Write here any specific comment/note about figures in the paper
(this could be related to the way data are displayed and your ability to
understand the results just by looking at the figures).
Whilst it is fantastic that the authors decided to share their
manuscript as a preprint, it was very difficult to conduct a thorough
review of the work without access to the supplementary files and data
which are referred to extensively throughout.
The figures are generally well presented, in particular the structural
models are clear, even when complicated structural overlays and
alignments are shown.
The western blot images look somewhat distorted throughout. For
Figure6B, background and band contrast is variable across blots which
are being directly compared and the band intensity for the
phosphorylation site detection is very low. p2116 panel appears to have
artifactual distortion in the background as do Figure 7A&B. Figure 7C
in the top right panel has variable background. Shadows surround the
bands of EZH2 in the bottom panels of this figure.
The data presented in figure 6B, 7A,B and C are not compelling enough to
match the strong statements in the manuscript.
In figure 6B, the immunoblot is normalized against the total
concentration of HTT. Validation of the antibodies generated should be
provided or referenced to assure readers that the phosphorylation
specific antibodies are binding huntingtin with appropriate affinity,
specificity and stoichiometry.