However, we do not completely agree with the reviewers' statement that cBioportal "does not distinguish high-level amplification from single copy gain".
First, contrary to the reviewers' statement, there is no cryo-EM map of the Mediator-Pol II complex available for modelling by our procedure.
We fully agree with the reviewers' statement that neither genomic nor protein expression evidence, in isolation, constitute proof of PVRL4 being a driver oncogene.
We agree with the reviewer's statements that the discussion as it was written is confusing and potentially misleading given the findings presented in this study and the accompanying manuscript.
Even without the non-respiratory ion channel problems we have identified, consider the reviewer's statements: The internalization just happens to involve two prokaryotes where the two have, without any preceding period of co-evolution, since the internalization is saltatory, a fortuitous, by chance, trade-off that is beneficial to both.
The transparency provided by Environmental Health includes open access and open peer review, with reader access to reviews, including the identity of reviewers and their statements on possible conflicts of interest.
As for the reviewer's statement that I show "little interest in things mechanical, which is unfortunate," I was not creating a technology manual for the city's underground.
We disagree with the reviewer's statement.
With respect to the nucleus, we are somewhat at a loss at understanding the reviewer's statement.
We are comforted by the reviewer's statement that our model is the prevailing one in the field, despite other published alternatives.
