秋日物语-

2021年2月7日发(作者：保温杯子)

1.

Submit paper

1.1

例文

1

Dear Editor,

We

would

like

to

submit

the

enclosed

manuscript

entitled

Acutely

Modulates

Neuronal

Excitability and A-type Potassium Channels in Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons

which we wish

to be considered for publication in

Nature Neuroscience

.

GDNF

has

long

been

thought

to

be

a

potent

neurotrophic

factor

for

the

survival

of

midbrain

dopaminergic neurons, which are degenerated in Parkinson’s disease. In this paper, we report an

unexpected,

acute

effect

of

GDNF

on

A-type

potassium

channels,

leading

to

a

potentiation

of

neuronal

excitability,

in

the

dopaminergic

neurons

in

culture

as

well

as

in

adult

brain

slices.

Further,

we

show

that

GDNF

regulates

the

K+

channels

through

a

mechanism

that

involves

activation of MAP kinase. Thus, this study has revealed, for the first time, an acute modulation of

ion channels by GDNF.

Our findings challenge the classic view of GDNF as a long-term survival

factor

for

midbrain

dopaminergic

neurons,

and suggest

that

the

normal

function

of

GDNF

is

to

regulate

neuronal

excitability,

and

consequently

dopamine

release.

These

results

may

also

have

implications in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.

Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Drs. XXX of Harvard Univ.,

and YY

of Y

ale Univ. not be considered as reviewers. With thanks for your consideration,

I am

Sincerely yours,

1.2

例文

2

Dear Editor,

We

would

like

to

submit

the

enclosed

manuscript

entitled

protein

frequenin

mediates GDNF- induced potentiation of Ca2+ channels and transmitter release

be considered for publication

in

Neuron

.

We

believe

that

two

aspects

of

this

manuscript

will

make

it

interesting

to

general

readers

of

Neuron

.

First,

we report that GDNF has a long-term regulatory effect on neurotransmitter release

at the neuromuscular synapses.

This provides the first physiological evidence for a

role of this new

family

of

neurotrophic

factors

in

functional

synaptic

transmission

.

Second,

we

show

that

the

GDNF

effect

is

mediated

by

enhancing

the

expression

of

the

Ca2+-binding

protein

frequenin.

Further, GDNF and frequenin facilitate synaptic transmission by enhancing Ca2+ channel activity,

leading

to

an

enhancement

of

Ca2+

influx.

Thus,

this

study

has

identified,

for

the

first

time,

a

molecular target that mediates the long-term, synaptic action of a neurotrophic factor. Our findings

may also have general implications in the cell biology of neurotransmitter release.

1.3

例文

3

Dear Editor:

Enclosed

are

copies

of

a

manuscript

entitled

and

NT-4/5 Promote the

Development

of

Long-Term Potentiation in the Hippocampus

Nature.

As you know, there is a great deal of interest and excitement recently in understanding

the

role

of

neurotrophins

in

synapse

development

and

plasticity.

Our

manuscript

provides, for

the first time, the physiological evidence that neurotrophins regulate long-term potentiation (LTP).

The

main

point

of

the

paper

is

that

the

neurotrophins

BDNF

and

NT-4

induce

an

earlier

appearance

of

LTP

in

developing

hippocampus.

In contrast

to

recent

Science

article

by

XX's

group,

we

(and

several

other

LTP

groups)

did

not

see

that

BDNF

enhance

basal

synaptic

transmission in adullt hippocampus.

However, we found that in adult hippocampus, inhibition of

BDNF/TrkB activity attenuated LTP

, and weak tetanus that normally cannot induce LTP produced

enduring

LTP

.

These findings

may

have

implications

in

the

basic

mechanism

for regulation

of

synapse development and long-term modulation of synaptic efficacy

.

Because of the rather competitive nature of the field and the important implication of our findings,

we have not yet presented this work in any public forum.

However, confidential discussion with

several

prominent

neuroscientists

such

as

111

and

222

have

generated

tremendous

excitement.

Thus, we feel that this work is of general interest and is suitable for publication in

Nature.

We

would like to suggest Drs. aaa of Y

ale Univ., bbb of Harvard Medical School, and ccc of Univ. of

California-Berkeley, as reviewers for this manuscript.

