The manuscript is well-written, and the report is of significant interest to the fertility field. Below, I will make some commentaries that, in my view, would slightly increase the quality of the manuscript. I understand that the limited size of the short report can compromise the addition of some of the points described above, but they can be addressed quickly.

1. On page 7, lines 26 and 54, the authors state that CCDC65 and GAS8 mutations are associated with PCD. Moreover, the authors try to relate the mutation of CCDC65 with the lack of GAS8 and other proteins of the sperm flagella. I think that this hypothesis is interesting but should be supported by literature. If not possible, the authors should phrase it as a hypothesis. From this also derives the question: Why was not the gene GAS8 gene also screened in the P1? The manuscript lacks context on how the variant on gene CCDC65 would decrease the expression of the proteins GAS8, DNAI1, SPAG6, and DNALI1.
2. In Figure 2C, both images about Control and P1 longitudinal images should be of the same scale. More amplification on the P1 image would facilitate comparison with the control one. If not possible, the section of figure legend about the scale bar should be updated.
3. In Figure 3, GAPDH blot image representation seems to be repeated in all blots presented. Was only one membrane used for all proteins studied? If so, the representation should be included only one time. If not, the representation of the other membranes' normalization should be provided.