All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Cheng,
Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
None
OK
OK
None
The Manuscript has been revised by the authors considering some (although not all) of the reviewers' feedback. It seems that the Editor supports publication, and the authors have improved their paper, I don't have further comments.
The review article has been improved.
The review article has been improved.
The review article has been improved.
Thank you for incorporating the suggestions.
Done as per requirement.
Not applicable
No comments
Dear Dr. Cheng,
Please address all the suggestions of the reviewers
particularly highlighting the new ideas or concepts and the new information provided by the current review. If the authors have previously published original manuscripts in the Topic please also mention and cite them.
A) My main concern about this review is the fact that the authors did show any cited publication of them in this review. It is usually accepted that scientists write a review on the topic that they do their research, but this is not the case.
B) Many reviews were published during the years on Ca-regulation in sperm. There is no new ideas or concepts here and no new information is provided.
Specific points that should be corrected
1)Line 42: Translation of protein occurs in sperm mitochondria (Gur Y. and Breitbart H. Genes&Dev/2006)
2)Line 90:Albumin,bicabonate and Ca are required for bovine sperm capacitation.
3) Lines 91-2: Na/Ca exchanger act to Ca-efflux from the cells not elevation of {Ca]i
4)Line 100-1: This sentence is not clear.
5)Line 119: In mouse sperm acrosome reacted sperm that occurs before contact with the ZP can fertilize/
6) Which are the internal Ca stores?
7)Line 204-5: The end of the sentence is not clear.
8)Line 235: CatSper is localyzed to the sperm tail , how it affects the acrosome reaction?
9)Line 266: Calmodulin is not a phosphatase,reframe this sentence.
10) line 290: It is important to explain how thapsigargin affect SOCC ?
11) line 329: Ca-ATPase is defined as Ca-pump not Ca exchanger.
OK
OK
A) My main concern about this review is the fact that the authors did show any cited publication of them in this review. It is usually accepted that scientists write a review on the topic that they do their research, but this is not the case.
B) Many reviews were published during the years on Ca-regulation in sperm. There is no new ideas or concepts here and no new information is provided.
Specific points that should be corrected
1)Line 42: Translation of protein occurs in sperm mitochondria (Gur Y. and Breitbart H. Genes&Dev/2006)
2)Line 90:Albumin,bicabonate and Ca are required for bovine sperm capacitation.
3) Lines 91-2: Na/Ca exchanger act to Ca-efflux from the cells not elevation of {Ca]i
4)Line 100-1: This sentence is not clear.
5)Line 119: In mouse sperm acrosome reacted sperm that occurs before contact with the ZP can fertilize/
6) Which are the internal Ca stores?
7)Line 204-5: The end of the sentence is not clear.
8)Line 235: CatSper is localyzed to the sperm tail , how it affects the acrosome reaction?
9)Line 266: Calmodulin is not a phosphatase,reframe this sentence.
10) line 290: It is important to explain how thapsigargin affect SOCC ?
11) line 329: Ca-ATPase is defined as Ca-pump not Ca exchanger.
GENERAL COMMENTS
This is a review article on how membrane channels regulate calcium homeostasis, which also approaches the relevance of this secondary messenger in sperm physiology.
1) While the subject is of interest, it is not clear what brings to the current knowledge on the matter, as other publish reviews tackle the topic with an even broader scope.
2) I am also concerned on how papers were selected. Authors confirmed that their Manuscript was a systematic review or meta-analysis, which followed PRISMA Guidelines. Yet, this is not the case, as not only didn’t they provide the flow chart describing how article selection was conducted, but the narrative review they wrote does not clearly state how papers were selected. Also, authors used review articles (e.g., Wang et al., 2021; Nat Rev Urol), although they should have been relied upon critical literature (i.e., original research articles).
3) The Manuscript needs substantial improvement in terms of written quality, including spelling, grammar, wording and narrative. It is important that a clear, logically flow of ideas is provided. Sentences must be concrete, not vague, and within a paragraph should be related with each other as much as possible.
