Second we would like to

Second, we would like to add one reference (here underlined) that was missing, as follows: “These reports, together with a number of reports describing protocols to differentiate retinal tissue from human ESCs or induced pluripotent stem Go 6976 cost (iPSCs) (Kuwahara et al., 2015; Nakano et al., 2012; )….” Third, we would like to add the underlined words to specify graft source to the second paragraph of the Introduction, as follows: “Recent studies using cell suspensions of postnatal mouse photoreceptor precursorsor human ES/iPS derived photoreceptor precursors in end-stage retinas, which have lost the ONL, indicated possible light response by pupillary reflex and behavior tests, although direct evidence of light response from the graft cells or synaptic function is still lacking.” Fourth, also in the second paragraph of the Introduction, we would like to make the following change and add one reference (underlined). The original sentence reads “In addition, retinal grafts in the form of cell suspension or microaggregates did not generally survive for long, whereas a retinal graft sheet in a clinical trial was observed to survive 3 years after the transplantation (del Cerro et al., 2000; Mandai et al., 2012; West et al., 2010).” The corrected sentence reads “In addition, rat fetal retina sheet grafts () apparently survive longer than mouse cell suspensions (Mandai et al., 2012; West et al., 2010), and a fetal retinal graft sheet in a clinical trial was observed to survive 3 years after the transplantation, while transplants in the form of microaggregates were no longer detected (del Cerro et al., 2000).” “Reconstruction of a structured ONL would definitely be ideal in these cases, but it has not been clearly demonstrated that an ES/iPS-derived structured, retina-like sheet can restore visual function.”