If reviewers point out flaws in the first submission of an R01, take them seriously in preparing a resubmission.
Specifically, the questionable information Tenet had not presented in the first submission would have been found to have been wrong.
(This was in the first submission and has not changed).
The article is now cited in the revised manuscript; thanks for pointing out this oversight in the first submission.
The erroneous value reported in the first submission stemmed from an error in our implementation of the software algorithm.
The reviewers make a valid point and we agree that the analyses presented in the first submission were insufficient.
Smooth muscle actin and Calponin were not expressed in what we had identified as pericytes in the first submission.
In the first submission we had combined single and multi-unit data (n=138) because it is assumed that neighboring neurons in ICx have very similar tuning.
We thank the reviewer for raising this important issue and we apologize that we were not clear in the first submission.
Separately, we note that in the first submission we used incorrect formulas for estimating the percentages of Δ τ1 and Δ τ2 populations within a double exponential decay.
The reviewers felt that in the first submission, the paper brought novel insight into the developmental role of Runx1 in breast biology, and felt that the association with breast cancer was intriguing.
