeus is also an orodromine ornithopod (Varricchio et al., 2007; Boyd, 2015)” Phylogeny from Boyd (2015) doesn’t show orodromines as ornithopods so maybe remove “ornithopod” or Boyd’s citation.

Line 844: “short hands” this feature isn’t mentioned in the description of carpals & manus on Line 619.

Line 863: “larger Iguanodontia” > “larger iguanodontians/ids”?

Figure 1: Clearer scale required.

Figure 3: In the line drawing 3B it looks like there is articulation between the supraorbital and postorbital.

Figure 3 & 4: The label for supraoccipital is missing.

Figure 8 caption: “vie” > “view”

Figure 11 caption: “belo” > “below”

Table 2 caption: Some of the taxa in the Table are missing from the caption. Also, some some of these abbreviations have been missed out of the in-text institutional abbreviations on Line 143. Also “NHM” > “NHMUK” throughout.

Supplementary info: Perhaps the authors could include a TNT file or nexus file in addition to the matrix provided to make it easier to analysis the tree.

Supplement 1: Character #110 is described as ordered in the character list whereas in-text the authors state that all characters were unordered.

Emily Brown & Richard Butler (co-signed review)


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW BASAL ORNITHOPOD DINOSAUR FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 231: “progressively weaklier” should be “more weakly.”
Line 242: Typo: “resent” should be “present.”
Line 250: Typo: “and” should be “an.”
Line 314: “borer” should be “border.”
Line 326: “its rostrocaudal end remains equal along its whole height.” Please clarify which specific dimension remains equal in this case? Width? In which anatomical direction?
Line 386: Typo: “appears” should be “appear.”
Line 422: Typos: “Dental” should be “dentary” and “le” should be “the.”
Line 529: “At all” should be “Overall.”
Line 580: Typo: “Makovicky et ala.” should be “Makovicky et al.”
Line 691: Typo: “tibiotasus” should be “tibiotarsus.”
Line 692: Typo: “formed” should be deleted.
Line 738: Typo: “thescelosautid” should be “thescelosaurid.”
Line 750: To which element does the “shaft” belong?
Line 771: Typo: “characteristic” should be “characteristics.”
Line 866: Typo: “appear” should be “appears.”
Line 886: Typo: “they” should be “their.”

Figures: A larger close-up photo of a maxillary tooth is needed to more easily compare the teeth of the new specimens to those of other taxa. It is difficult to see the apicobasal ridges that are compared to those of Jeholosaurus, Changchunsaurus, and Hypsilophodon.

A figure of one of the skulls in occipital or a partial occipital view should be included to illustrate the supraoccipital and any other visible elements.
Experimental design: Lines 69-81: The results of the X-ray analyses and photographs of the specimens during preparation should be included in the supplementary information for the sake of transparency and reproducibility of the results.

Lines 88-121: Madzia et al. (2018) provide an updated list of clade names and definitions in their supplementary information. Please make sure that your usage of names and definitions conforms to the new names and rationales that they provide.

Line 137: To enhance the repeatability of their work, the authors should consider uploading their .tnt file with the list of commands they used for the phylogenetic analysis.
Validity of the findings: Line 173: laterally expanded nasal: How does this differ from the condition in Haya griva, in which the nasal also hangs over the maxilla slightly (Makovicky et al., 2011; Norell and Barta, 2016)?
Line 174: Please use “supraorbital” instead of “palpebral” here to be consistent with the rest of the manuscript and the recommendations of Maidment and Porro (2010) and Nesbitt et al. (2012).
Line 435: The shape of the ventral margin of the angular should be compared to that of Haya. There is a lesser degree of curvature present in Haya (Makovicky et al., 2011; Norell and Barta, 2016). So, it may simply be the degree of curvature of the ventral border of the angular that is autapomorphic for the new taxon, not the presence or absence of this curvature itself. In general, comparisons of the surangular, angular and articular to those of other taxa would enhance the usefulness of the descriptions of these elements.
Line 449: The shortened neck composed of six cervical vertebrae is a clear autapomorphy among basal ornithopods. An additional figure of one of the articulated necks in either dorsal or lateral view would more clearly illustrate this character.
Line 533: The proximal caudals are not visible in Fig. 8B. Please include a close-up figure of these vertebrae.
Line 619: The authors should provide close-up figures of the manus and carpus elements. Hands and wrists are rarely preserved among basal ornithopods, and even disarticulated elements may be identifiable and informative (e.g., Norell and Barta, 2016).
Lines 657-706: Additional comparisons of the femur, tibia, fibula, and pes to those of other taxa would be very welcome. The fusion of the astragalus and calcaneum to the tibia and the robustness of the fibula are particularly noteworthy characters that should be discussed in a comparative context.