Due to a direct competition and conflict of

interest, we request that Dr. XX and YY

. not be considered as reviewers.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

1

．

5

英文投稿的模版信

1

发信站

:

两全其美

BBS (Wed Jun

8 20:57:42 2005),

转信

()

Dear Sir,

We are submitting a manuscript entitled “XXXXX” for your kind consideration for publication in

XXXX.

In this manuscript, we report a novel approach ..............

We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for

publication in this journal.

1

．

< p>
6

英文投稿的模版信

2

Dear Professor

×××

:

One of my paper, which has a title of “××××”, is hoped to be published in your journal .

Please take it into

your consideration for publication.

If you need any more information concerning the manuscript please write to me. I am looking forward to

hearing from you.

Best regards

×

×

×

×

1

．

7

< br>英文投稿的模版信

3

PLoS Genetics

I submit the accompanying manus

cript entitled “Gain and loss of multiple genes during the evolution of

Helicobacter pylori

” by H. Gressmann et al. for publication in PLoS Genetics.

This manuscript presents the global variability within

H. pylori

in terms of presence or absence of almost

all the genes within the two currently available genome sequences. The strains tested are representative

of the global genetic diversity within

H. pylori

and also represent the diverse populations that exist in that

organism. Global analyses of genomic content are very rare indeed for bacterial species and are new for

H. pylori

. By including isolates from the most closely related species,

H. acinonychis

, as an outgroup, it

was possible to deduce that most variable genes were probably present in the last co

mmon ancestor of

H. pylori

and have subsequently been lost in individual isolates. In some cases, the same genes were

lost in phylogenetically distinct groupings, reflecting convergent evolution. However, the

cag

PAI was

acquired later, after subpopulations had formed. These conclusions are important for concepts about

changes in gene content within species and for the acquisition of pathogenicity islands.

We also perform a head-to-head comparison of population structure indicated by whole genome

microarrays versus that indicated by sequences of 7 housekeeping gene fragments. The comparison

indicates that microarrays yield distorted population structures and are less suitable for this goal than

simply sequencing 7 gene fragments. In order to be able to deduce patterns of gain or loss, it was

necessary to have an independent population structure based on sequence diversity within core genes.

This is an important conclusion because many laboratories are attempting to investigate bacterial

population structure on the basis of microarray data on their own and have not realized that an

independent population structure is necessary for such efforts..

The manuscript will be of great interest to the numerous scientists interested in infections caused by

H.

pylori

as well as to scientists interested in microbial genomic structure and evolution.

The following scientists, with whom I have had no contact regarding this manuscript are potentially

suitable reviewers:

1.

2.

Michael McClelland, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Centre, San Diego, CA

mmcclelland@

Al

Ivens,

Pathogen

microarrays,

Sanger

Center,

Hinxten

Hall,

Cambridge,

UK

alicat@

3.

4.

5.

Antonello Covacci, IRIS, Chiron Vaccines, Siena, Italy

antonello_covacci@

Paul O’Toole, University of Cork, Ireland

pwotoole@

Jö

rg Hacker, University of Wü

rzburg, Germany

@

I request that Doug Berg not be used as a reviewer due to potential conflict of interest.

Sincerely,

Mark Achtman, PhD

2. When your paper gets rejected

—

without review

Dear Editor,

I would appreciate if you could reconsider to review our manuscript, “111.

that this is an important subject that touches one of the central dogmas in neuroscience: xxx. It is

also very timely, given the publication of the paper by X a

nd Y

entitled “222” in the latest issue of

Nature

Neuroscience.

In

this

paper,

the

authors

xxx.

They claimed

that

xxx.

When

a

paper

this

provocative has been published by a high profile journal like Nature Neuroscience, we believe that

it

is

worth

giving

a

benefit

of

doubts. It will

be

helpful

if

there

are

papers

that consider

other

alternative interpretations, or attempt to replicate in the same or different systems.

We have observed similar xxx, but we have a completely different interpretation. We found

that

1)

xxx

2)

xxx;

3)

xxx. Thus,

our

paper

raises

the

possibility

that

xxx

reported

by

X

and

Y

were due to xxx. Specifically, we would like you to consider the following two issues: First, X and

Y

used aaa, while we used bbb. sssssssss. Second, ccc used by X and Y

may not be so specific.

In

addition

to

the

drastically

different

opinions

regarding

xxx, we

feel

that

our

findings

on

xxx is also significant in yyy and will be of interests to general readers of Nature Neuroscience.

