The Reissner fiber under tension in vivo shows dynamic interaction with ciliated cells contacting the cerebrospinal fluid
- Sorbonne Université, Paris Brain Institute (Institut du Cerveau, ICM), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U1127, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Unité Mixte de Recherche 7225, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Campus Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, France
- Université Paris Cité, CNRS, MAP5, France
- Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL) University, Institut Curie, Sorbonne Université, France
- Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL) University, Collège de France, France
- Dell Pediatrics Research Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, United States
Decision letter
-
Eva KansoReviewing Editor; University of Southern California, United States
-
Didier YR StainierSenior Editor; Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Germany
-
Eva KansoReviewer; University of Southern California, United States
-
Catherina BeckerReviewer; CRTD TU Dresden, Germany
Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.
Decision letter after peer review:
Thank you for submitting your article "The Reissner fiber under tension in vivo shows dynamic interaction with ciliated cells contacting the cerebrospinal fluid" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Eva Kanso as Reviewing Editor Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Didier Stainier as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in the review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Catherina Becker (Reviewer #2).
The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.
Essential revisions:
The revised version should fix the typos pointed out by Reviewer #1 and address the suggestions by Reviewer #2.
Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):
I have a couple of small comments on the mechanical model in section 3. The equations will be easier to read if the equation number is separated from the equation. Equation 2 has a typo: in the first fraction, the denominator should be ln(L/r_f), that is the natural logarithm, which appears in the slender-body approximation of the drag coefficient. Please mention explicitly the slender-body approximation employed here.
Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):
I have only two small suggestions:
3A is shown at a different magnification from A1 and A2. This should be adjusted, to match B (B1 and 2) and C (C1 and 2). Also, there is no reference to the scale bar in C in the figure legend.
"Hundreds of thousands" (of beating mono cilia) is a vague number, can this be specified better (both how the estimate was done and what the number was that the estimate yielded)?
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86175.sa1Author response
Essential revisions:
Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):
I have a couple of small comments on the mechanical model in section 3. The equations will be easier to read if the equation number is separated from the equation.
Agreed and fixed in the revised version.
Equation 2 has a typo: in the first fraction, the denominator should be ln(L/r_f), that is the natural logarithm, which appears in the slender-body approximation of the drag coefficient. Please mention explicitly the slender-body approximation employed here.
Agreed and fixed in the revised version.
Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):
I have only two small suggestions:
3A is shown at a different magnification from A1 and A2. This should be adjusted, to match B (B1 and 2) and C (C1 and 2). Also, there is no reference to the scale bar in C in the figure legend.
Agreed and fixed.
"Hundreds of thousands" (of beating mono cilia) is a vague number, can this be specified better (both how the estimate was done and what the number was that the estimate yielded)?
We thank the reviewer for asking for precision. We think our assumption was indeed an overestimation. The central canal is 3.5 mm long and based on EM (Orts-Del-Immagine et al., Current Biology 2020) and our transgenic lines (Sternberg et al., Nature Communications 2019), we estimated the number of cilia to be about 60 per 10 μm along the rostrocaudal axis, which would lead to 60 x 350 ~ 21,000 cilia. This estimation has been corrected in the main text of the revised manuscript.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86175.sa2Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
The Reissner fiber under tension in vivo shows dynamic interaction with ciliated cells contacting the cerebrospinal fluid
eLife 12:e86175.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86175
