Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Referee Comments: Referee 1

Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 25 Apr 2008 at 19:11 GMT

Referee 1's Review:

**********
N.B. These are the comments made by the referee when reviewing an earlier version of this paper. Prior to publication the manuscript has been revised in light of these comments and to address other editorial requirements.
**********

I think this version is much improved because it does not make exaggerated claims about what's in the literature, and it contains a more digestible amount of work. It's more focused, and that helps the presentation a great deal. I'm still troubled that it hinges on unpublished data by Shim et al, rather than simply including or stating what the results are. I'm also still somewhat troubled by a nagging sense of the "house of cards" syndrome where we are given the results of a great number of studies that may or may not hold together. I don't tend to believe the co-localization results mean much, given that they show overlap of staining that fills most of the space. I am still not really convinced about the overall conclusion given that vimentin deficient mice are without phenotype. However, I think publishing this paper is consistent with the philosophy of PLoS One, so I have no problem with the paper being accepted. If nothing else, the work is novel and extensive so it can be evaluated by the community, and it might inspire progress in this arena.

report a concern respond to this posting

RE: Referee Comments: Referee 1

MDNGUYEN replied to PLOS_ONE_Group on 27 Apr 2008 at 14:16 GMT

Thank you for your constructive comments. We have added one in vitro binding experiment showing the direct interaction between Ndel1 and Vimentin.

report a concern respond to this posting