We therefore did not write our paper to directly challenge the paper by X and Y

. However, we will

be willing to re-write the paper in ways you think that will help debate on this important issue.

3. When your paper gets rejected

—

with review

Dear Dr. xx,

We received with some surprise your letter of November 4, rejecting this manuscript on the

basis

of

one

reviewer’s

opinion

which

you

“found

persuasive”.

We

wish

to

indicate

our

dissatisfaction

with

this

reviewer’s

comments,

which

appear

to

ignore

the

new

experiments

submitted as part of the revised manuscript.

This

reviewer

states:

“111.”

This

was

precisely

the

point

of

the

xxx

experiment

which

indicated that there were no such deficits.

This

reviewer

further

states:

“222.”

Again,

this

is

a

mystifying

statement

as

the

detailed

rebuttal accompanying this letter described the xxx. Did the reviewer not understand that xxx?

Finally, concerning the proposal for a xxx experiment, we believe that you and this reviewer

already know that xxx. Thus, it is impossible to do such experiments.

While

we

recognize

that

the

final

decision

is

yours,

we

feel

that

reviewer#1

is

being

unreasonable. We would greatly appreciate

it

if you would submit this manuscript, reviewer#1’s

comments, and our rebuttals, to an additional unbiased reviewer. We would be most surprised if

the new reviewer would see the comments of the reviewer#1 as reasonable, but if he/she did so,

we would accept a negative decision gracefully.

4.

催审稿

4.1

例文

1

(

我写的，见笑了！）

Dear editor,

Thank you for your reading this mail.

I submit a paper entitled

…………

last

year and

this paper

has been

reviewed

for

more

than

five

months

now. I

haven't

received the

Referees' comments

on it.

I respectfully wish for the comments soon, thank you!

Once again, thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

yours sincerely,

………………

22-Apr-2005

4.2

例文

2(

编辑回信

)

Editor check on the progress of the paper

.

The manuscript

is in the review process

and I anticipate

receiving the 2nd reviewer's comment in the next 2 weeks. The first reviewer´

s comments are not

very encouraging, so I will inform you on the decision as soon as I

have received the comments

of the second one.

Thank

you

for

submitting

your

research

to

the

ISPRS

Journal.

I

will

be

happy

to

keep

you

informed of how the reviews are progressing.

4.3

例文

3

给责任编辑写催问信的

.

以下是模板

Dear Dr. XXX,

We submitted

a manuscript (manuscript ID) to “XXXX journal” on X

-X-X. Y

ou are the execu

tive editor. W

e have not,

yet, received any comment or decision abou

t the submission. Please let us know any further information of the reviewing

process at your earliest convenience.

Many thanks.

4.4

例文

4

Dear editor,

Thank you for your reading this mail and I am very sorry for sending you this mail again.

I want to know if the second comment on my paper (

…………

) has been received. If it has been received, could you please

inform me on the decision?

I respectfully wish for your reply

, thank you!

Once again, Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

yours sincerely,

………………

11-Oct-2005

5.

催寄会议邀请信

Dear Miss. Lee,

Many thanks for your hard work.

I have received the invitation letter from you by email. You said the original

invitation letter would be sent to me on 6 May, but I haven't received it yet.

Please send us the original invitation letters for attending the symposium, because the

invitation letters are required for us to transact visa. Mr. LI will register when he

attend the symposium.

It's ok to send the two letters to me together in one mail. Many thanks!

Once again, thank you very much for your hard work.

Best regards!

Yours sincerely,

……

18-May-2005

6. Sample Letter to the Editor

6.1 on Energy and Global Warming

Dear Editor:

The presidential race is heating up, but one issue is surprisingly absent from the debate:

the environment. With high gas prices and continued tension in the Middle East, now seems to

be

the

perfect

time

for

candidates

to

start

seriously

addressing

the

problems

of

America's

continued dependence on fossil fuels. Air pollution from power plants and vehicles contributes

to

smog

and

global

warming,

and

it

is

estimated

that

pollution

from

U.S.

power

plants

kills

30,000 people each year.

The Bush Administration has largely neglected these issues; indeed most of its policies

seem

designed

to

increase

our

dependence

on

fossil

fuels.

The

Administration's

national

energy policy calls for constructing hundreds of new power plants, increasing coal and nuclear

energy,

and

increasing

drilling

on

public

lands.

