Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if available).
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 main observation that the sperm from CRISP proteins 1 and 3 KO lines are post-fertilization less developmentally competent is convincing. However, the molecular characterization of the mechanism that leads to these defects and the temporal appearance of the defects requires additional studies.
Strengths:
The generation of these double mutant mice is valuable for the field. Moreover, the fact that the double mutant line of Crisp 1 and 3 is phenotypically different from the Crisp 1 and 4 line suggests different functions of these epididymis proteins. The methods used to demonstrate that developmental defects are largely due to post-fertilization defects are also a considerable strength. The initial characterization of these sperm has altered intracellular Ca2+ levels, and increased rates of DNA fragmentation are valuable.
Weaknesses:
The study is mechanistically incomplete because there is no direct demonstration that the absence of these proteins alters the epididymal environment and fluid, wherein during the passage through the epididymis the sperm become affected. Also, a direct demonstration of how the proteins in question cause or lead to DNA damage and increased Ca2+ requires further characterization.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The authors showed that CRISP1 and CRISP3, secreted proteins in the epididymis, are required for early embryogenesis after fertilization through DNA integrity in cauda epididymal sperm. This paper is the first report showing that the epididymal proteins are required for embryogenesis after fertilization. However, some data in this paper (Table 1 and Figure 2A) are overlapped in a published paper (Curci et al., FASEB J, 34,15718-15733, 2020; PMID: 33037689). Furthermore, the authors did not address why the disruption of CRISP1/3 leads to these phenomena (the increased level of the intracellular Ca2+ level and impaired DNA integrity in sperm) with direct evidence. Therefore, if the authors can address the following comments to improve the paper's novelty and clarification, this paper may be worthwhile to readers.
