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.