Response Letter

Draft your response to the editor and reviewers for your manuscript "Influence of aging on peripheral nerve function and regeneration"

Response Letter

Subject

Letter Content

Collaborative Response

Dear Dr. Edward Parker,

Thank you for coordinating the review of our manuscript "Influence of aging on peripheral nerve function and regeneration" (Article ID: NB107270A). We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on our work.

We have carefully considered all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have revised our manuscript accordingly. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each reviewer's comments.

Reviewer #1 (Dr. Elena Rodriguez):
1. Comment: Some recent studies (2023-2025) are not included in the review.
   Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have updated our literature review to include recent studies published between 2023-2025, including the work by Zhang et al. (2023) on exosome-mediated regeneration in aged nerves and the meta-analysis by Patel et al. (2024).

2. Comment: The section on therapeutic implications could be expanded.
   Response: We have expanded this section as suggested, adding a new subsection (Section 4.3) that discusses emerging therapeutic approaches for enhancing nerve regeneration in elderly patients, including growth factor therapies, electrical stimulation, and biomaterial scaffolds.

3. Comment: Several figures lack clear legends and explanations.
   Response: We have revised all figure legends to provide more detailed explanations. Additionally, we have added a new summary figure (Figure 7) that integrates the key concepts discussed throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Prof. James Wilson):
[Additional responses would be included here]

Reviewer #3 (Dr. Aisha Patel):
1. Comment: Minor issues with statistical interpretation in some cited studies.
   Response: We thank the reviewer for this careful observation. 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.

We believe that we have addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers and have made appropriate revisions to improve our manuscript. We hope that you will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Merrick Frazer
Corresponding Author

Collaboration Activity

Recent activity from co-authors

Sarah Johnsonabout 1 hour ago

edited a response

Updated response to reviewer #1 about literature review

David Chenabout 2 hours ago

commented

Added comment about response to statistical analysis concerns

Merrick Frazer1 day ago

edited a response

Started drafting response letter

Active Collaborators

Merrick Frazer

m.frazer@example.com

Typing...

Sarah Johnson

s.johnson@example.com

30 minutes ago

Co-Authors

Manage who can collaborate on this manuscript

Merrick Frazer

m.frazer@example.com

Active

Sarah Johnson

s.johnson@example.com

Active

David Chen

d.chen@example.com

Active

Emily Rodriguez

e.rodriguez@example.com

Pending

Editor

Dr. Edward Parker

Senior Editor

University of Cambridge

Reviewers

Dr. Elena Rodriguez

University of Barcelona

Minor Revision

Prof. James Wilson

Oxford University

Major Revision

Dr. Aisha Patel

National Institute of Aging

Tips for Response Letters

•Address all reviewer comments point-by-point
•Be respectful and professional, even if you disagree
•Clearly indicate where changes have been made in the manuscript
•Provide justification if you choose not to address certain comments
•Thank the reviewers and editor for their time and feedback

Actions