Apparently

the

plan

also

includes

allowing

more pollution

from these already-dirty energy sources; the Administration is being sued by

several

northeast

states

because

of

its

drastic

weakening

of

the

Clean

Air

Act.

The

Administration has also

been in

favor of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge,

despite the fact that the US Geological Survey estimates that this would yield only

six month's

worth

of

oil.

A

more

forward-thinking

energy

policy

would

emphasize

the

development

of

renewable technologies and increased energy efficiency, especially of our vehicle fleet.

The decisions we make now about our

energy policy will affect our health, our security,

and

the

environment

that

we

ultimately

depend

on.

Let's

hope

we

hear

more

serious

discussion about these issues before the election.

NAME

SCHOOL

CITY

Dear Editor:

From a student's perspective, I am disturbed by the lack of attention that global warming is

receiving

in

the

presidential

campaign.

In

this

century,

the

average

global

temperature

is

expected

to

rise

between

2.5

and

10.5

degrees

Fahrenheit,

which

is

quite

significant

if

one

considers

that

the

temperature

only

increased

5

–

9

degrees

between

the

last

ice

age

and

today. The economic effects of such a change will be devastating: Swiss Re estimates that the

costs from

weather-related disasters

will double to $$150 billion a year in a

decade. And the

authors of a recent report from the Pentagon believe that the destabilizing impacts of climate

change pose a serious security threat.

Unfortunately,

our

government,

despite

all

its

interest

in

the

economy

and

national

security, doesn't seem to be taking notice. Indeed, the Bush Administration's policy on global

warming has been to ignore it. Early in his term, Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty,

the

first

international

treaty

to

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions.

Although

the

treaty

has

some flaws, it was an important first step, but unless Russia or the U.S. ratifies it, it cannot go

into effect. Domestically the government has opposed any plans to regulate greenhouse gas

emissions.

It

has

even

gone

so

far

as

to

manipulate

scientific

evidence;

in

2003,

the

Administration attempted to make such substantial changes to a section of an Environmental

Protection

Agency

(EPA)

report

on

climate

change

that

the

EPA

finally

deleted

the

section

rather than destroy its scientific credibility.

Such

short-sighted

policies

may

not

have

much

direct

impact

today,

but

it

is

my

generation

that

is

going

to

have

to

deal

with

their

consequences.

And

unless

the

U.S.

government

joins

the

rest

of

the

industrialized

world

in

acting

on

this

problem,

those

consequences aren't going to be pretty.

NAME

SCHOOL

CITY

6.2 on Bush and National Forests

Dear Editor:

As

the

presidential

election

approaches,

environmental

issues

have

hardly

been

discussed,

despite

its

importance

to

many

Americans,

especially

among

young

Americans

who want to protect our wild lands for fu

ture generations. The Bush Administration’s assault on

the environment is evident in many areas, but is clearly visible in our National Forests. Since

Bush took office more than three years ago, he

has created several policies that have rolled

back

hard

earned

environmental

protections

in

favor

of

commercial

logging

and

the

oil

and

industries.

Recently

the

Bush

Administration

announced

their

plans

to

potentially

open

up

the

remaining 60 million acres of roadless area in our National Forest to development, oil and gas

drilling, and commercial logging. Despite the largest public involvement process in the history

of the federal government with more than 600 public hearings and two million public comments

in favor of protecting our wild forests, the Bush Administration has now put the Roadless Rule

on

hold.

Under

the

guise

of

“fire

prevention”

and

“forest

health,”

the

Bush

Administration

is

chipping away at forest protections policies across the country. Even

while many paper and

timber

corporations

are

backing

away

from

the

logging

of

old

growth

forest,

the

Bush

Administration is opening up our most protective areas to commercial loggers and developers.

We are headed in a dangerous direction under the Bush Administration.

Besides

the

beauty

of

our

National

Forest,

these

wild

areas

have

some

of

the

highest

quality

fish

and

wildlife

habitats,

backcountry

recreation,

and

clean

water

supplies

in

the

country.

Our

treasured

wild

heritage

is

being

chopped

down

by

the

Bush

Administration’s

relaxed environmental policies, and as young people we want these areas protected for future

generations

to

enjoy.

It’s

time

to

stop

this

assault

on

our

National

Forests,

and

reinstate

needed protections from commercial logging, and oil extraction, and development.

NAME

SCHOOL

CITY

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-

秋日物语-