The postorbital and squamosal region of the new specimens is highly unusual for a basal neornithischian/ornithopod, supporting the authors’ contention that it represents a distinct genus and species.

The shapes of the new taxon’s skull elements do not easily fit within or extrapolate from trends observed from the partial ontogenetic sequence of Jeholosaurus (Barrett and Han, 2009) known to date, supporting the authors’ claim that the two taxa are distinct.

It is not clear from the description whether or not all of the observations refer to the holotype skull or to both skulls. The authors should note any variation present between the two skulls they examined, or provide a general statement stating that they’re congruent in all respects. Though the sample size is small, it’s important that future workers be aware of any individual variation (or lack thereof) within the new taxon.
Additional comments: The authors describe two new specimens of a heretofore unknown taxon of basal ornithopod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of northeastern China. My major concern upon first receiving the manuscript was that these specimens would not prove to be distinct from the contemporaneous Jeholosaurus; however, the authors have allayed this concern of mine through their careful comparisons and phylogenetic analysis. The new specimens have several unusual diagnostic features of their cranial and postcranial anatomy, notably the shapes and arrangement of the bones surrounding the infratemporal fenestra. Postcranially, the shortened neck composed of six cervical vertebrae is a clear autapomorphy among basal ornithopods.

Overall, the description of the specimens is well-written and requires few changes. Where changes are warranted, I have indicated these in the “Basic Reporting,” “Experimental Design,” and “Validity of Findings” sections. The manuscript would benefit from a few additional figures, noted in each section.

The phylogenetic analysis appears to have been conducted appropriately, and the results are reasonable given the matrix used. The authors might note that Boyd (2015) and other derivations of that matrix do not recover Jeholosaurinae as a clade. Of course, the position of the majority of the taxa discussed as either inside or outside Ornithopoda is an ongoing debate. The authors should briefly discuss why they think their matrix recovers the majority of the taxa as ornithopods, in contrast to Boyd (2015).

The discussion of anatomical characteristics supporting a facultative burrowing lifestyle is well supported with comparisons to both extant taxa and Oryctodromeus and related forms for which many of the same burrowing-related features were previously proposed. The authors appropriately label their interpretations of the taphonomy as speculations, given that most of the taphonomic context of these specimens has been lost.

I congratulate the authors on an important addition to knowledge of basal neornithsichian/ornithopod anatomy and diversity.

Sincerely,
Daniel Barta

Literature Cited:
Barrett PM, Han F-L. 2009. Cranial anatomy of Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Early Cretaceous of China. Zootaxa 2072:31–55.
Boyd CA. 2015. The systematic relationships and biogeographic history of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ 3:e1523. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1523.
Madzia D, Boyd CA, Mazuch M. 2018. A basal ornithopod dinosaur from the Cenomanian of the Czech Republic. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 16:967–979. DOI: 10.1080/14772019.2017.1371258.
Maidment SCR, Porro LB. 2010. Homology of the palpebral and origin of supraorbital ossifications in ornithischian dinosaurs. Lethaia 43:95–111. DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.2009.00172.x.
Makovicky PJ, Kilbourne BM, Sadleir RW, Norell MA. 2011. A New Basal Ornithopod (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31:626–640. DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2011.557114.
Nesbitt SJ, Turner AH, Weinbaum JC. 2012. A survey of skeletal elements in the orbit of Pseudosuchia and the origin of the crocodylian palpebral. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 103:365–381. DOI: 10.1017/S1755691013000224.
Norell MA, Barta DE. 2016. A New Specimen of the Ornithischian Dinosaur Haya griva, Cross-Gobi Geologic Correlation, and the Age of The Zos Canyon Beds. American Museum Novitates 3851:1–19.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Data are relatively novel, but of limited clinical impact. Whether this evaluation can be applied in clinical
practice, whether it can be handled by all labs and how expensive it is remain unaddressed issues.
Moreover, this paper suffers from some methodological limitations and results do not support any definite conclusion.
Major concerns:
-	The number of pts is very limited
-	More data should be provided about patient clinical history (proteinuria, previous treatment)


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in professional English, technically correct and unambiguous.
The literature references are of sufficient support as background
Structure of the manuscript is professionaly desinged and the paper is self-contained
Experimental design: The primary research is wthin the aims and scope of the journal. The research question is well defined relvant and meaningful, and the whole study has a role to fill a knowledge gap
Investigation is performed to a high technical and ethical standard
Methods are described with details and give sufficient information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The data are provided, results ar clear and novel, some negative results are discussed and explained. Conclusions are well stated and are limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: The paper is very well written, no comments for methods, results, discussion. Few typing errors, such as in line 160 word TRNACE must change to TRANCE


