Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms Underlying Somatostatin-Based Signaling in Two Model Neural Networks, the Retina and the Hippocampus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present manuscript is a review entitled “Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying somatostatin-based signaling in two model neural networks, the retina and the hippocampus” by Maurizio Cammalleri et al.

Originality: The question is original and well defined. The authors provide updated references.

Significance: The area of the topic is narrow but adequately interpreted.

Quality of presentation: This is a well written review with adequate tables and representative

figures.

Scientific soundness: This is a review based on others publications.

Interest to the readers: The audience of this manuscript is rather limited.

Overall merit: This is a review summarizing the knowledge about somatostatin-based signaling

of the retina and the hippocampus

The language level is appropriate.

Minor points: The review is thorough and the reader can be easily tired. I suggest to shorten

the length of the manuscript.

Author Response

The present manuscript is a review entitled “Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying somatostatin-based signaling in two model neural networks, the retina and the hippocampus” by Maurizio Cammalleri et al.

Originality: The question is original and well defined. The authors provide updated references.

Significance: The area of the topic is narrow but adequately interpreted.

Quality of presentation: This is a well written review with adequate tables and representative figures.

Scientific soundness: This is a review based on others publications.

Interest to the readers: The audience of this manuscript is rather limited.

Overall merit: This is a review summarizing the knowledge about somatostatin-based signaling of the retina and the hippocampus.

The language level is appropriate.

Thank you.

Minor points: The review is thorough and the reader can be easily tired. I suggest to shorten the length of the manuscript.

The goal of our review is to find out whether somatostatin-based signaling in two separate regions of the central nervous system, retina and hippocampus, relies upon similar molecular and cellular mechanism to control the activity of neuronal network through inhibition. We have a significant record of publications on the properties of the somatostatinergic systems in both structures (23 papers of ours are quoted in this review), and this is why we chose retina and hippocampus. Clearly, the overall objective of our review is to understand the significance of somatostatin-based signaling in neuronal networks in general, that is, beyond retina and hippocampus. Indeed, somatostatinergic interneurons are widespread throughout the brain.

Since retinal and hippocampal circuitries deal with different and highly specific computational tasks, to unveil possible general mechanism underlying somatostatin action we had to run a thorough analysis of published data. This is particular relevant when considering that somatostatin action is mediated by diverse receptors, which in turn may signal through quite different intracellular pathways. In addition, somatostatin-based signaling is also affected by tissue organization where the neuronal network operates. So, somatostatinergic system is intrinsically complex. We therefore think an in-depth analysis was necessary to achieve the goal of our review.

In answering the reviewer’s suggestion, we would like to draw to her/his attention that the text has been subdivided in fairly self-contained (although logically interconnected) sections to facilitate both non-expert and expert readers. For example, the section entitled “An overview of retinal and hippocampal circuitries” has been added to allow readers not familiar with retina and/or hippocampus to get acquainted with their circuitries. Expert readers can easily skip this section and jump directly to subsequent sections dealing with the somatostatinergic system.

Reviewer 2 Report

This review article is very pleasant to read, it contains nice illustrations and easy legends.

I think the authors have done a good job and I don't have major comments but only one minor suggestion. I recommend the authors to include one or two paragraph(s) at the end to expand a bit about the future directions and potential applications.

Author Response

This review article is very pleasant to read, it contains nice illustrations and easy legends.

Thank you.

I think the authors have done a good job and I don't have major comments but only one minor suggestion. I recommend the authors to include one or two paragraph(s) at the end to expand a bit about the future directions and potential applications.

Thank you. We have changed the section “7. Conclusions and future perspectives” according to the reviewer’s indications.