Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorPierre SensInstitut Curie, CNRS UMR168, Paris, France
- Senior EditorAleksandra WalczakÉcole Normale Supérieure - PSL, Paris, France
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Theoretical principles of viscous fluid mechanics are used here to assess likely mechanisms of transport in the ER. A set of candidate mechanisms is evaluated, making good use of imaging to represent ER network geometries. Evidence is provided that the contraction of peripheral sheets provides a much more credible mechanism than the contraction of individual tubules, junctions, or perinuclear sheets.
The work has been conducted carefully and comprehensively, making good use of underlying physical principles. There is a good discussion of the role of slip; sensible approximations (low volume fraction, small particle size, slender geometries, pragmatic treatment of boundary conditions) allow tractable and transparent calculations; clear physical arguments provide useful bounds; stochastic and deterministic features of the problem are well integrated.
There are just a couple of areas where more discussion might be warranted, in my view.
(1) The energetic cost of tubule contraction is estimated, but I did not see an equivalent estimate for the contraction of peripheral sheets. It might be helpful to estimate the energetic cost of viscous dissipation in generated flows at higher frequencies. The mechanism of peripheral sheet contraction is unclear: do ATP-driven mechanisms somehow interact with thermal fluctuations of membranes?
(2) Mutations are mentioned in the abstract but not (as far as I could see) later in the manuscript. It would be helpful if any consequences for pathologies could be developed in the text.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
This study explores theoretically the consequences of structural fluctuations of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) morphology called contractions on molecular transport. Most of the manuscript consists of the construction of an interesting theoretical flow field (physical model) under various hypothetical assumptions. The computational modeling is followed by some simulations
Strengths:
The authors are focusing their attention on testing the hypothesis that a local flow in the tubule could be driven by tubular pinching. We recall that trafficking in the ER is considered to be mostly driven by diffusion at least at a spatial scale that is large enough to account for averaging of any random flow occurring from multiple directions [note that this is not the case for plants].
Weaknesses:
The manuscript extensively details the construction of the theoretical model, occupying a significant portion of the manuscript. While this section contains interesting computations, its relevance and utility could be better emphasized, perhaps warranting a reorganization of the manuscript to foreground this critical aspect.
Overall, the manuscript appears highly technical with limited conclusive insights, particularly lacking predictions confirmed by experimental validation. There is an absence of substantial conclusions regarding molecular trafficking within the ER.