On 2016 Jul 25, Yonwoo Jung commented:

Thanks very much for your comment. We just found there is wrong description about sample size. Actual sample size is that 11 offsprings from 3 saccharin receive dams and 14 offsprings from 3 nicotine received dams. We will contact to publisher and try to correct this one. I really appreciate your comment. I also checked your paper about psedoreplication. It is excellent point of view. I will keep that in mind for future experiment. We are very welcome for any comment. Thanks again for your comment.

On 2016 Jul 02, Stanley Lazic commented:

The results in this paper are hard to interpret for two reasons. First, the sample size has been incorrectly determined in most experiments, and thus the p-values are artificially too small. This is the problem of pseudoreplication (Lazic SE, 2010, Vaux DL, 2012). For example, the experiment in Fig 1b uses 25 slices from 10 brains (animals), and the appropriate sample size is 10, not 25.

Second, in some experiments (e.g. Fig 1b again) nicotine was applied to pregnant dams and the effects were measured in the offspring. Here, the sample size is the number of dams and not the number of offspring (Lazic SE, 2013, Lazic SE, 2013, and references therein). The number of dams was not mentioned, and so the worst case scenario is that the 5 control mice are from one litter and the 5 nicotine mice are from another, making the sample size 2.

Nature Neuroscience should be commended for their detailed reporting requirements, which allow readers to better evaluate the evidence.

On 2016 Jul 02, Stanley Lazic commented:

The results in this paper are hard to interpret for two reasons. First, the sample size has been incorrectly determined in most experiments, and thus the p-values are artificially too small. This is the problem of pseudoreplication (Lazic SE, 2010, Vaux DL, 2012). For example, the experiment in Fig 1b uses 25 slices from 10 brains (animals), and the appropriate sample size is 10, not 25.

Second, in some experiments (e.g. Fig 1b again) nicotine was applied to pregnant dams and the effects were measured in the offspring. Here, the sample size is the number of dams and not the number of offspring (Lazic SE, 2013, Lazic SE, 2013, and references therein). The number of dams was not mentioned, and so the worst case scenario is that the 5 control mice are from one litter and the 5 nicotine mice are from another, making the sample size 2.

Nature Neuroscience should be commended for their detailed reporting requirements, which allow readers to better evaluate the evidence.