Title : Mutation screening of melatonin-related genes in patients with autism spectrum disorders

A. Bremer,A. Bremer

Abstract:General comment: The abstract is too condensed en the conclusion of the abstract too bold to be able to appreciate the content of the paper. RESPONSE: The abstract in the revised version of the manuscript is now more detailed and the conclusion sentence is rewritten as suggested in point #6 and in minor point #1 by reviewer 3 (see below). 3. In the methods the control group should be mentioned. RESPONSE: The control group is now mentioned (page 2, line 13-15) and renamed as suggested by reviewer 3 (see below) 4. In the results in the first sentence the control group should be mentioned also. RESPONSE: The control group is now mentioned (page 2, line 18) also in the results section. 5. In the present wording the 2nd en 3rd sentence of the abstract causes confusion. Only after reading the paper, I could easily follow this part. RESPONSE: For better readability and clarity, the wording of these sentences is now changed Page . 6. The sentence in the conclusion: “Our findings provide further support for the notion that the splice site mutation, IVS5+2T>C, in ASMT may infer an increased risk for ASD.” is too bold, this is not what has been studied here, and should be rewritten more like the conclusion of the paper. RESPONSE: The conclusion sentence is rewritten in the revised version of the manuscript (page 2, line 1-8). 7. Typo: 5th sentence – ‘...mutations...has been...’ – should be – ‘...mutations...have been...’ RESPONSE: This sentence is rewritten in the revised version of the manuscript. Introduction 8. Page 3; 3rd paragraph; 5th sentence: “Moreover, several monogenic causes of autism are well known, such as fragile X syndrome, Rett syndrome and tuberous sclerosis, and recently rare mutations and copy number variations have been found to be causative or contributory factors for autism spectrum disorders [6-9].” – Since the term autism is generally used to indicate idiopathic autism, the authors should reword this sentence to something like: “Moreover, several monogenic disorders, such as fragile X syndrome, Rett syndrome and tuberous sclerosis, are well known causes of autism like behavior patterns, and recently, rare mutations and copy number variations have been found to be causative or contributory factors for autism spectrum disorders [6-9].” RESPONSE: This sentence is rewritten in the new version of the manuscript (page 4, line 1-5) 9. Page 4; 8th sentence: I would say that the data on the effect of melatonin on sleep disturbances in ASD are not yet that strong, that one should use ‘greatly improved’ here. Just ‘improved’ would be enough at this point. RESPONSE: The word “greatly” is omitted and “improve” is used in the revised version of the manuscript (page 4, line 14). 10. Typo’s: Page 6; 2nd sentence – ‘raging’ – should be ‘ranging’; 3rd sentence – ‘pateints’ – should be ‘patients’ RESPONSE: Corrected in the new version of the manuscript (page 6, line 12). Methods 11. The ‘patient recruitment and clinical assessment’ paragraph needs a table with patient characteristics. The percentages of patients in the different diagnostic groups of the second group are odd; i.e. 10% of 44 subjects is 4.4 subjects – 4 subjects = 9.1%; 5 = 11.4%. A table with actual numbers and percentages will be more clear. RESPONSE: We have now written the actual number instead of percentages of patients (page 6, line 2-12). However, we do not believe that another table is necessary for the presentation of the clinical characteristics this relatively short paper. If the editors would like us to rewrite these numbers into a table, we will of course do so. 12. Although no statistical analyses were done, a paragraph with the ‘analytic plan’ and the considerations for the chioces made is needed. Some is there in the ‘recruitment’ part, some in the ‘DNA analysis’, some in the ‘Results’. RESPONSE: We fully agree with the reviewer on this point and we have now added a paragraph in the methods-section where the analytical plan is presented. (page 8, line 1-12) Results 13. Page 7; 1e paragraph of Results; 4th sentence: “Of the three missense variants identified, S493N in GPR50 and V124I and K243R in MTNR1B, only the V124I variant MTNR1B was absent in controls (Table 1).” The wording is unclear. It would help to first report that of the found rare variant three were missense mutations and after that elaborate the of those three two were found in patient as well as controls. RESPONSE: As reviewer 3 discovered (see answer to point #1, below), the two nonsynonymous SNPs S493N in GPR50 and K243R in MTNR1B have now been reported to dbSNP and are considered as “previously known” in the revised version of the manuscript. Thus, this sentence is now rewritten, as well as the final sentence of the results section where the common polymorphisms are presented (last paragraph of the results section, page 9, line 19 to page 10, line 3). Discussion and conclusion 14. Typo: Page 10; 2nd paragraph; 1st sentence: ‘...support the notion...’ – should be ‘supports the notion’ RESPONSE: Corrected in the revised version of the manuscript (page 11, line 15).