4. Clarity
The manuscript is generally easy to read and free of jargon, typos and
grammatical or conceptual errors. The authors are doing an especially
good job in distinguishing similar but different concepts throughout the
manuscript. The information provided in figures and legends are clear
and accurate, especially accessible to non-specialist to follow.
There are just some minor concerns about figure labeling:
Figure 3 (M-P). there is a dash line in each panel with “rest” and
“activated” on each side. But there’s nowhere else in the manuscript
explaining how that is defined.
Figure 5 and 8, “paired pulse ratio” is used as one of the
measurements, and it might be basic concept for people in the field, but
with no explanation about it in the manuscript, it is hard for
non-expert readers to catch up.
Details about EPSC experiments. One concern is that although it might be
very basic knowledge on neurotransmitter release, it’s probably still
better if EPSC represents neurotransmitter release is explained
somewhere to help people not familiar with the topic to follow.
Details about data analysis. It might be better if the authors could
mention more about how the data are analyzed, so that people not
familiar with the topic and their methods can also follow better.