12) In the same subsection.
13) Still in the same subsection.
In the same subsection, the authors state that: "recombination among sibling molecules may be prevalent".
In the same subsection, as per Figure 5A, none of the correlations with structure 2 are significant.
6) In the same subsection, could the network structure explain that PHI is significantly lower than on single filaments?
In the same subsection, they mention that "minus-end accumulation only re-emerged after initiation of transcription…".
The reviewer also writes: "In the same subsection, they mention that 'minus-end accumulation only re-emerged after initiation of transcription…'".
In the main text, we now only briefly refer to hormones (e.g. Introduction, Discussion subsection "Opportunistic breeding and vocalisations") and synchronisation (in the same subsection of the Discussion).
Again, in the same subsection, the authors state: "to probe how PCP can participate in the repositioning of actin rings, we incorporated polarity in the model in the simplest way possible".
In the same subsection, I do not understand the logic of the following sentence: "Notably, hyper-phosphorylation of bZIP63 in the extended night was even stronger in the GY lines than in ox 3, probably due to lower bZIP63 expression".