4) The Manuscript also contains some content errors, which could be addressed with a broader review of the literature. For example, they assume that AR is triggered upon interaction of sperm with ZP proteins, but some published material envisages alterative scenarios; PRM2 is not present in bovine sperm…
5) Authors repeatedly refer to animal species/mammals, but the Manuscript mainly focuses on humans and mice. The clinical angle with regard to men infertility should also be better approached.
For all these reason, and because of the specific comments detailed below, I cannot recommend the Manuscript for publication in PeerJ. This recommendation is based on the technical standards of the journal (guidelines), as the literature review lacks rigor, and methods are not described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Abstract
L21 ‘Capacitation’
L24 ‘in the sperm acrosomes’
LL24-25 Revise this sentence
Introduction
L40 Revise, as not the sperm of all mammalian species (e.g., neither pig nor cattle) have PRM2
L50 ‘to the sperm cell…’
M&M
L74 Does this mean that the articles with these features were excluded?
Section 3
L81 Not correct, it mainly occurs upon ejaculation
LL87-88 This sentence repeats the previous one
LL82-88 Not clear to which species this refers to, as there are differences between species but this is not detailed
L90 not correct. Bicarbonate is also needed for bovine sperm capacitation, which also need heparin
L96 but sAC also relies on pH for activation
LL100-101 meaning unclear
L112 and what about the role of progesterone, which is the physiological inducer of hyperactivation and AR?
L127 ‘pores’?
LL128-135 this is not completely accurate, as there are other hypothesis that assume that sperm trigger the AR before contact with ZP (Buffone MG et al. Biol Reprod. 2014; 90(5):112; and other papers of Buffone’s group with approach this subject)
L142 ‘participates’
Section 4
L155 ‘Animal’ means ‘mouse’?
L179 If these studies were run in humans, the name of genes should be upper case
LL179-192 This is an interesting paragraph, but should be better detailed
LL207-214 by how this is related to calcium transport should be better explained, as HV1, as authors rightly say, is a proton channel
LL218-221 It is not clear if authors are intended to say that membrane potential was regulated by pH (proton concentration). This should be better explained
L249 ‘R-type, based on…’
LL260-262 but is this a direct effect on sperm, germinal cells in the testis, or the testis as a whole?
L264 ‘Previous research demonstrated that…’
LL267-269 This conclusion of the sentence is not logically deduced from the premise (the first part of the sentence).
L289 ‘leads to…’
L292 ‘cattle’ rather than ‘bovines’
LL304-335 the connection of these channels with calcium homeostasis should be better explained/discussed, as it is difficult to understand what authors intended to mean
I am concerned on how papers were selected. Authors confirmed that their Manuscript was a systematic review or meta-analysis, which followed PRISMA Guidelines. Yet, this is not the case, as not only didn’t they provide the flow chart describing how article selection was conducted, but the narrative review they wrote does not clearly state how papers were selected. Also, authors used review articles (e.g., Wang et al., 2021; Nat Rev Urol), although they should have been relied upon critical literature (i.e., original research articles).
The Manuscript also contains some content errors, which could be addressed with a broader review of the literature. For example, they assume that AR is triggered upon interaction of sperm with ZP proteins, but some published material envisages alterative scenarios; PRM2 is not present in bovine sperm…
In addition, authors repeatedly refer to animal species/mammals, but the Manuscript mainly focuses on humans and mice. The clinical angle with regard to men infertility should also be better approached
See the previous three boxes
The present review is another attempt to decipher the CatSper. In the literature, there are many reviews regarding this channel. I did not find any new information that can enrich the scientific community. This review may be reconsidered if the authors are ready to accept a substantial revision and addition of new modalities of this channel. A few suggestions are appended below.
1. Cryoelectron microscopic insights into CatSper
2. Mechanism of CatSper activation and inactivation
3. Preference of CatSper condutance
4. Signalling of CatSper and its regulatory involvement in sperm function
5. Precise regulations of CatSper and itselectrophysiology
6. Targetting CatSper as a contraceptive and its limitations
I am not seeing any novelty in the information provided in this review.
NO Comments.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.