Phosphatidyl Inositol 4-Kinases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file for review comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to the comments in the attached file to address the typographical errors and inconsistencies in using acronyms of certain terminologies

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Comments:

In this encyclopedia explaining the role of phosphatidyl inositol 4 -Kinases, Kumar et al, have very nicely outlined the basic introduction of phosphatidyl inositol 4 -Kinases and their subtypes. The manuscripts also described the structural domains of these kinases, their expression across various species and their roles in mediating multiple signaling pathways in the cells. I have the following

comments to improve the article:

Comment: 1. Authors should address the inconsistencies in using acronyms or full forms of terms like PtdIns or Phosphatidylinositol. (Please refer to lines 57, 58, 59, 67). Similarly, while explaining catalytic domains of the Phosphatidylinositol-4 authors have used Amino Acids Representation Codes in most cases but in line 95 they used Lysine-152 instead of Lys- 152.

Response: Requested suggestions are included in revised draft. Thankful to reviewer for pointing out these issues.

Comment: 2. When explaining Type III Phosphatidylinositol-4 kinases authors have mentioned that it is present in the cytoplasm of rat brain. Authors should explain if they imply that the Phosphatidylinositol-4 kinases are present in all the cell types or the rat brain or if they can also write these kinases are present in the cytoplasm of the rat brain cells. Importantly, the authors have cited a reference that only deals with the expression and activity of phosphatidylinositol-4 kinases in the adrenal glomerulosa cells obtained from bovine adrenal cortical tissue (cited reference 16, line 71). Authors should consider citing a few relevant articles such

as (a) https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.2000.278.5.C914, (b) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0230488100.

Response: Correction is done as suggested and included both the references in revised draft as suggested.

Comment: 3. Typographic error on: (a) line 243- Inhibition of monoclonal antibodies → Inhibition by monoclonal antibodies. (b) Table 1 Mus masculus → please correct as Mus musculus

Response: Both the highlighted issues are corrected in revised draft. We are thankful to reviewer for pointing out this.

Comment: 4. On line 257, it is more appropriate to use "Neurological diseases" instead of using neuro diseases.

Response: Correction included in revised draft as suggested.

Comment: 5. In Table 1 where authors have listed the roles of phosphatidylinositol-4 kinases. In the table, they have included only Mus musculus and Arabidopsis thaliana. My concern is that in the manuscript authors have not provided any description of the role of these kinases in plants

Response: We agree with the reviewer that we do not discuss anything in text but mention role of phosphatidylinositol-4 kinases in plants in table. This is because we just want to show different pathways and process this enzyme regulate or involved in.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and nicely written manuscript which should be helpful for scientists and others to get an overview of this important and rapidly changing field involving phosphatidyl inositol 4-kinases.  I would encourage the authors to make a few comments if prokaryotes have these enzymes or some analogues.  Also, please include a structure of the PtdIns for more clarity involving what atoms in the ring are phosphorylated by different kinases. I also recommend that the authors define abbreviations the first time used such as lines 20, 61,122, 182, 232.
Some minor comments:  line 31:  how is a'a small percentage' defined?  
line 52:  add 'a' following codes for
line 116: remove word 'were'
line 30: sphingosine 1 phosphate is not a polyamine so perhaps indicate this or move to another section
line 242: genus and species should be italics
line 260 change 'o' to 'to'?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is an interesting and nicely written manuscript which should be helpful for scientists and others to get an overview of this important and rapidly changing field involving phosphatidyl inositol 4-kinases.  I would encourage the authors to make a few comments if prokaryotes have these enzymes or some analogues.  Also, please include a structure of the PtdIns for more clarity involving what atoms in the ring are phosphorylated by different kinases. 

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Comment: This is an interesting and nicely written manuscript which should be helpful for scientists and others to get an overview of this important and rapidly changing field involving phosphatidyl inositol 4-kinases.  I would encourage the authors to make a few comments if prokaryotes have these enzymes or some analogues.  Also, please include a structure of the PtdIns for more clarity involving what atoms in the ring are phosphorylated by different kinases. I also recommend that the authors define abbreviations the first time used such as lines 20, 61,122, 182, 232.
Response: Corrected in revised draft, as per suggestion structure of phosphatidyl inositol is included in revised draft. So far information related to lipid kinases in  prokaryotes is lacking, although prokaryotes do possess diacylglycerol kinases. 

Comment: Some minor comments:  line 31:  how is a'a small percentage' defined?  
Response: This is compared to other lipids present cell cells

Comment: line 52:  add 'a' following codes for
Response: Corrected in revised draft 

Comment: line 116: remove word 'were'
Response: Corrected in revised draft

Comment: line 30: sphingosine 1 phosphate is not a polyamine so perhaps indicate this or move to another section
Response: Corrected in revised draft

Comment: line 242: genus and species should be italics
Response: Corrected in revised draft

Comment: line 260 change 'o' to 'to'?

Response: Corrected in revised draft

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the review comments satisfactorily. The revised manuscript is substantially improved and is suitable for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the work by the author especially the careful renumbering and changes for the cited references