Feeding Mechanisms of Pathogenic Protozoa with a Focus on Endocytosis and the Digestive Vacuole

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this review is very interesting, as it provides detailed information about endocytosis in protozoa. To enhance the manuscript, the following minor revisions are recommended:

- In the Abstract, the genera of protozoa that are the focus of this review should be included. For instance, Trichomonas is scarcely mentioned in the text.

- In the Introduction (line 26), the author mentions that endocytosis has other functions. What are these functions? Including a reference would be helpful here.

- In the first paragraph of the Introduction, the comparison between prokaryotes and eukaryotes would be more comprehensive if it included the fact that bacteria lack an organized cytoskeleton, which is important for endocytosis.

- In Table 2, it is stated that Leishmania spp. have megasomes in promastigotes. Is this accurate?

- The sub-pellicular microtubule network in trypanosomatids restricts endocytosis to the flagellar pocket. This information should be included (lines 237-238).

- Line 471: Is the Summary section mandatory? If not, it should be replaced with a Conclusions section and shortened.

- Lines 475-480: If the Summary section is retained, the importance of endocytosis and digestive vacuoles as targets for antiprotozoal drugs should be included in the main text, not in this part of the manuscript.

Author Response

It is not clear the advantage of including the genera in the Abstract. The major genera are in the keywords that are directly below the abstract. 

A comment about other endocytosis functions and reference was included. 

A statement about bacteria lacking cytoskeleton was included.

One of the columns in Table 2 was eliminated to eliminated this confusion. 

A statement about the subpellicular microtubles was included

Summary is probably better than Conclusion, since there are not so many conclusions. However, the section was substantially shortened. 

The sentences about drug targets was moved to the Introduction. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the attached file for the comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. More details were provided in Figure 1 legend
2. the sentence was changed accordingly
3. The column about primary stages studied was eliminated. There is not really a specific refenerce to this -- just the references collectively
4. The Summary was substantially shortened.