Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorWei YanThe Lundquist Institute, Torrance, United States of America
- Senior EditorWei YanThe Lundquist Institute, Torrance, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
The manuscript by Anbarcia et al. re-evaluates the function of the enigmatic Rete Ovarii (RO), a structure that forms in close association with the mammalian ovary. The RO has generally been considered a functionless structure in the adult ovary. This manuscript follows up on a previous study from the lab that analyzed ovarian morphogenesis using high-resolution microscopy (McKey et al., 2022). The present study adds finer details to RO development and possible function by (1) identifying new markers for OR sub-regions (e.g. GFR1a labels the connecting rete) suggesting that the sub-regions are functionally distinct, (2) showing that the OR sub-regions are connected by a luminal system that allows transport of material from the extra-ovarian rete (EOR) to the inter-ovarian rete (IOG), (3) identifies proteins that are secreted into the OR lumen and that may regulate ovarian homeostasis, and finally, (4) better defines how the vasculature, nervous, and immune system integrates with the OR.
Strengths:
The data is beautifully presented and convincing. They show that the RO is composed of three distinct domains that have unique gene expression signatures and thus likely are functionally distinct.
Weaknesses:
It is not always clear what the novel findings are that this manuscript is presenting. It appears to be largely similar to the analysis done by McKey et al. (2022) but with more time points and molecular markers. The novelty of the present study's findings needs to be better articulated.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
A large number of ovarian experiments have been conducted - especially in morphological and molecular biology studies - specifically removing the ovarian membrane. This experiment is a good supplement to existing knowledge and plays an important role in early ovarian development and the regulation of ovarian homeostasis during the estrous cycle. There are also innovations in research ideas and methods, which will meet the requirements of experimental design and provide inspiration for other researchers.
This reviewer did not identify any major issues with the article. However, the following points could be further clarified:
(1) Is there any comparative data on the proteomics of RO and rete testis in early development? With some molecular markers also derived from rete testis, it would be better to provide the data or references.
(2) Although the size of RO and its components is quite small and difficult to operate, the researchers in this article had already been able to perform intracavitary injection of EOR and extract EOR or CR for mass spectrometry analysis. Therefore, can EOR, CR, or IOR be damaged or removed, providing further strong evidence of ovarian development function?
(3) Although IOR is shown on the schematic diagram, it cannot be observed in the immunohistochemistry pictures in Figure 1 and Figure 3. The authors should provide a detailed explanation.
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
The rete ovarii (RO) has long been disregarded as a non-functional structure within the ovary. In their study, Anbarci and colleagues have delineated the markers and developmental dynamics of three distinct regions of the RO - the intraovarian rete (IOR), the extraovarian rete (EOR), and the connecting rete (CR). Notably focusing on the EOR, the authors presented evidence illustrating that the EOR forms a convoluted tubular structure culminating in a dilated tip. Intriguingly, microinjections into this tip revealed luminal flow towards the ovary containing potentially secreted functional proteins. Additionally, the EOR cells exhibit associations with vasculature, macrophages, and neuronal projections, proposing the notion that the RO may play a functional role in ovarian development during critical ovariogenesis stages. By identifying marker genes within the RO, the authors have also suggested that the RO could serve as a potential structure linking the ovary with the neuronal system.
Strengths:
Overall, the reviewer commends the authors for their systematic research on the RO, shedding light on this overlooked structure in developing ovaries. Furthermore, the authors have proposed a series of hypotheses that are both captivating and scientifically significant, with the potential to reshape our understanding of ovarian development through future investigations.
Weaknesses:
There is a lack of conclusive data supporting many conclusions in the manuscript. Therefore, the paper's overall conclusions should be moderated until functional validations are conducted.