Review Reports
by
- Maryline Blin 1,
- Julien Fumey 2,† and
- Sylvie Rétaux 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: David C Culver Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments, save one, are minor. I found the division between Methods and Results not completely satisfactory. Cave descriptions appear in the Results but they are not the result of this study (see reference 9). My suggestions about changes probably won't work either but I urge the authors to look at the problem. Very minor comments follow:
Line 15. Change “supposedly” to “presumably” or “likely”
Line 32-33. Change “an underground environment” to “underground environments”
Line 44. Change “genus” to “lineages”
Line 57 Reference #10 is incomplete
Line 96 Change “on” to “into”
Line 143 Change “odors” to “odor”
Line 203 Change “Powders” to “Chemicals”
Line 302 Change “attracted more” to “attracted for more”
Line 339. The next two paragraphs below in Methods and Materials.
Line 351 Change “In consequence” to “Consequently”
Line 375. First two sentences belong in Methods.
Line 414 First two sentences belong in Methods
Line 454. First two sentences belong in Methods. Perhaps substitute field or some other landscape feature of polje, which is generally an unfamiliar term to biologists not from central Europe.
Line 478. First two sentences belong in Methods
Line 502. First six sentences belong in Methods, and can be shortened.
Line 543. Change “wild” to “subterranean”
Line 546 Change “makes” to “means”. This is also a run on sentence that needs subdivision or at least commas.
Line 570 Change “active” to “for active”
Line 718 Reference 49 is incomplete.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is quite strong in that it takes a difficult assay and brings it to the field. It is also strong the chondroitin data. Neat stuff.
There is some clunky language and the inclusion of material better suited to sup material (e.g. 3.3). Also, the figures are quite good, but the resolution in the proof was not good.
I would adjust the manuscript so it is not so cave-focussed, but rather tells your olfaction story clearly. Most readers will want a fairly direct message; the cave material is a bit too much. Cut down on cave differences etc. Otherwise, you might lose the message.
My overall recommendation is to focus your study, with consideration of placing more material in SI. You are trying to convey too much in a typical paper format – new methods, novel places, newly discovered odorant responses, genetics, lab vs field, etc. I sincerely admire you for doing so, but maybe crop to tell a direct story.
Specific comments
- Don’t get the inclusion of humans.
- Awkward language re. ‘seems’.
- Nice conclusion.
Your intro is a bit rambling, but this is forgiven in that this is such interesting material. This is certainly apparent in the food angle.
The intro sets up a strong desire to read on, in order to figure out these experiments conducted in field.
- What AAs from where? Are these L-isoforms?
- Reference?
- Nice picture!
- Move info up.
- Skills?
- Too much info?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx