Osborne's remarks for "Mesenchymal stem cell ... contraction {in vitro}"
by Sumanasinghe, R.D. et al.

I make my remarks below.  I do not insist that you change anything
except the way you report pvalues.  Everything else is just a
recommendation.   I think the paper is very clear as it is.
(Great job!)

For a coordinate system for locations where I have comments, I'll
note the page number, the paragraph and the line number.  I'll say
the page entitled "Introduction" is page #1.

Remarks:

Page 1, paragraph 2, lines 8-10:  "Previous investigations[1] indicated
that 10-12% ... rat model.  In addition, it has recently been shown [2]
that ... (can you use citations rather than "one of the authors" or
"two of the authors" ?)

Page 1, last line " ... cyclic tensile strain upregulated 
[genes, indicating] osteogenic differentiation."

Page 2, paragraph 2, line 3 "To test our hypothes[e]s,"

Page 3, paragraph 2, line 10 "... another 24 hour incubation [time] after
which [] the medium ..."

Page 5, paragraph 2

I might use this paragraph:

"Factorial effects of strain, density and medium on diameter and
area contraction were investigated using F-tests from an
analysis of variance appropriate to the complete, crossed, 2 X 2 X 3
experimental design, taking area under the curve (AUC) as the
response variable indicative of cumulative contraction over time. 
For both diameter and area, responses were contrasted with reference
to those of same day unstrained matrices having similar experimental
conditions.

If you would like any more justification for the AUC approach we took,
here's another couple of sentences, though what you already have seems
fine to me:

"Modeling the AUC rather than the function over time simplifies
analysis and interpretation.  A quadratic approximation to 
the dependence of contraction on time provides a reasonable fit,
but requires inspection of the dependence of both linear and quadratic
coefficients on the factorial effects of strain, density and medium." 

ALL OF RESULTS SECTION:  if a pvalue is .0048, report it as such.  Do
not say "p < .005".  The only place to ever use the "<" symbol in
reporting pvalues is if it is so small that 4 decimal places are not
sufficient, that is, when p < 0.0001.

Page 6, paragraph 3, line 1:  "The [three-way] interaction of strain ..."
(I know I told you the term "second order", but I'll bet "three-way"
is more likely to get the meaning across.

Page 6, paragraph 3, line 3:  "In order to further [investigate] the ..."

Page 7, paragraph 2, line 4:  "[While] the [three-way] interaction
between strain, density and medium on contraction was [not] significant,
there was [evidence of] strain-by-medium (p =.0005) and medium-by-density
(p=.05) interaction[s] ..."

Page 7, paragraph 2, line 9:  "The contraction[s] observed in 12%
strained matrices cultured in MSCGM [were] ..." (Your subject and
verb must agree.)

Page 8, paragraph 1, line 5:  "...conditions has [already been] 
demonstrated."

Page 8, paragraph 2, line 5:  "...affect cell viability and [] limit the size"

Page 8, paragraph 3, line 4:  "The [few] dead cells that were
observed ..."

Page 10, paragraph 1, line 3:  "From [these] data, it is clear"
(data is actually plural, if you want to get technical)

Page 10, paragraph 3, line 3:  "... could elevate matric contraction, [these
studies] suggested that differentiated ..."

Page 10, paragraph 3, line 4:  Instead of "According to this" can you
say "It may [then] be possible that the highest ...

Page 12, line 3:  "... it is difficult to [characterize] their individual..."