Dermal Fibroblasts as the Main Target for Skin Anti-Age Correction Using a Combination of Regenerative Medicine Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The manuscript presents  a good contributuion for basic science.

Best regard

Author Response

We are grateful for the review of our manuscript. Despite your positive review, we have made some changes according to the wishes of other reviewers and hope that this does not change your verdict.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for reviewing the article. The author mainly elaborates on the dermal fibroblast as the main target of skin anti-aging and related anti-aging treatments. In the article, the first part of the author describes in detail the epidermis, dermis, and related ECM. It is suggested that the author should correct and focus on fibroblasts in the dermis. The ECM section can be simplified.

 

Author Response

We have made changes to the manuscript and hope that now it satisfies the wishes of the reviewer and is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

This review explores dermal fibroblasts as the main target for skin anti-age correction using a combination of regenerative medicine methods. The title properly reflects the subject of the paper. The text is informative; however, I have the following suggestions:

1. The standard of English used and the sentence structure can be improved. Small spelling corrections, such as stratum spinosum in Fig 1, are needed as well.

2. The review needs to be more concise, precise, tightened, and shortened so the reader can get the crucial points.

3. In figures, only schematics are used. Actual light microscopic, electron microscopic, and clinical images can improve the quality of the paper.

4. The authors propose a step-wise multimodality approach. Has this particular approach already been used successfully? Please discuss.

5. The references are labeled as ‘literature’. Consider giving the heading ‘References’ to this section.

Thank you!

Author Response

 

We are grateful for your review and tried to take into account most of your comments in the new revision and we hope that it’s enough to acceptance.

Step by step answers:

1. Small corrections are made. "Stratum spinosum" is corrected.
2. We slightly reduced and changed our manuscript as it was possible, as it seems to us, without losing the meaning and crucial reformatting of the manuscript. For clarity of changes, we have additionally attached a revision file with highlighted changed text fragments.
3. Even before the submission of the first version, we also thought about this aspect, but decided to abandon it for two main reasons. We strongly doubt that we would be able to agree on the use of our published or third-party images without infringing their intellectual property under the current conditions. The use of any of our unpublished data would lead to the need to add a section of materials and methods, which is superfluous for this manuscript, in our opinion.
4. In the article, we offer one of the possible and most optimal algorithms for age-related skin therapy at the moment, in our opinion. Clinics and cosmetology institutions with which we maintain relationships and which apply this scheme give positive feedback on it. However, there is a real problem of reliable instrumental comparative diagnostics, which could be framed within the framework of a completed clinical study. We included it in our manuscript briefly.

5.” Literature” have changed to “References”.

We hope that our manuscript is suitable for publication now, and a lot of thanks for reviewing.