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The use of the English language requires major polishing. Too many grammatical mistakes. Needs to be corrected by a native English speaking person.
The references are adequate, despite some suggestiosn are given ahead.
Professional article structure is adequate.
There is coherence between hypothesis, findings are conclusions
Experimental design: The research has been undertaken appropriately.
Validity of the findings: This article offers new data to the literature.
The number of patients is low, a drawback that has been highlighted in the limitations of the study.
Conclusions are correctly addressed.
Additional comments: The present article written by Chen Ping et al is about some T cell sub-population cytokines in a small cohort of patients with minimal change disease (MCD), some in relapse and some in remission.
Concerns:
English language is poor, and requires major polishing. The article is sometimes hard to follow or interpret.
The number of cases is low to draw firm conclusions.
Abstract: Background, authors state that MCD is a common form of nephritic syndrome. This is completely wrong. MCD is a nephrotic entity, not nephritic, please.
Methods: THe age and gender of patients must be outlined in the abstract.
Abbreviatons must be explained what they stand for, as TRANCE, etc.
At the end of the Introduction, authors comment that "...few studies have reported the role of urinary CD80 excretion in adult-onset CD80..". This is wrong. Please, replace by: few studies have tried to explain the possible reasons why elevated urinary levels of CD80 excretion are encountered in adult-onset MCD".
How was MCD defined?. Was electron microscopy performed?. They cite Vivarelli et al 2017, a review paper based both for children and adults. The definition of MCD given by this review is broad and ample, and of course describes the findings in OM, IF and EM. So, authors must addess the eway MCD was defined: OM?. Was EM performed?.
Methods: Delete the words "on an empty stomach".
Auhtors must hypothesize why CD80 levels are elevated in the urine. The source appears to be podocytes. The why?. One of the possible reasons is that podocytes are switched to an antigen presenting cell phenotype. Please read and cite Trimarchi H: Recent Pat Endocr Metab Immune Drug Discov 2015;9(1):2-14. doi: 10.2174/1872214809666150302104542.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The revision version of the paper partially improves its quality. However some criticalities persist. First of all the possibility of this evaluation in real life. Moreover, the number of pts remains very limited.
Taken together, these drawbacks make the manuscript unsuitable for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: USEFULNESS OF THE CYTOKINES EXPRESSION OF TH1/TH2/TH17 AND URINARY CD80 EXCRETION IN ADULT-ONSET MINIMAL CHANGE DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: English language has been polished.
Besides, no changes as expressed previously in first submission
Experimental design: Correct
Validity of the findings: Correct
Additional comments: I have no additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYPERCARNIVOROUS TEETH AND HEALED INJURIES TO CANIS CHIHLIENSIS FROM EARLY PLEISTOCENE NIHEWAN BEDS, CHINA, SUPPORT SOCIAL HUNTING FOR ANCESTRAL WOLVES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I though everything looked good
Experimental design: I especially liked the comparison to the La Brea Tar Pits to better understand the ecology of this extinct canid.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I reviewed this manuscript previously, and I thought it was great then. I don't quite understand all of the issues the other reviewers had. I also wasn't able to upload my minor changes in my previous review, so I am uploading them here.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYPERCARNIVOROUS TEETH AND HEALED INJURIES TO CANIS CHIHLIENSIS FROM EARLY PLEISTOCENE NIHEWAN BEDS, CHINA, SUPPORT SOCIAL HUNTING FOR ANCESTRAL WOLVES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Very professional article (with a clearly disprovable central premise)
Experimental design: The flawed central premise (see below) calls into question the experimental design: the "question [(i.e., is this taxon a durophage and group hunter) is NOT] relevant [or] meaningful" given that it can't be answered from these fossils.

Furthermore, because of this flawed logic, the "investigation [is NOT] performed to a high technical ... standard".

The methods are detailed and replicable.
Validity of the findings: Absolutely NOT!  See below.
Additional comments: This is a well written paper by Tong, Wang and colleagues about some interesting pathological specimens of an ancient large dog.  Unfortunately, the central claim of their paper is entirely indefensible: they claim that these extensive pathologies indicate not only the “processing hard food, such as bone” but also that they are evidence of “social hunting and family care (food-sharing)”.  The claims are so strong that they lead to the conclusion that “Pack hunting in Canis can thus be traced back to the early Pleistocene, well before the appearance of modern wolves.”  Parsimoniously, we would assume that this taxon is a hypercarnivorous pack hunter that likely ate bones – like most large canids.  However, it is completely impossible to infer this merely from these pathologies – and especially offensive for them to do so to such an extent as this definitive claim.  As the authors must know, it is quite easy to find similar pathologies in both fossil and modern collections in taxa that neither crunch bones nor are communal hunters.  Would the authors acknowledge that these type of dental pathologies are common in many species of animals (including herbivores) in individuals that live to very old ages?  Would they also confirm that they have seen similarly healed fractures in taxa that couldn’t possibly food provision (e.g., herbivores or solitary carnivores or rodents, etc.)?  These are certainly rare, but still fairly easy to find in collections.  If these comparative specimens exist, then it is absolutely false to claim – especially with the outlandish certitude of the language in this paper – that they MUST equate to bone crunching and food provisioning.  It is hard to review the details of this paper when its central claim is so disprovable, though there is clearly good paleontological description in this piece.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYPERCARNIVOROUS TEETH AND HEALED INJURIES TO CANIS CHIHLIENSIS FROM EARLY PLEISTOCENE NIHEWAN BEDS, CHINA, SUPPORT SOCIAL HUNTING FOR ANCESTRAL WOLVES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The Methods indicate "The osteological terms are from Mescher (2018)", but that source is not included in the references.

