2. Observation
There are some concerns about their observation:
The authors use normalization for most of the data they observe, and it
can help visualize trends of data thus aiding our understanding.
However, it can also blind us from seeing the data if not normalized in
a right way. For example:
A major concern is that in figure 5 and figure 8, absolute and
normalized total charge (E&F, L&M in figure5; D&E, J&K in figure 8)
show much different trends, and the authors claim to see a short-term
depression based on the normalized trends. It seems, from the figure,
that the authors normalized that data with the peak value in each group
(it is not written in the manuscript), but one can argue that there
difference between mutant and control groups are actually the peak
value, possibly making it a biased standard to be normalized. For
instance, what we see in figure 5E, the absolute charge, is heavily
overlapping trends after the initial peaks for each protein. One can
conclude from here that the Doc2b mutants affect the initial amount of
charge while but not later when repetitively stimulated. But after the
normalization, the initial peaks are normalized, and from the later
trends the authors conclude that Doc2b mutants lead to a fast depression
of EPSC charge. The author reason that the observation after
normalization suggests that “the larger initial EPSC charge in mutant
expressing neurons contributes to the phenotype”, but the question is
whether the phenotype really is the depression or just the large initial
peak.
Another similar concern is that in figure 5 and 8, the authors measure
recovery as the normalized response charge after repetitive stimulation
and a short rest. There’s nowhere in the manuscript mentioning how
exactly the normalization is done, and there’s no corresponding absolute
data available to refer to. Note that normalization is not used in for
single evoked EPSCs (figure 5 (A-C), figure 8 (A-C)), which makes it a
little harder for readers to compare with other data known already and
follow better.
A minor concern would be that in Figure 2 the authors only present the
normalized eGFP/mCherry intensity in each case (presumably normalized by
the peak intensity in naïve and stimulation conditions). Without
absolute fluorescence intensity, we can only see the relative
differences between naïve and stimulation scenarios, but not the
specific change of protein distributions between resting state and
stimulated state of neurons.
Another minor concern is that in figure 3 H and P, again normalized
curves are plotted. But from the same figure E-G and M-O, we can see
that mutant C2ABs cannot get to as large maximal values as the WT ones.
The authors see the differences in lipid binding increase with higher
Ca2+ concentration, yet there is also an impaired
lipid binding ability for mutant proteins worth noticing.