Influence of aging on peripheral nerve function and regeneration
Summary
This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of age-related changes in peripheral nerve function and regeneration. The work is thorough and well-structured, but requires some minor revisions to improve clarity and strengthen conclusions.
Strengths
- Comprehensive coverage of the topic with extensive literature review
- Clear organization of complex neurobiological concepts
- Excellent integration of morphological and functional aspects
Weaknesses
- Some recent studies (2023-2025) are not included in the review
- The section on therapeutic implications could be expanded
- Several figures lack clear legends and explanations
Revision Points
Summary
This manuscript addresses an important topic in neurobiology of aging. While the review is comprehensive, there are significant issues with data interpretation and conclusions that need to be addressed before publication.
Strengths
- Important and timely topic with clinical relevance
- Extensive coverage of morphological changes in aged nerves
- Good discussion of functional consequences of age-related changes
Weaknesses
- Overinterpretation of some experimental findings
- Inadequate discussion of contradictory results in the literature
- Lack of critical analysis of methodological differences between studies
- Insufficient discussion of species differences in age-related changes
Revision Points
Summary
This is an excellent review that synthesizes current knowledge on age-related changes in peripheral nerve function and regeneration. The manuscript is well-written, comprehensive, and provides valuable insights for both researchers and clinicians.
Strengths
- Excellent organization and clarity of presentation
- Comprehensive coverage of both basic science and clinical aspects
- Balanced discussion of controversial topics
- Appropriate use of figures to illustrate key concepts
Weaknesses
- Minor issues with statistical interpretation in some cited studies
Thank you for your positive feedback and for pointing out the statistical interpretation issues. We have revised our discussion of the Smith et al. (2022) and Jones et al. (2021) studies to more accurately reflect the statistical significance of their findings. We now state that Smith et al. showed a 'trend toward decline' rather than a 'significant decline' in regeneration rate with age.
Submitted on 6/20/2025
Review Summary
Actions
Dr. Edward Parker
Senior Editor
Thank you for your submission. Based on the reviewer feedback, I recommend addressing the points raised, particularly regarding the literature update and methodological discussion. Please submit your revision within 30 days.
May 24, 2025
June 24, 2025
30 days remaining