REVIEWER 4 No comments REVIEWER 5 This is a revised manuscript. Although the authors have made some effort to address most of my previous comments, there are still serious concerns relating to the readability and comprehension of the manuscript. Too many complex sentences, especially the new additions. In this case, it is challenging to appreciate the merit of the science, which could be sound, but gets murky in convoluted details of awkward sentences. Author's reply: Dear Reviewer 5, Thanks for a novel and very thorough stylistic re-review of our paper. As you will see, I have accepted most of your suggestions. However, I am sorry to read that the "science could be sound". I believe that it is your job as a reviewer to judge the soundness of "the science". If you think it is not sound, then you have to say what part of the science is not sound and why. I am also sorry to read that our sentences are "convoluted" and "murky". Again, this should be appropriately detailed. From the examples you make, modifications required are truly minimal, and sometimes arguable. In any case, as you will see from the detailed reply to your issues, I have accepted most of them and explained the reasons why I rejected some. I now hope you will be satisfied, as were the other four reviewers. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION: "First of all, NAD is essential…" Delete "First of all". Author's reply: modified as requested. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION "Open issues concern the biology of the system…" What does this mean? Author's reply Sentence has been rephrased. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION "Several efforts were made to elucidate…" Revise to read, "Several efforts have been made to elucidate… Author's reply As these efforts were well into the past and finished (we refer to published papers!) I am quite sure the past tense is correct. However, to avoid any additional discussion, I modified it as requested. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION "maintenance of cellular NAD+ pool is pursued through the re-oxidation of…" Change "pursue" to "achieve". Author's reply Modified as requested. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION In details…" Revise to read "Briefly…" The scanty information presented is not considered "In details". Author's reply Modified as requested. Reviewer's comment: INTRODUCTION Last paragraph, line 88 "To the aim, we exploited…" Revise to read, "In addition, we exploited…" Author's reply Here we really mean to say "To the aim". It does not add to anything else. Reviewer's comment: RESULTS "Subcellular NAD+ concentrations effects…" Lines 38-40 "Therefore, we hypothesized an NMN-driven rescue of NAD+ levels upon NAMPT chemical inhibition." What does this mean? Please revise. Author's reply. Sentence was modified as requested Reviewer's comment: RESULTS FK866 predominantly in nuclei…and in mitochondria…" The statistical significance in comparing the nuclei content seems to be a suspect. Please address. Author's reply This specific experiment was performed 5 independent times. The relevant comparison here is between cells that ...