Average rating: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 1 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 3 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
The paper introduction lacks completely in refering to the literature coming form outside of the lab, self-citation is so high that we can easily define it as unethical.
Author used the term "memory enhancement" while the data do not tell whether the flies have a better learning or a better memory. A higher valuation of the US (electric shock) can explain the phenotypes reported in the first figures. Indeed fig 5E seem to back up this interpretation. The interpretation of the data is therefore misleading and the gene in question is probably involved in the "punishment signal pathway".
The specificity of the antibody used seem not to have been tested. Although fig. 2 suggest the antibody recognize the protein expressed, it does suggest another protein (at 90 kD) might be recognized too. This makes the results of the Fig. 3 about the protein localisation questionable.