Dear Editor, We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "GDNF Acutely Modulates Neuronal Excitability and A-type Potassium Channels in Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons", which we wish to be considered for publication in Nature Neuroscience.

GDNF has long been thought to be a potent neurotrophic factor for the survival of midbrain dopaminergic neurons, which are degenerated in Parkinson’s disease. In this paper, we report an unexpected, acute effect of GDNF on A-type potassium channels, leading to a potentiation of neuronal excitability, in the dopaminergic neurons in culture as well as in adult brain slices. Further, we show that GDNF regulates the K+ channels through a mechanism that involves activation of MAP kinase. Thus, this study has revealed, for the first time, an acute modulation of ion channels by GDNF. Our findings challenge the classic view of GDNF as a long-term survival factor for midbrain dopaminergic neurons, and suggest that the normal function of GDNF is to regulate neuronal excitability, and consequently dopamine release. These results may also have implications in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Drs. XXX of Harvard Univ., and YY of Yale Univ. not be considered as reviewers. With thanks for your consideration, I am Sincerely yours, case2.

Dear Editor, We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "Ca2+-binding protein frequenin mediates GDNF-induced potentiation of Ca2+ channels and transmitter release", which we wish to be considered for publication in Neuron. We believe that two aspects of this manuscript will make it interesting to general readers of Neuron. First, we report that GDNF has a long-term regulatory effect on neurotransmitter release at the neuromuscular synapses. This provides the first physiological evidence for a role of this new family of neurotrophic factors in functional synaptic transmission. Second, we show that the GDNF effect is mediated by enhancing the expression of the Ca2+-binding protein frequenin. Further, GDNF and frequenin facilitate synaptic transmission by enhancing Ca2+ channel activity, leading to an enhancement of Ca2+ influx. Thus, this study has identified, for the first time, a molecular target that mediates the long-term, synaptic action of a neurotrophic factor. Our findings may also have general implications in the cell biology of neurotransmitter release.

一、最初投稿Cover letter Dear Editors: We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed. In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”. The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:

1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××

2) Name B E-mail: ××××@×××× We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,

×××××× Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

二、催稿信

Dear Prof. ×××:

Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not? I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Yours sincerely,

×××××× Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

三、修改稿Cover letter

Dear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）: On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,

×××××× Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1:

1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)

Response: ××××××

2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)

Response: ××××××

。。。。。。

逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏

针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：

We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...

We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……

We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.

We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion

As Reviewer suggested that……

Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……

最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2:

同上述 Reviewer #3:

×××××× Other changes:

1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”

2. Line 107, “……” was added

3. Line 129, “……” was deleted

××××××

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

第二篇：SCI投稿(英文)

一、投稿信

1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:

I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for

possible publication in the journal of - .

Yours sincerely

2. Dear Dr. A:

Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe

that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.

3. Dear Dr. A:

Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us

permission to use Figure 1 from another source.

We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving

comments from the reviewers.

二、询问有无收到稿件

Dear Editors,

We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.

三、询问论文审查回音

Dear Editors，

It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have

decided as soon as possible.

四、关于论文的总体审查意见

1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest.

A few minor revision are list below.

2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given

below.

3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such

as –

4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.

5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .

6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where

some syntax is not satisfactory.

7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable

native speaker.

8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the

Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.

9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly

when there is so much variation between assays.

10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were

antibody used?

五、给编辑的回信

1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that

–

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect

our interpretation of the result.

2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done.

This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.

3. Thank you for your letter of – and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made

correction which we hope meet with their approval.

4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are

confirmed.

5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers.

Revised portion are underlined in red.

6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript

7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening

sentence.

8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is

acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.

9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.

10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents

of the paper.

11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a

misinterpretation of the data.

12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if

one had been available.

13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from

the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.

14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature

of the cells, we consider it essential.

15. The running title has been changed to “”.

16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of

isotope and assaying hexokinase.

17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the

referees for pointing out their error.

18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action

on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).

19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally

submitted and to which a scale has been added.

20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redraw Figure 3 and 4.

21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added

to the text and Reference section. These are:

22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that

the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.

23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for

publication.

24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting

how to improve our paper.

25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing

an additional experiment, as suggested by referees.