Rebutal Letter
Dear [Editor’s Name],
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort of the reviewers in evaluating our manuscript, "[Manuscript Title]" (Manuscript ID: [XXXX]). We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript.
We hope that the revised version meets the journal's standards and look forward to your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Institution]
[Your Email]
Response to Reviewers' Comments
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: The authors claim that circRNA [X] regulates gene expression in [Y] cells, but additional validation is needed. I suggest performing qRT-PCR to confirm the expression of downstream targets.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As recommended, we have performed qRT-PCR analysis to validate the expression of the downstream targets. The new results are included in Figure 3B, and the methodology has been described in the Materials and Methods section (Page X, Line Y). Our findings further support our original hypothesis.
Comment 2: The statistical analysis should be described in more detail, including the specific tests used for comparisons.
Response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion and have added a detailed description of the statistical methods used in our study in the Statistical Analysis section (Page X, Line Y). Specifically, we have now clearly mentioned that we used Student’s t-test for pairwise comparisons and ANOVA for multiple-group comparisons, followed by post hoc analysis (Tukey’s test) where appropriate.
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: The discussion section does not address potential limitations of the study. The authors should acknowledge any constraints regarding sample size and experimental conditions.
Response: We appreciate this constructive feedback. We have now included a Limitations subsection in the Discussion (Page X, Line Y), where we acknowledge the constraints of our sample size and the need for further validation in primary cells or in vivo models.
Comment 2: The authors cite several studies in the introduction, but a few key references on circRNA function in disease models are missing.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now incorporated additional references, including recent studies on circRNA in pulmonary hypertension (Refs. X, Y, Z), and updated the Introduction (Page X, Line Y) to provide a more comprehensive background.
We hope that these revisions adequately address the reviewers' concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to improve our manuscript and look forward to your further evaluation.
Best regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Institution]
