sci投稿编辑给了大修，可是编辑的意见实在是很不友好

请问大神们我这种情况是不是就算认真修稿也希望渺茫？

Comment:

1. It is not clear molecular identity of all chemical components involved in the Angelica dahurica or the herbal concentrate-granules of A. dahurica used in this study. If the authors concern the repeatability of studies should provide the chemical profiles of major constitutes.

2. Although the authors make conclusions on the effects of Angelica dahurica against inflammation in diabetes, there are no enough or sufficient data on inflammatory or other immune response in skin tissue, only few cytokines provided herein. How about the db/db mice skin and hair related to the wound healing in diabetes. Other key diabetes biochemical parameters should be presented.

3. The study is descriptive: it is not clear what molecular mechanism of β-sitosterol is an effective inhibitor of Na+/K+-ATPase the authors follow. What is the rationale for elucidation of Na+/K+-ATPase in diabetes? At least, it should be verified in a cause-effect relationship studies. .

4. The authors do not make a clear case in the introduction as to why this study should be performed over what is already known. There are conspicuous citations missing.

5. There are some animal care issues. First, it appears that the all the handling process are done without anesthesia.

6. Much of the data in the biochemical assay were not convinced. The HE sections are not convincing, appropriate, nor allow for unbiased analysis.