Reviewer #2 (Public review):
This second revision has partially addressed criticisms previously raised; however, substantial inadequacies, particularly concerning rigorous validation and model justification, remain unresolved. While recognizing evident strength, novelty, and technical complexity of this work, the authors have yet to fully resolve key major concerns explicitly pointed out during revision in a satisfactory manner. As currently written, the manuscript does not yet provide sufficiently robust validation, methodological rigour, or clarity required for complete acceptance in a top-tier scientific journal.
Summary of Authors' Aim:
In this revised version, the authors aimed to address prior reviewer critiques harshly pinpointing the need for greater clarity in the manuscript's logical flow, rigorous external validation, clearer explanation of methodological normalization choices, and deeper elaboration of diffusion MRI method relevance and potential translation. The authors present a diffusion-weighted MRS approach paired with complex biophysical modelling to elucidate differential developmental trajectories of cellular structures in cerebellum and thalamus in rat neonates, providing a novel, non-invasive avenue for monitoring cellular microstructure.
Major Comments:
Rigorous Validation (Reviewer #1 - point R1.1, Reviewer #2 - point R2.2):
The major concern previously raised and reiterated here is the insufficient external cross-validation of the dMRS-derived interpretations about cellular changes, including the particularly speculative interpretation that taurine undergoes compartment switching between neuronal and glial compartments in the thalamus. The authors acknowledge this important shortcoming (R1.1, R2.2) but attempt to mitigate these concerns merely through additional contextual comparisons from existing literature (page 23, lines 877-878, Figure S11, Table S2). While better contextualization is welcome, the modified manuscript still falls notably short of the level of rigour necessary to validate such striking switches in compartmentalization. To justify claims of metabolites changing cellular compartments, explicit verification against independent molecular/histological data, ideally with additional immunohistochemical staining for cellular markers (e.g., glial fibrillary acidic protein, NeuN), is necessary. The mere presence of literature correlations (such as the reported visual comparisons to morphometric reconstructions, page 24, lines 883-884) does not constitute rigorous validation at the required standard for high-impact publication. The revised manuscript remains fundamentally weakened without such validation. To properly improve, the authors must consider incorporating independent ex vivo experiments or, if this is no longer feasible, extensively temper their compartment-switching claims, acknowledging explicitly and prominently the speculative nature of current interpretations.
Normalization of Metabolite Concentrations (Reviewer #1 - point R1.3):
The authors clearly responded to a reviewer wish for justification of metabolite normalisation to macromolecular concentrations (page 13, lines 493-503, Figure S2). However, the rationale provided remains only partially convincing. While the authors appropriately acknowledge the unusual nature of their methodological choice and possible confounding factors, they opt to supplement rather than substitute this approach with a more standard method (normalisation by water) in the main body of the manuscript. The additional supplementary Figure S2 is helpful, yet the conclusions derived with macromolecular normalization still remain potentially confounded by age-dependent macromolecular changes (Tkac et al., 2003). The justification given in the revised manuscript remains vague, unsatisfactory, and somewhat contradictory-authors accept macromolecules changes likely with age, yet largely overlook this effect. At least, the comparison between normalization by macromolecules and water should be explicitly discussed in the main text, and conclusions drawn from macromolecular normalization must be cautiously framed.
Choice and Justification of Biophysical Model (Reviewer #1 - point R1.4):
The reviewers questioned model assumptions, particularly ignoring macroscopic anisotropy effects due to white matter presence, myelination, and fibre orientation dispersion in the cerebellar voxel. Authors provided newly included DTI data and acknowledged this limitation explicitly (R1.4, Figure S8, page 25, lines 921-924). However, the addition of these poor-quality DTI data with limited interpretability paradoxically weakens rather than strengthens the manuscript as a whole, since the authors now present unclear supplementary results with little additional interpretative value. Recognizing poor data quality in this scenario, although intellectually honest, does not substantially increase the current robustness of their chosen model nor improve justification. To address this fully, either higher-quality data should be collected to robustly probe anisotropy or fibre dispersion effects, or the authors must much further restrict their interpretations in view of this clear limitation. Currently, the solution proposed is incomplete and insufficient to clarify the consequences of their chosen model.
Logical Flow and Clarity (Reviewer #2 - points R2.1 and R2.3):
The authors attempted to respond to reviewer comments on logical flow and accessibility (page 3, introduction restructuring). While the manuscript readability has improved, the introduction and discussion remain overly intricate, and at times, detail-oriented without clear links into central claims. In particular, the biological rationale for choosing the specific metabolite markers (especially tCho, Ins, Tau, etc.) and their known relevance must be further streamlined and simplified to increase accessibility and directness. Although some helpful restructuring was carried out, further careful paragraph-level revision for logical flow and readability remains necessary.
Translation to Human Studies (Reviewer #2 - point R2.4):
The authors have extended contextual discussion on translational potential regarding taurine as a developmental marker in humans (pages 24-25, lines 906-917). However, mention remains vague and cursory, without presenting sufficiently solid arguments nor drawing from human developmental studies adequately. Translational potential must be assessed within the realistic limitations inherent in clinical translation of MRS studies, particularly given the technical complexities clearly identified even in preclinical studies of this paper. Discussion remains relatively superficial, and if retained, must be expanded to fully discuss realistic human translational hurdles and requirements.