Response to reviewer B
I have submitetd a new version on Friday 30 september and I have responded to all except one comment see below-
Scholarpedia- Entorhinal cortex, author: Menno Witter
The review is timely and important, especially since the discovery of the grid cells, the interest of this brain region is fast growing. I have just some minor but important suggestions for improvement of this manuscript:
- Figure 1 is made of a collection of figures from different papers. The correct reference for 1c is Fyhn et al. 2004.
Response: I do agree that c originally was designed by me to appear in Fyhn et al 2004, but I have reused it in Canto et al 2008 in its present constellation so that is the correct reference to allow reuse of this figure. Fyhn et al is now cietd in anothe context (see below)
- On page 3 last sentence before “Organization …” is very biased towards one functional view on the entorhinal cortex and should be deleted. It is not necessary since there is whole chapter (page 5 and 6) where entorhinal functions are discussed.
Response: I do agree that this sentence is in the wrong place and I moved it to teh section on functional relevance. Whether it is a biased view can be debated as almost any of the current decsriptions o entorhinal functionality most likely is.
- On page 3 the author reviews the reason why there has been interest in the entorhinal cortex. He stops in 1985 and the discovery of the grid cells is described in later sections instead. The grid cells generated enormous interest in the entorhinal cortex when they were published in 2005 by Hafting et al.
Response: thsi has been changed accoding to this suggestion; much appreciated.
- The section “functional relevance … “ on page 5 and 6 would benefit on a discussion of the role of entorhinal cortex in pattern separation or hippocampal remapping (e.g. Fyhn et al., 2007), if that is done the sentence: “higher order cortical processing is as yet poorly understood” is a too strong statement.
Response: I have adjusted this part of the text accordingly. However I have not elaborated a lot since there is a separate entry on grod cells.
- In the third paragraph on page 6, 2nd sentence: … “High levels of acetylcholine set the appropriate dynamics to facilitate the storage..” , I think it is more correct to include a “might” there: “High levels of acetylcholine MIGHT set the appropriate dynamics to facilitate the storage..”
Since this manuscript was written two studies have been published that the author might want to cite in the third paragraph, in the third sentence: “ These subcortical inputs also play an essential role in occurrence of oscilliatory activity that is an elementary component of normal entorhinal function “, See: Brandon MP, Bogaard AR, Libby CP, Connerney MA, Gupta K, Hasselmo ME.; Science. 2011 Apr 29;332(6029):595-9, and see: Koenig J, Linder AN, Leutgeb JK, Leutgeb S. Science. 2011 Apr 29;332(6029):592-5. response: I have rewritten and extended that part and included these papers and a recent paper in press.
Reviewer A: This is an excellent review of the data on entorhinal cortex. I corrected a few minor typos ("sparkled an interest"->"sparked an interest", "different group of cells"->"different groups of cells", "In the case of Alzheimer"->"In the case of Alzheimer's disease", "interest diminishes" -> "interest diminished"). I will now indicate my acceptance of the article.