The Results starts with a section entitled "Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Remarks", lines 127-148, which really represents background information on Canis chihliensis and other similar canids.  There is no new analysis presented in that section, but rather a review of the current understanding of large, hypercarnivorous canines.  I would recommend relocating this section in its entirety to be part of the (rather short) introduction.

Figure 1 includes a number of color coded arrows indicating key pieces of information.  Those may be difficult to interpret for color-blind individuals, and I would recommend adding some simple labels (i.e. abbreviations like those in Figures 3 and 4) to make this figure accessible to all readers.
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: Overall, I enjoyed reading this manuscript and found it to be very well-written.  In addition to my comments related to basic reporting, I have added some additional comments to an annotated pdf file.  Most of my suggestions are relatively minor and should be very easily addressed.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYPERCARNIVOROUS TEETH AND HEALED INJURIES TO CANIS CHIHLIENSIS FROM EARLY PLEISTOCENE NIHEWAN BEDS, CHINA, SUPPORT SOCIAL HUNTING FOR ANCESTRAL WOLVES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: Again, this is a well written paper with a demonstrably false premise!  Yes, this taxon was almost certainly a bone cruncher and pack predator – as the authors point out, this is the case for all modern large dogs today and is therefore the parsimonious assumption.  However, the authors disingenuously claim that they are making this argument on the totality of this parsimony when THEIR TITLE makes the direct claim that they are making this assertion based on “teeth and healed injuries”.  Their arguments may be “more subtle”, but their central assertion is loud and clear!

They assert that I was “offended by [their] linkage between a broken tibia and social hunting”, but this is incorrect: I’m not offended by this demonstrably wrong linkage (many of us are wrong all of the time!) or even their adherence to this demonstrably wrong assertion (though I don’t understand why they are so dug in about this).  Rather, I am offended by their lack of acknowledgement that they have seen these types of injuries in other non-social hunters.  I acknowledge that herbivores might handle this differently, but surely they have seen these injuries in other non-social carnivores.  They are rather common in some cats, and I have seen them in ursids and mustelids too.  Surely these excellent scientists have seen them in their combined decades of experience, right?  I haven’t had the pleasure of visiting the LACM collection, but I am confident that such healed bones must exist in there, as they do in the AMNH, USNM and museums in Europe.  (I suggest a visit to the leopard collection as a likely place to find some.  If there are more than 20 wild individuals in that collection, then I will buy all of the authors dinner if there isn’t at least one leopard with similar dental ailments and SOME evidence of healed injury.)

The authors do make an exceptional observation in their rebuttal: I did not cite these beyond personal experience, and, come to think of it, I am unaware of any publication documenting these type of injuries.  I am sure that Meachen, Sammuels of Van Valkenburgh could direct us to that literature as they are more knowledgeable about pathology.  If this is indeed a deficit in the literature, then someone should document it!

As the authors note, if you knew nothing about these dogs other than that they were large dogs, then their assertion that they were likely bone crunchers and social would be the parsimonious one.  Unfortunately, that is not the central claim of this paper.

With all of that said, this is a well written piece of work from a group of respected colleagues.  If the editors agree that it is up to the journal’s standard, then I will withdraw my objection if the authors change ONE word in the title: if the word “suggest” is replaced with “support”, then I think this is accurate.  I would BEG the authors to add an acknowledgement in the body of the text that these types of injuries are found in non-bone crunching and non-social species as well.  I assume that they know this from their own work in collections and apologize that I do not know of a good formal citation for that.  If I were the editor of this piece, I would insist on these two addenda.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MECHANISMS OF DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE IN DUNG BEETLE ASSEMBLAGES IN A HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL LANDSCAPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic report

1.	English: English is good and the technical/scientific terms are employed properly. It is adequate for a wide audience.
2.	Intro & Background: the introduction is well structured and brings a relevant background about the main problem addressed in this study.
3.	Structure: the study is well structured, with primary and secondary sections presented properly.
4.	Figures: some figures could be improved. Below, I present a detailed description of my suggestions (see Minor issues).
5.	Raw data: I appreciate the authors provided raw data. However, supporting information has no titles and it is difficult to read apart.
Experimental design: Experimental design

