L-serine: Neurological Implications and Therapeutic Potential
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, this is a well written review publication and offers a good overview of the role of L-serine in pathogenesis of several neurological disorders. However, before publication some points need to be clarified.
My comments:
Line 245 – Abbreviations list should be moved to the front page. Otherwise, most of acronyms used are barely understandable.
Line 22 – I do not understand the idea of Introduction in review article. Where are results and discussion, then?
Line 46 – please present a goal of this review and add a short methodology of it.
Line 51 – de novo should be written in italics.
Line 78, 82 and more – Parkinson’s disease was already abbreviated to PD.
Line 79, 84 – please use full name of the disease.
Line 108 – the first appearance of Alzheimer’s disease is in line 72, and this is the place where it should be abbreviated to AD.
Line 142, 145, 147 and more – the authors should ensure that they use the term “expression” in relation to genes only.
Table 1 – the term “other neurological disorders” is too enigmatic. Please specify.
Line 162 – names of genes should be written in italics (GRIN2A gene promoter).
Line 188 – please change to “eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (eIF2α)-associated 67-kDa glycoprotein (p67)”.
Line 205 – “GRIN2B” should be in italics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I enjoyed reading the manuscript entitled "L-serine: Neurological Implications and Therapeutic Potential".
This review paper attempts to explore the current knowledge about L-serine and its therapeutic potential in various neurological disorders.
The manuscript is structured according to the requirements of the journal. The bibliographic references are in agreement with the described subject. I appreciate the fact that you have summarized the most relevant studies in tabular form. Also, I appreciate that you also gave us the conclusion section, even though it wasn't required.
I have some minor questions and suggestions:
1. Let's start with the title. Why neurological implications? Are the disorders you described in the manuscript only neurological in nature?
2. In the summary section, you stated in the last sentence that L-serine might have therapeutic potential in neurological disorders. Please re-evaluate and note that some are neurodegenerative disorders.
3. The chapter numbering in the manuscript is wrong. I think the Conclusions section should have been numbered no. 8.
4. The table still needs a name.
5. If possible, I ask the authors to sketch a picture in which to reproduce the ideas addressed in the manuscript. It would have a different impact on the reader.
6. In the literature there are sufficient data on the subject addressed, I recommend improving the bibliographic references.
7. The conclusions section is a bit convoluted. I propose to be clear and concise in a few ideas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The MS presented here is really interesting and scientifically relevant. The Serine is a molecule with potential.
I don't have much to say about your review. It is not misleading, well written, scientifically good. It provides new insights on the Serine in different diseases.
I have some minor comments:
Conclusion:
The review is convincing, well presented, really rigorous but the some results as you mention are conflicting, and not a lot of clinical trials.
It would be interesting to discuss why both Serine are not more studied. And what would it take to do so.
I suggest to sum up your findings in a graphical abstract.
I have noticed some formatting issues in the following sentence:
"CSF d-serine as a biomarker for AD [35]. In contrast to this, Balu et. al(2019) found that" 122. same line 218, 220
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present an interesting review examining the influence of the amino acid L-serine in the context of homeostasis within the nervous system. In brief, the authors present a breadth of evidence examining studies that were conducted on L-serine in the context of cellular behaviour relative to health and disease, and dissect the idea that L-serine is approved for supplement use relative to the evidence available today. In short, this was an interesting examination of an area that has many unanswered questions and warrants further investigation.
In reviewing the manuscript, I made a number of observations. The following should be considered by the authors when preparing a suitable revision.
1. While the language is clear with regards to the points being made throughout, there are instances where the language is colloquial in its use, and could be improved to publication standard. For example, in Line 79 – ‘Take for instances this study which showed……’. This could be written in a more appropriate way, and there are numerous instances such as this which warrant improvement.
2. While there is a wealth of information in this piece, I found some context was lacking in many instances. At times the piece reads like a series of bullet points, and there is very little flow linking the information together to share a common theme. The authors should revise how the piece is presented and make the messages clearer by providing more context relative to each point.
3. In reference to the above point, the writing can be quite dense at times, and the writing may be improved by breaking sections down into paragraphs more.
4. It might be an idea to draft a diagram of sorts which links much of the main theme together. This is not essential, but for a review piece there are several concepts that could be used to represent the overall message of this piece to convey the key findings.
Overall, the language is fine for the most part as is mentioned in the report, however, the presentation is lacking in parts in how the piece is structured, and this perhaps represents the biggest issue to address in this regard.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for the additions made and the improvement of the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have responded positively to my comments and the manuscript is much improved as a result. I would still indicate that there are instances with regards to how the piece is delivered that are vague and lacking context, but much has been improved in this regard.
As mentioned, there are instances with regards to how the piece is delivered that are vague and lacking context that were alluded to in the initial report, but much has been improved in this regard and I believe this can be addressed between the authors and the editorial team should the manuscript be accepted. .
