This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Bio, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://bio.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Mir et al [
The idea of using multiple mutants to understand the effect of
1. I would have liked to see another control where wild-type worms were taken and heat treated at 35 °C alongside an unheated control group. This way I could have seen a more direct and indirect comparison between the groups.
2. I would have liked to understand the reason behind carrying out motility assays at 25 °C when the worms were maintained at 20 °C. Is it because it is ideal?
3. It could be that I might have read it wrong, but to me, the labels in Figures 1, 2, and S2 seem to be off. They don’t match the alphabetical order, or I might be missing something here.
4. For the motility assay, where they compared the GRU102 strain against GRU102 crossed with TU3335, I see that all the results were compared to one universal control. I would have liked to see mutant controls alongside the GRU102 and GRU102 crossed with TU3335. Again, by doing this, I would have had a direct comparison of the control, mutant controls, and mutants under conditions. Here, I cannot see how the mutants were performing on day 1 as the authors show the mutant data started from day 4.
None declared.
The authors of the preprint under review declined the opportunity to revise the preprint in response to the feedback in the peer reviews and publish it in the journal JMIRx Bio. The editors thank the peer reviewers for providing their feedback on this preprint.