1.	Original primary research: this type of research is not totally new but needed because there are not many studies evaluating dung beetles under these approaches.
2.	Research question: the central question is relevant; also, the specific questions are clear and adequate.
3.	Technical & Ethical standards: Samplings were carried out using standard methods to collect dung beetles and permitted by legal institutions. Besides, voucher material was deposited in a public institution.
4.	Methods: in general, the methods are well presented. However, I would like to see a more detailed presentation of the samplings at each site. For instance, the authors have sites, within vegetation classes, within landscape windows. The analytical approach takes into account vegetation classes and landscape windows but they are not totally independent because some vegetation classes only occur in more fragmented landscapes. How do the authors evaluate this kind of dependence?
Validity of the findings: Validity of findings

1.	Novelty: the results are good and novel. But I suggest the authors considering a better presentation of both approaches used. Some results are confusing, especially those related to species turnover.
2.	Data: the raw data were provided. They are robust and statistically sound.
3.	Speculation: the authors based their line of argumentation on their results.
4.	Conclusions: they are ok, but a reinterpretation of results based on a better presentation of both analytical approaches used to evaluate the central questions of this study is needed.
Additional comments: Assessment of the manuscript entitled “Mechanisms of diversity maintenance of dung beetle assemblages in a heterogeneous tropical landscape” for PeerJ (peerj-46967)

Main comments

In this paper, the authors aimed to evaluate how the diversity (species richness and Shannon diversity), abundance, and biomass of dung beetles vary across the heterogeneous tropical landscape of Selva El Ocote Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. This study has a good sample design and data to investigate the effects of fragmentation on dung beetles. However, I think that the analytical issues and interpretation of the results should be separated by the two approaches used: spatial approach (windows) and structural approach (classes of vegetation within the windows), as they are not as independent since certain classes of vegetation will be more represented or will occur only in certain classes of fragmentation (e.g. pasture). I raise this issue because the species turnover is said to be random or non-random, depending on the approach used, and this result causes some confusion in the reader. How can the same ecological process be random or non-random? Authors need to improve the presentation and discussion of both approaches so that the reader can better understand the results. I would also like to have a more in-depth discussion of the two approaches and the conservation implications of each. After addressing these issues, the paper will be a good contribution to fragmentation ecology. As follows I present a detailed evaluation.

Abstract
1.	Line 25-26. I am not sure about vegetation classes. Wouldn't “secondary vegetation” be a type of “tropical forest”? The difference is the successional stage only.
2.	Line 27-28. Perhaps providing average and standard deviation (or error) values could be a better option here because the values sometimes overlap each other when the authors talk about higher and lower species richness: “The highest species richness was recorded in variegated windows (28-37 species) and tropical forest (45 species), while the lowest values were found in intact windows (22-24 species) and pasture (34 species).”
3.	Line 31. Why would it be a “random turnover”? Do authors think that intact forests would not have species restricted to this type of habitat?
4.	Line 32. I also disagree with the following statement as an explanation to the high beta diversity: “this suggests a high level of connectivity in the landscape.” If there is a high beta diversity between landscape components or habitats, the connectivity among them, measured by compositional changes of dung beetles, is not high if beta diversity dominates. If turnover dominates beta diversity it means some species are restricted spatially, which consequently decreases connectivity.

Introduction
1.	Line 66. I suggest the authors be more specific about what “secondary vegetation” does mean. It could be a secondary tropical forest, right? Or is it a different thing?

Methods
1.	Line 97. The authors can remove spaces between degrees. There are some coordinates with and without spaces between degrees.
2.	Line 104. Again, what does “secondary vegetation” truly mean? Is it a secondary forest? Please, be clear about this issue.
3.	Line 113. Add a comma after ‘et al.’
4.	Line 126. See also da Silva and Hernández (2015, Plos One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126112) about trapping distance.
5.	Line 146-154. Why do authors use two different methods for the same purpose? Anne Chao’s approach is a more robust approach than using Estimates, which is no longer being updated (see http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates/).
6.	Line 159. Change “allow” to “account”
7.	Line 163. Ok, but do you use species richness and/or Shannon diversity? It is not totally clear.
8.	Line 164-166. Do you mean “betapart R package”? Besides, the nestedness accounted for this metric does not take into account richness differences per se. Therefore, if you have strong richness differences (lack of species shared) and not nestedness, the turnover component estimated by Baselga’s approach is overestimated. See Legendre (2014, Global Ecology and Biogeography, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12207) for options, if needed.

