Comments on abstract, title, references

The abstract is structured very well and the aim of the study is clear. The title is informative and relevant to the content of the article. The references are recent, relevant, and used correctly.

Comments on introduction/background

The introduction section is well organized to include the background, the gap, and the aim. The research question is clearly outlined and relevant to fill the gap. However, the role of SOX2 is misleading as they stated that "SOX2 facilitates the repair of injured cortical neurons (Heinrich et al., 2014).", while the rest of the article showed that downregulation of SOX2 by miR-132 is necessary for functional recovery.

Comments on methodology

The methods used in this study are valid and reliable. Additionally, the variables are clearly defined and measured appropriately.

Comments on data and results

Figures are relevant and clearly presented. The groups in the figures are clearly categorized and the texts in the results complemented the data presented. Statistical analysis is clear and relevant.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

The results are discussed from different angles although some of them are repeated in the discussion section. The aims of the study are successfully fulfilled by the conclusion, but the limitations of the study are not addressed.

Overall the article successfully addressed the aims of the study and uncovered the mechanistic pathway of EA-induced functional recovery following ischemic stroke. The article added clear pieces of evidence for the role of miR-132 in EA-induced recovery following I/R injury.