In this review, the authors have introduced the single-cell technology that most used in PNS, as well as the scRNA-seq researchs in the PNS. The author also foucs on the heterogeneity of neurons and glia in normal or injury states, so that we can better understand the cell composition and function of the peripheral nervous system. In a nutshell, the submitted manuscript demonstrated the sufficient enthusiasm from the study group. However, additional references and rethinking of the logic are needed for acceptance.

Major revision: 1. This manuscript needs further modification and embellishments to correct language problems. There are still some grammatical and tense errors in the manuscript, which can easily lead to misunderstandings. 2. The description of “STRT-seq in 2011, SMART-seq and CEL- seq in 2012, CytoSeq, Drop-Seq, and inDrop in 2015, 10x genomics in 2017” is not clear. Please provide the full name and related references. In the introduction, the authors should enrich and refine the advantages of detecting different single cell sequencing. 3. In the introduction, author have dedicated a significant portion of second paragraph describing the “10x Genomics”. Is there any special reasons? What breakthroughs do the authors think their research has made compared with the past? 4. And then, the author describe the SMART-seq2, and how about SMART-seq? It was not clearly explained. In my view, change the order may help to get a better understanding. 5. To my knowledge, there are many reported articles have used 10x Genomics in neurons. Such as Yu et al 2021 “Interneuron origin and molecular diversity in the human fetal brain”. The author should provide more evidence in previous research. 6. Why the author stated three parts (1. Diversity of neurons in PNS; 2. Glia; 3 nerve injury in NPS), and what is the underline correlation with each part? The logical framework of this review is not very clear. 7. It is confusing that“From….. scRNA-seq previously [9], exposed the MS characteristic of different types of DRG neurons [16].”Please check the two references, they are from different authors. 8. In Page 8, to make a better understanding, the authors should introduce the construction and classification of glia (From the embryo to adult) first. 9. Pleas rewrite the “Based on the scRNA-seq ….. intestinal regeneration after injury”. It is confusing. 10. Throughout the paper, the authors’ viewpoints are not entirely clear, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the innovations of this manuscript. Minor revision: 1. Wrong pronunciation “foucs” 2. Please provide the reference in “As early as 2014, 799 single cells from the mouse lumbar DRGs has been sequenced with sequencing reads mapped to 3,574± 2,010 genes per cell.” 3. Is there anything wrong in “postmitotic sensory neurons (Avil+)”? 4. Please provide the reference in “Through in ……nociceptors respectively” 5. Please give the references in “But the cell subtype division……H8 more similar to cold thermoceptors.” 6. What is the “bulk-seq”? Please give the full name. 7. The gene (such as Aldh1l1, Scn7a) should be italic, please check the whole manuscript. 8. There are some words such as “ENS” and “EGCs”, which need to be explained. 9. Some genes were given the full name, and some were not. Please check the whole manuscript. 10. Please provide the original r