Results
1.	Line 190. You see, here the authors use “secondary forest” not “secondary vegetation” as a vegetation class.
2.	Line 199. Add a space here “E.maya”
3.	Line 205. “mexicanus” is italicized.
4.	Line 214. Add a space here “df=”
5.	Line 216. Add a space here “df=”
6.	Line 239. Add a space here “C.vazquezae”
7.	Line 243. Add a space here “C.corythus”
8.	Line 247. Add a space here “df=”
9.	Line 250. Add a space here “df=” and here “P=”
10.	Line 251. “secondary vegetation” or “secondary forest”?
11.	Line 258. Correct to “nestedness processes”
12.	Line 259. “secondary vegetation” or “secondary forest”?

Discussion
1.	Line 270. Why do authors think there is a “stochastic distribution of species” here?
2.	Line 280. Well, the intermediate disturbance theory is not Connell's. See Wilkinson’s work about “The Disturbing History of Intermediate Disturbance” (Oikos, 84(1): 145-147; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3546874?seq=1).
3.	Line 292. Add a space here “E.maya”
4.	Line 296. Correct “Digitonthotophagus” to “Digitonthophagus”
5.	Line 310. Using both “Beta (β)” is redundant.
6.	Line 313. My comment about how nestedness was calculated has its foundation here. Is there at least one species shred between windows and habitats? If not, the turnover would be overestimated since richness differences are not accounted for.
7.	Line 321-322. Well, earlier the authors stated that species distributions are random or stochastic! E.g. line 31-32: “random turnover of species between intact and variegated windows, and between tropical forests and secondary vegetation”
8.	Line 327. “Deltochilum” is italicized.
9.	Line 339. Well, the same diversity process cannot be random and non-random at the same time! There is something going on with the analysis or interpretation of results. The authors need to clarify this issue properly.
10.	Line 343-344. Same as the previous one!
11.	Line 249-352. I got confused! Previously, you stated “Species turnover between fragmented (W6, W7, and W8) and other windows (W1 to W5) is not a random process; likewise, the differences in diversity between tropical forest and pasture sites are not random.” (Lines 320-322).

Figure 2. I would remove the external line of fig 2a. W7’s symbol has a different line color and size. Besides, why is the fig. 2a limited to ~9000 if you have a total of 15,457 specimens? Shouldn't it be the pooled abundance of all sampled windows? What does the vertical line in fig. 2b mean?

Figure 3. Fig. 3a is not good to read. I suggest separating it into two: one for abundance, one for biomass. Fig. 3n – title: “between windows” or within windows?

Figure 4. Fig. 4a is not good to read. They overlap each other. I suggest separating it into two: one for abundance, one for biomass.

Table 1. Tropical forest description: “2017” is not italicized. Secondary vegetation description: “2017” is not italicized. Pasture description: “± s.e.” with point and after the number. “%” symbol with no spaces after the number.

Table 2. Remove “alpha, beta and gamma” from “Overall alpha, beta and gamma diversity over all the windows” and “Overall alpha, beta and gamma diversity over all the vegetation classes”; it is implicit in the table. Do not forget to specify what “F”, “SV” and “P” mean.

Table 3. Do not forget to specify what “F”, “SV” and “P” mean.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MECHANISMS OF DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE IN DUNG BEETLE ASSEMBLAGES IN A HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL LANDSCAPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some moderate revision of the written English is necessary. There are a few issues with verb tenses or run on sentences throughout the manuscript that affects the clarity of the text.
They do have good references, but other references might be added to contrast or support their discussion.
The structure, figures and tables are ok, just minimal editing will be needed.
Very relevant results, but the general discussion lacks of substance, they contrast their results with other publications, but more information and discussion about their results will be better to improve the manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors follow the common and used methodology for this kind of studies and group. Some minimal details that need to be explained in detail are suggested.
This research is done in a Biosphere Reserve, and their results should be used to improve the conservation efforts. They have a lot of interesting findings but not addressed them in a circular discussion or conclusion.
Methodology is good, some clarification is suggested in specific parts of the text.
Validity of the findings: Interesting results for a very well study group.
Authors should take advantage of the natural history and biology of the group, that some of the authors have, to describe and discuss with more detail their results.
Discussion and conclusion can be improved.
Additional comments: The authors studied dung beetles’ diversity patterns and their maintenance mechanisms in a Biosphere reserve at the south of Mexico. Their study has a good methodological approach, from the fieldwork protocol through the diversity analyses. Their results are very interesting and can be better exploited. A broader discussion will be better, there is a lot of potential in them and you can go further with your findings. Especially when talking about the higher diversity in variegated windows in a Biosphere Reserve, they can take advantage of their information, and discuss more conscientiously their results in terms of conservation efforts. Overall the manuscript is very good and with valuable information.

Below are some remarks, comments and questions that I believe must be addressed prior to consider publication to improve the manuscript.

