这个是什么意思what makes it rather disturbing was the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court.1.这句话是什么从句?2.what makes怎么理解?3. it rather disturbing 中 rather disturbing 是修饰it吗?4._百度作业帮
这个是什么意思what makes it rather disturbing was the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court.1.这句话是什么从句?2.what makes怎么理解?3. it rather disturbing 中 rather disturbing 是修饰it吗?4.
这个是什么意思what makes it rather disturbing was the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court.1.这句话是什么从句?2.what makes怎么理解?3. it rather disturbing 中 rather disturbing 是修饰it吗?4.the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court.中间both of是2者之一还是2者都?5.整句话是什么意思?
1.主语从句,主语：“what makes it rather disturbing ”,谓语：“was”表语：“the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court”可以转换成The arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court makes it rather disturbing.2.主语是一个句子,为主谓宾+宾补的结构从句主语：what 从句谓语：makes从句宾语：it从句宾补：rather disturbingwhat代替了“the arbitrary circumstances both of my arrest and my subsequent fate in court.”3.是的,为主语从句中的宾补,同类句型：what makes me happy is the good whether.happy 修饰 me4.both of是2者都,特别强调了在逮捕过程中以及在法庭审理中都遭到了武断的,专横的不公正待遇5.翻译：尤其令我感到恼火的是,我在被逮捕过程中以及在法庭审理中都遭到了（警察或者法官）独断的不公正待遇≒数学这个是什么意思_百度作业帮
≒数学这个是什么意思
≒数学这个是什么意思
你好,用来表示两个数近似相等的符号叫做约等号,常见的写法是“≈”,还有一种写法是等号上面加一点,读作约等于或近似于.
可以相互转换
相等的意思
前后是等价的，前面成立可以得到后面成立，后面成立也可以得前面成立教职成司函【号&|&& 查看话题
这是什么意思？
“Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript for consideration to RSC Advances. I believe your responses to the referees' comments to be satisfactory, however I note that you have not addressed all the comments in the text of the manuscript itself. It is often the case that the questions raised by the referees reflect those of our readers. Therefore I would like to request that you further revise the manuscript to incorporate all your responses to the referees' concerns.
After this has been done, I will be pleased to accept your manuscript. ”
要把回复意见附到manuscript里面吗？已经有了reply to the comments单独文件了
Dear Prof. Sarah Rogers :
Thank you for your mail with regard to our manuscript “Surface modification of intraocular lenses with hyaluronic acid and lysozyme for the prevention of endophthalmitis and posterior capsule opacification” together with the comments from the reviewers.
We are acknowledged to the criticism raised by the referee. We have in comments. Point by point responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed below this letter.
We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal “RSC Advances”.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Bailiang Wang
School of Ophthalmology & Optometry, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University
Editor' Comments:
Please provide the following separate files:
• A suitably revised manuscript in native format (.DOC or TeX) with high quality embedded figures
• A suitably revised manuscript in native format (.DOC or TeX) with numbered figures, as separate files in .TIF, or .EPS format, with resolution of 600 dpi or greater and schemes preferably as ChemDraw files. Chemwindow files (filename.cwg, filename.cw2), ISIS/Draw exported as sketch format (filename.skc) and ChemSketch exported in ChemDraw format (filename.cdx) may also be supplied. Providing the original figure and scheme files in their native formats will assist us in ensuring the best quality production of your article.
We would like to thank your comment. We have provided a suitably revised manuscript in native format (.DOC) with high quality embedded figures.
• A table of contents entry. This should include:
* Colour graphic: maximum size 8 cm x 4 cm
* Text: one sentence, of maximum 20 words, highlighting the novelty of the work.
We would like to thank your comment. We have provided a colour graphic with size of 6 cm x 4 cm and highlights, each sentence no more than 20 words.
• Suitably revised Electronic Supplementary Information (if any).
• Suitably revised CIF(s) and corresponding CheckCIF reports (if necessary).
• A response to the comments made by the reviewer(s). You should also document any changes you have made to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
Thanks for the comment. We have provided a response to the comments made by the reviewer(s) and documented any changes we have made to the original manuscript.
• A .PDF version of your revised manuscript including figures, suitable for publication online as an Accepted Manuscript (no highlighting, track changes etc.).
• If your article is a Review, a biography and photograph of yourself and co-authors if you would like them included in your article. These must be provided with your revised files as we will be unable to insert them at a later stage. The text for each biography should be a maximum of 100 words. There can be a maximum of six individual biographies per article. The first two of these will appear on the first page of the article, the others on the second page. Separate photographs of each author may be supplied or if you prefer, a group photograph, saved as a TIF, PDF or JPEG file. The resolution of the photographs should be 600 dpi or higher. The dimensions of the photograph in the printed journal will be 4 cm wide x 5 cm high (individual photograph) or 8.3 cm wide x 5 cm high (group photograph).
