Emergence of Gloomy Eyelet inside DNA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The presented manuscript “Emergence of Gloomy Eyelet inside DNA” significantly improved compared to the first version Manuscript ID biophysica-1634211. More than a review or research article the presented text represents a perspective that is sound and interesting. However, this conceptual idea needs to be supported, in the future, with experimental data to estimate the feasibility and applicability of this approach. It is important to mention that currently it may not be possible to measure wanted properties for a biological sample as DNA and Protein and that the implementation of this approach is dependent of the sate-of the-art technology. Moreover, it is not sure if alterations in DNA or Proteins are correlated with the malfunction of the cells, as they carry an intrinsic plasticity of their cellular components that is able to compensate small structural and functional alterations.

My concern on the current version is on one side the abstract. It is too general and not even connected with the title. It should be more descriptive and catch readers attention but on the same time should summarize the essence of the body text.

The other concern is the amount of Figures present. I understand that they are key for the understanding of the written text as they resume and visualize the presented ideas, but authors might combine Fig 1 and 2 to Fig 1a and b; Fig 3 and 4 to Fig 2a and b and Figure 5 and 6 to 3 a and b. Together with Figures 7 , 8 and 9 the total will be 6 Figures that is a reasonable number.

 Once taken care of, I will be glad to recommend this ms for publication as it stimulate the development of novel approaches on current investigation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Using various physical models authors have studied the gloomy eyelet in human cells. The topic of space-time distortion inside cells is highly unusual. It is not immediately clear what will be the possible applications of these investigations. The authors should elaborate on this. In the introduction, the authors have discussed how the variation in speed of sound propagation is used for diagnostic purposes. But it is not clear how this relates to the topic of examining the gloomy eye using different physical models. Also, what was the purpose of examining the gloomy eyelet with 4 different models? The writing in the manuscript has to be vastly improved in order to make it clear to the readers the significance of investigating the gloomy eyelet and the importance and possible applications of the results. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This article can be accepted as it is for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes an application of differential geometry to the study of the formation of a gloomy eyelet in the human cells. Although the introduction contains an effort to explain why and how the cell dynamics should be studied by employing methods that are proper of other fields of physics, there is an abrupt change to totally unexpected complications in section 2.3. Why should we use Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) in this field? What is its added value? Are we sure we should consider deformations in space time when we deal with such tiny objects as cells?
Starting from section 2.3, the meaning of the manuscript was completely lost. How do the predictions (if any) compare with experimental results? Are there any prediction in this differential geometry tour de force?
In addition, is it normal to have only four references in the bibliography, none of which refers to an article published on a peer review journal?
For the above specified reasons, I do not recommend publication of this manuscript on Biophysica.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the ms “Emergence of Gloomy Eyelet inside DNA” authors discuss the use of Gloomy Eylet to surveil living cells, organs or even whole body organisms and use it as a tool to detect anomalies in the functioning of the organism (energy metabolism, specific organ function as e.g. the heart or even cell division with a glimpse on potential cancer cells). 
This is a novel and very interesting proposal however authors need to be more specific. 
In general the readability of this ms needs to be improved.  Authors do not connect with the title until the very end of the ms. Transitions between sections should be implemented to understand  the logical reasoning of the proposal or outlook. 
The way the paper is structured authors present a physics lecture (text book knowledge)  with case studies to explain different phenomena/methods that can be combined to eventually observe the gloomy eyelet. In the end, they connect with their title and expose that the gloomy eyelet in DNA can be derived from the intrinsic twist in the double helix. Authors need to be more specific on this as in eukaryotic organisms the DNA is highly condensed and under the control of a specific set of proteins. These proteins are responsible to expand the DNA and allow the access to the information on the chromosome. In prokaryotic systems, the DNA is mainly circular with an internal twist. In none of both cases the situation is like presented in Figure 19. 

It is very confusing as the reader needs to find out by himself where the authors want to go throughout the ms. 

other comments: 

Figures are not numbered consecutively. 
Label of Figure 3 and 4 are duplicated. 
There is no Figure 6

19 Figure in 11 pages of ms are too many. 

Furthermore, authors barely reference information and statements they give.
The information that is contained in the ms is in its current state very abstract and not understandable for the general reader. The specialized reader will understand authors intention but the paper would benefit form an more didactic and less text book explanation of the topic. 

In its current state I cannot recommend the ms for publication in your journal.