-First, some moderate revision of the written English is necessary. There are a few issues with verb tenses or run on sentences throughout the manuscript that affects the clarity of the text.
-Be consistent with the use of the entire genus name along the text, you change the way you use it, even in the same paragraph.
-Review again the biology and preferences of some of the species, there are some inconsistencies between your discussion and what other authors found.

-Did you try to make your analysis between seasons or differentiating the traps? There were species strictly necrophagous? It might be good to take the functionality; there are two different functional guilds and can react differentially to heterogeneity.

-D. gazella was just collected in W7 and W8, just in pastures, what does that implies for the other sites and for an introduced species like this one. This species might compete with native species inhabited open areas. Read: Lobo, J. M., & Montes, D. O. (1994). Local distribution and coexistence of Digitonthophagus gazella (Fabricius, 1787) and Onthophagus batesi Howden & Cartwright, 1963 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Elytron, 8, 117-127.

Line 78. read and include this reference here and in some other parts of the text: Alvarado, F., Salomão, R. P., Hernandez-Rivera, Á., & de Araujo Lira, A. F. (2020). Different responses of dung beetle diversity and feeding guilds from natural and disturbed habitats across a subtropical elevational gradient. Acta Oecologica, 104, 103533.

Line 79. In the introduction, you talk about how this landscape analyses can contribute to conservation and diversity maintenance, but later in the discussion, you do not detail this and do not give any suggestions. If you will maintain this phrase in the introduction (use some references too), a larger discussion is expected.

Line 116. since the title you refer to dung beetles, but you use carrion traps too, why? Scarabaeidae that feed on carrion did not fall in the pitfall traps baited with dung? If you sample and analyse carrion beetles too, maybe mention that since the title?

Line 128. carrion traps were also in place 24 hours, did you leave the squid fermenting before setting the traps? Explain more, usually carrion traps are for longer periods.

Line 129. you collect a lot of individuals, you might want to deposit some of the material in other national collections, or to the different coauthors institutions

Line 137. Repetitive phrase, rewrite it.

Line 140. The cite is already in the phrase, no need to cite it again at the end.

Line 150. Why Ros et al cite is there?

Line 198. Why do you think that happen? Maybe the sampling was not enough? How would that affect your results interpretation?

Line 315. Are there any endemic or rare species?

Line 326. Explain what might happens the other way around, with the species from open spaces that cannot go into the forests.

Line 330. Do you mean in REBISO, in Chiapas or in the country? Can you give more details of why this happen? Sampling again or another reason?

Line 338. The difference in abundance seems to be the main trigger for beta diversity changes, but did you analyse different seasons or traps separately? Abundance can be very tricky when using different sampling methods or with seasonality.

Line 344. Could that mean that some species move from one vegetation to the other one, and just some of them will stay only in the forest?

Line 345. Which are the typical species for open spaces or pastures? Are they native or endemic from the state or introduced? Could they benefit from the agricultural/livestock areas, or from other landscape changes?

Line 346. It seem that C. leechi and O. landolti are not typical from open sites but rather forest indicators? (see Alvarado et al 2020). If you collected them in open areas, what would that mean?

Line 348. Species might be just rare in this vegetation, or they are typical in other place. Rephrase avoiding the use of “still minimal”.

Fig1. It is not clear the trap location in each window, it might not be necessary to include that on the map, but is marked in the symbology and is not obvious in the figure. Colors of the vegetation classes are not quite the same in the symbology that in the map, homogenize that. In the rest of the text you refer to the Windows with W and a number, use the same labels for the figure to make it easier to identify them instead of a,b,c,d…

Fig 2. It is not clear what the * means aside the numbers (species identity). I do not have the Figure legends, and this information should be clearly explain there, as well as the meaning of every abbreviation and letters used in the figures.

The table legends are not in the text, some explanation and detail is needed in order to understand them correctly and easily. Details in the supplementary materials are there, I recommend making it too for the other tables.

Table 1 In the vegetation class there are some Windows that repeat, do you mean you separate the traps of every vegetation class to do the analyses? I assume that but is not very clear near in the text, nor the table.

Tables S4a and S4b All species names should be in italics. Verify the authors of each species and homogenise information in both tables, there are some mistakes (e.g. D. amplicollis, P. perplexus, S. chryseicollis); Why there are missing values or abbreviations? ; Abbreviations should be with points and not commas (e.g. Onthophagus maya); Why NA?