• Copies of permissions required from other publishers to reproduce figures. Please ensure that necessary permissions are acknowledged in the figure captions in accordance with the publishers’ instruction. Information on how to obtain permissions and what rights we require are given on our website at www.rsc.org/permissions.
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Thanks for the comment. We have made other changes according to your helpful advices.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author
In this manuscript Chen and co-workers presented a very interesting technique where they grafted lysozyme onto intracular lenses to promote there anti-bacterial activities. In general the work is good with the manuscript well-written. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript following minor revisions.
1. The adhesion of HLECs to the surfaces as shown in Fig. 6 should be quantified.
We would like to thank reviewer’s comment. We have quantified the number of HLECs as “The numbers of HELCs adhered on TCPS, pristine PMMA, HA, HA-5% lysozyme, HA-10% lysozyme and HA-20% lysozyme coatings were 876, 394, 108, 169, 121 and 143 in Fig.6.” And we also gave the percentage of HLECs adhered on pristine PMMA, HA, HA-5% lysozyme, HA-10% lysozyme and HA-20% lysozyme coatings of that on TCPS.
2. It's probably better for the authors to show a colony assay, where they should place pieces of different surfaces on agar plated with S. aureus and observe the growth clearance and inhibition of the bacteria.
We would like to thank reviewer’s comment. The method reviewer given is “inhibition zone test” which is commonly be used to characterize the diffusion capacity of antibacterial agents. In this experiment, antibacterial agents such as antibiotic or metal ions could diffuse and kill bacteria away from the coating. In our work, hyaluronic acid-lysozyme (HA-lysozyme) composite coating was covalently grafted on the surface of PMMA intraocular lenses by reaction with N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) and 1-etil-3-(3-dimetilaminopropil) carbodiimida (EDC). So it is not suitable to use this test to measure the antibacterial property of HA-lysozyme composite coating.
In our work, antimicrobial tests of HA-lysozyme composite coatings were conducted qualitatively and quantitatively by the shake-flask culture method, waterborne test and bacterial LIVE/DEAD stain method respectively with S. aureus as model bacteria. So the characterization methods used to explore the antibacterial properties of HA-lysozyme composite coating is comprehensive and sufficient.
Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
In their manuscript entitled & Surface modification of intraocular lenses with hyaluronic
acid and lysozyme for the prevention of endophthalmitis and posterior capsule opacification&, Wang et al. reported a method of modification the surface of intraocular lenses with hyaluronic acid and lysozyme for the prevention of endophthalmitis and posterior capsule opacification. The authors showed that the Hyaluronic acid-lysozyme (HA-lysozyme) composite coating was covalently grafted on the surface of PMMA intraocula lenses by reaction with NHS and EDC. And the coating showed remarkably effective antibacterial and anti-adhesive properties against S. aureus and HCLECs on the surface. HA-lysozyme can be used as IOL materials, advancing the medical care materials research.
The wording and structure of the manuscript are also well, and appropriate for publication in RSC Advances, with some minor improvements in:
1.& & & & Page 4, in “2.5.1. Cell cultivation” the author should give full name of “FDA and CCK-8 assays”.
Thanks for the comment. We have given the full name of FDA and CCK-8 as “fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and cell counting kit-8 assays (CCK-8)” in the revised manuscript.
2.& & & & Page 6, “-NH2” in 3.1. “ Immobilization of HA-lysozyme composite coating on PMMA surface”should be “-NH2”.
Thanks for the comment. We have changed “-NH2” into “-NH2”.
3.& & & & Page 6, Table 1, “The RMS roughnesses (10×10 μm2) were 4.2±0.4, 4.5±0.6, 4.8±0.9 and 4.3±0.6 nm for HA and HA-lysozyme composite coatings”. Are these surfaces smooth or rough? Are they benefit for bacteria and HLECs adhesion?
Thanks for the comment. We tested The RMS roughnesses of the composite coatings with the region of 10×10 μm2. Comparing with the data of AFM tests in the literature it is reasonable to think the surfaces are smooth. (Carbohydrate Polymers 90 (, RSC Adv., 959–52966, Applied Surface Science 258 (–7808).
As indicated in Fig. 2, there were a large number of bacteria adhering on PMMA and the surface was almost covered by a layer of bacteria. On the other hand, in the case of HA and HA-lysozyme composite coatings, the number of adhered bacteria on the surface was significantly decreased. The adhesion of bacteria on different substrate surface is affected by various chemical and physicochemical factors. Most of the bacterial cell membrane with hydrophobic property prefers hydrophobic material surfaces due to hydrophobic interactions. It was also demonstrated by AFM test that the HA and HA-lysozyme composite coatings were smooth and flat which were beneficial to resist bacteria adhesion. (Biomedical Materials 4003, Biomacromolecules .)
