[Editors' note: the revised manuscript was re-reviewed, with the following revision requests.] The reviewers acknowledge that the authors have made substantial revisions.
[Editors' note: the revised manuscript was re-reviewed, with the following revision requests.] Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Developmental lineage priming by heterogeneous Ras activation" for further consideration at eLife.
[Editors' note: the revised manuscript was re-reviewed, with the following revision requests.] With respect to the differences in the behavior of the RasD positive population the authors argue that the stability of the RFP explains the more promiscuous behavior of the RasD + cells.
[Editors' note: the revised manuscript was re-reviewed, with the following revision requests.] 1) In the qPCR data in Figure 3 (pluripotent markers) of the present manuscript, the authors used fibroblasts (negative cells) as a control, except for the chicken ES cells.
Therefore we support the original proposed design, with comments on the proposal and revision requests following.
Please see our response to the second essential revision requested by the editor.
The paper should discuss the issue of damage, include some damage statistics from the present work (see item 2 in the revision requests, below), and mention the longer-term value of using a zero-loss energy filter.
The columnists have agreed to revisions requested by the editors.
As part of the further review procedure we included revisions requested by the EORTC CAT Group.
As you will see below, the revisions requested, while important for a final submission and publication decision, are relatively minor.
