Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Absorption Performance of CO2 by Amine Solution through the Spiral Wired Channel in Concentric Circular Membrane Contactors
Previous Article in Journal
Membranes for the Capture and Screening of Waterborne Plutonium Based on a Novel Pu-Extractive Copolymer Additive
Previous Article in Special Issue
Free Energy Analyses of Cell-Penetrating Peptides Using the Weighted Ensemble Method
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Lipid Membrane State Change by Catalytic Protonation and the Implications for Synaptic Transmission

by Christian Fillafer *, Yana S. Koll and Matthias F. Schneider
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 5 October 2021 / Revised: 9 December 2021 / Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published: 21 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Electrostatics in Cell Membranes and in Artificial Membrane Models)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, authors investigated the response of membrane lipids phosphatidylserine (PS) and phosphatidic acid (PA) to the hydrolysis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh). They find lateral pressure changes as a consequence of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity, which they link to the protonation of lipid headgroups. They propose that cholinergic transmission is due to postsynaptic membrane protonation. Although interesting, the model needs further validation as conclusions are not fully supported by the data and controls. It should be excluded that the observed effect in lateral pressure (figure 2) is specific of AchE. A control of injection of another unrelated protein with no catalytic activity should be performed. Equivalent experiments should be also done with PA. In general, control experiments with lipids that do not undergo any ionization change should be included. The effect of lipid protonation on membrane excitation and receptor (AChR) activity should be tested. In addition, I have some minor comments. Last paragraph of the intro is written as project aims in future tense. It should be rewritten in past tense. Results and discussion sessions should be separated. It is misleading to mix previous results with new results from this study.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved after revision. I think the author addressed all my concerns.

Back to TopTop