4.& & & & Why S. aureus was chosen as model bacteria to do the antibacterial and anti-adhesive tests?
Thanks for the comment. Post-operative infection or endophthalmitis is a potential blinding complication which results from bacterial colonization on the new lens implant and subsequent antibiotic-tolerant biofilm formation. In the case of postoperative endophthalmitis, bacteria predominates as main etiology represented with coagulase-negative staphylococci (33–77 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus, 10–21 %). As one of the most common pathogens in endophthalmitis, S. aureus was chosen in our test to measure the antibacterial properties of HA-lysozyme composite coatings.
5. What is ATCC in section “2.5.1. Cell cultivation”?
Thank you for the comment. The ATCC of HLECs is SRA01/04.
A list of the changes we have made to the original manuscript
1.& & & & Page 3, section of “2.5.1. Cell cultivation.”, “The HLECs (from ATCC)” was changed into “The HLECs (from ATCC, SRA01/04)”.
2.& & & & Page 4, in “2.5.1. Cell cultivation” , “FDA and CCK-8 assays” was changed into “fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and cell counting kit-8 assays (CCK-8)”.
3.& & & & Page 6, “-NH2” in 3.1. “ Immobilization of HA-lysozyme composite coating on PMMA surface” has been changed into “-NH2”.
4.& & & & Page 8, Line 37, “The numbers of HELCs adhered on TCPS, pristine PMMA, HA, HA-5% lysozyme, HA-10% lysozyme and HA-20% lysozyme coatings were 876, 394, 108, 169, 121 and 143 in Fig.6.” was added.
5.& & & & Page 8, Line 31, “The numbers of HLECs adhered on HA, HA-5% lysozyme, HA-10% lysozyme and HA-20% lysozyme coatings were 12.3%, 19.3%, 13.8% and 16.3% of that on TCPS.” was added. 有些问题 你回复了但没有在修改稿中体现出来，即没有作相应的修改。 : Originally posted by brucefan at
有些问题 你回复了但没有在修改稿中体现出来，即没有作相应的修改。 修改稿按照上面的要求已经修改了，难道是非要按照第一个人的意见补数据？ 将编辑的要求的内容放在在你修改的稿件中，而不是单单回复，编辑不可能将你回复的内容加在你的稿件中 所有审稿人以及编辑的意见 逐条回复
然后形成单独文件或附在稿件中，不要在邮件里发。
录用可能性非常高。 : Originally posted by hydzp at
将编辑的要求的内容放在在你修改的稿件中，而不是单单回复，编辑不可能将你回复的内容加在你的稿件中 已经按照意见对稿件进行修改，用单独的文件也上传了，后来就是主编只说没答复完，并没有退回来让上传，我就邮件答复，看到稿件已经是我附件给他的新的。之后主编还是说没答复完全。。。。 : Originally posted by 一字 at
所有审稿人以及编辑的意见 逐条回复
然后形成单独文件或附在稿件中，不要在邮件里发。
录用可能性非常高。 已经按照意见对稿件进行修改，用单独的文件也上传了，后来就是主编只说没答复完，并没有退回来让上传，我就邮件答复，看到稿件已经是我附件给他的新的。之后主编还是说没答复完全。。。。 : Originally posted by wangdadun at
修改稿按照上面的要求已经修改了，难道是非要按照第一个人的意见补数据？... 不一定要补充数据，但也许要在相关的地方说明一下现有的数据已经足够说明问题了，就像你回复中解释的那样。编辑的意思是读者也可能提类似的问题，那么在文中解释一两句是不错的。 是不是审稿人1的问题2有关，你需要在文章中说明一下相关内容比较合理的 你再好好看看，哪些地方你遗漏了在你的稿件里没有具体说明，编辑说了，审稿人的问题其实是反应了更多读者的问题，单单回答审稿人不行，还要在文中多阐释，以便每个读者都可以了解你的研究。 主编还是说没答复完全,是否是指希望你继续小范围修改的意思?比如指出的问题回复的不够清晰?:hand: : Originally posted by 自私的猫1988 at
是不是审稿人1的问题2有关，你需要在文章中说明一下相关内容比较合理的 已接受，感觉是，做了回答和修改。这是什么意思?Application terminated Erroy:unresolvable external fun_menu_enabled when linking yefeyenca at line 27 in clicked event of object cb_1 of w _new_login是什么意思?_百度作业帮
这是什么意思?Application terminated Erroy:unresolvable external fun_menu_enabled when linking yefeyenca at line 27 in clicked event of object cb_1 of w _new_login是什么意思?
这是什么意思?Application terminated Erroy:unresolvable external fun_menu_enabled when linking yefeyenca at line 27 in clicked event of object cb_1 of w _new_login是什么意思?
应用程序外部fun_menu_enabled连接在yefeyenca第27行在点击cb_1事件w _new_login对象