Response to Reviewers: Minor Issues

[davebridges]

This is an aggregation of several small issues

• Details are needed in relation to timepoints used for Rapamycin treatment for the C2C12 cells in Fig1 to ascertain if the effects on target gene expression are acute or chronic.
• Experiments in the C2C12 model profile expression of key myogenic target genes but at a timepoint after the phenotypic effect i.e. assessing these genes could be indicative of the consequence of impaired differentiation, not the effect of Rapamycin itself.
• Not stated if data is shown as SD or SEM.
• Not clear what findings were statistically different since no annotation on graphs.
• No labels on Fig 4-6
• No details are included in the methods about the Hand-Gal4 stock.
• During the introduction section, the authors state that myogenesis continues throughout life. I find this a strange statement since myogenesis is defined as the formation of muscle. This statement needs revised. Also, this point is not supported by reference 19, a manuscript specifically showing that muscle mass is maintained and that muscles are capable of hypertrophy in spite of genetic ablation of satellite cells in the adult.
• The last sentence is a little too strong. Unless Drosophila is specifically being referred to here, this is not a new mechanism. This has been shown before, although not in vivo (see Park and Chen, 2005, J Biol Chem)
• Page 2, para 1, line 4 - minor point -reference 16 did not investigate developmental arrest in in flies
• Climbing assay section, last line - should this be 30 days or 3 days?