Extra literature to read and include in your work and discussion:
Amézquita, S., & Favila, M. E. (2011). Carrion removal rates and diel activity of necrophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in a fragmented tropical rain forest. Environmental entomology, 40(2), 239-246.
Arellano, L., Leon-Cortes, J. L., & Halffter, G. (2008). Response of dung beetle assemblages to landscape structure in remnant natural and modified habitats in southern Mexico. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1(4), 253-262.
Moctezuma, V., Halffter, G., & Arriaga-Jiménez, A. (2018). Archipelago reserves, a new option to protect montane entomofauna and beta-diverse ecosystems. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 89(3), 927-937.
Morón, M. A. (1987). The necrophagous Scarabaeinae beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from a coffee plantation in Chiapas, Mexico: habits and phenology. The Coleopterists' Bulletin, 225-232.
Silva, R. J., Storck-Tonon, D., & Vaz-de-Mello, F. Z. (2016). Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) persistence in Amazonian forest fragments and adjacent pastures: biogeographic implications for alpha and beta diversity. Journal of insect conservation, 20(4), 549-564.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MECHANISMS OF DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE IN DUNG BEETLE ASSEMBLAGES IN A HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL LANDSCAPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall this paper was well written, with sufficient references. However, I feel that a bit more context and clarity are needed to make the paper suitable for publication.

The abstract needs work. A sentence or two of background at the start would help to set the stage before jumping into details of results. See the following link for some guidelines.
https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/preparing-your-article/how-to-write-a-scientific-abstract

I also feel that the Introduction needs to include a bit more background. I think it would be good to include more context about habitat vs landscape - your paper is about looking at biodiversity at the landscape level, but most biodiversity research is looked at from a habitat level so elaborate more on how your study is different. Can you clarify your third research question i.e. how is it different from question 2?

Could you clarify the windows concept and how it links with landscapes? Windows are an important part of the project yet they are not mentioned in the introduction. In the introduction, you talk about landscapes and vegetation but there is no mention of windows. Not all of your readers will have a solid background in all the ecological terms so it would be helpful to add a bit more clarity and background.

The results are well presented, but Figure 1 needs some work. Why do a and b have smaller circles than the others. Figure design is confusing - could you use black instead of white for letters OR perhaps use lines to connect to the location instead of letters? Why not highlight the circle with black so its is easier to see. I think more explanation is needed in the figure legend. You could explain what category each window represents. Is window centre important? From the map legend: trap location is not used so should not be included in legend. Can you create more contrast between the orange and the yellow boxes (secondary and pasture) to match better with map image?
Thank you for supplemental data tables, however, each table need a title with a number. While legends are optional, I think a brief explanation of what the table is showing would be very helpful.
You also mention communities (line 253) but these are not explained anywhere.

You mentioned that dung beetles were sampled in both rainy season and dry season, but didn't mention how this may have affected the results. You sampled using two different baits but didn't mention how this may have affected the results either.

In the discussion, species turnover is mentioned as an important biodiversity measure, but it’s not mentioned in introduction or methods. Could this be explained further?
Experimental design: I feel that the research is relevant and meaningful. Dung beetles make excellent bioindicators and can be very useful for increasing our knowledge for conservation management. The research questions were well defined. The sampling efforts were commendable and combined with extensive statistical analysis. Methods were described sufficiently with the exception of how biomass was determined.
Validity of the findings: The data appear to be sound. Null models were discussed.

The conclusions are stated clearly but don’t quite match with research questions. However, this is simply a matter of clarity, not a problem.
Additional comments: Overall this is a good paper. A lot of work went into sampling and statistical analysis. The text just needs a bit more clarity to effectively communicate the results and implications of this research.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MECHANISMS OF DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE IN DUNG BEETLE ASSEMBLAGES IN A HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL LANDSCAPE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: After my second reading of the paper, I was able to notice the great improvement of the study in theoretical and analytical terms. The authors addressed my major and minor suggestions. As in my previous assessment, I reaffirm the quality of the study in terms of all the necessary aspects to be assessed (basic report, experimental design, and validity of the findings). However, a few issues of writing still remain. After these corrections, I think the paper will be a good contribution to the understanding of fragmentation ecology in variegated landscapes.

Minor issues
Line 40. Change “beta-diversity” to “beta diversity”
Line 219. Change “beta-diversity” to “beta diversity”
Line 252. Lack of space “E.maya”
Line 283. Change “nested processes” to “nestedness-resultant component”
Line 349. Lack of space “O.batesi”
Line 352. Remove a space here “is  consistent”
Line 471. Change “beta-diversity” to “beta diversity”


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF LIMB BONE LAMINARITY IN THE HOMING PIGEON (COLUMBA LIVIA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Well-written, figures are professional, graphs are easy to read. That the raw data, slide images, and R-code is made accessible is refreshing and appreciated.
Experimental design: Methods are sufficiently detailed and easy to follow.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well-stated and findings provide important information for the fields of histology and biomechanics. Most importantly, this research quantifies the results, including qualitative results from earlier studies.
Additional comments: This study provides important foundational work for histology and biomechanics, bringing up to date previous assessments and interpretations of bone laminarity. Rarely do I review manuscripts that are "ready to go" as-is, but this is one of them.

On line 55 there is a grammatical error, but that is all I have to comment on.