Next Article in Journal
The Psychosocial Impact of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Next Article in Special Issue
Genomic Insults and their Redressal in the Eutopic Endometrium of Women with Endometriosis
Previous Article in Journal
A Case of Sex Discordant Dichorionic Diamniotic Twins after Single Embryo Transfer and the Importance of Zygosity Testing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Overexpression of ErbB-1 (EGFR) Protein in Eutopic Endometrium of Infertile Women with Severe Ovarian Endometriosis during the ‘Implantation Window’ of Menstrual Cycle
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Reprod. Med.
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/reprodmed4010006
Review Report
reprodmed-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Human Early Maternal–Embryonic Interactome

Reprod. Med. 2023, 4(1), 40-56; https://doi.org/10.3390/reprodmed4010006
by Adam Stevens 1,2,*, Taqua Khashkhusha 1,2, Megan Sharps 1,2, Terence Garner 1,2, Peter T. Ruane 1,2 and John D. Aplin 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Stefano Canosa
Reprod. Med. 2023, 4(1), 40-56; https://doi.org/10.3390/reprodmed4010006
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 13 February 2023 / Published: 16 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Endometrial Physiology and Pregnancy Success)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is trying to characterize the maternal-embryonic interactome using in silico approaches such as bulkRNA-seq, and scRNA-seq. I have provided my comments in the attached PDF using the comment functionality. However, I am particularly concerned regarding the criteria used for the selection of the 3 clusters of genes investigated in this work. These clusters seem to have been manually selected based off a dendrogram.

Furthermore, most results are plainly stated in the manuscript with minimal discussion regarding the implications or accuracy of those results (see attached PDF). Could the authors please provide a more detailed discussion of the relevance and accuracy of some of these findings? 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the current study, the authors performed an hypernetwork analysis and identified gene clusters correlatred to changes occuring during the menstrual cycle. The study is interesting, the results are described in details and the manuscript is clear and well written. Howevere, I have some comments that should be addressed before considering for publication.

1. The aim of the study shoyuld be clearly stated at the end of introduction. It can be only deduced by the analysis that they performed. 

2. The sample size is limited, as mentioned in discusasion. Do the authors performed any power analysis?

3. Day 7 blastocysts TE was used as reference for the embryo contribution. Why did the authors used day 6/7 rather than day 5 blastocysts? In addition, no information were provided on morphological assessment of the considered blastocysts. This point may influence the quality of the extracted DNA

4. It is not clear whether blastocysts were tested for aneuploidy or not. This can be a relevant confounding factor that should be further discussed.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have sufficiently responded to all my comments and queries. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted for pubblication in the present form

Back to TopTop