1) Methods state that “Neutrophils were isolated as previously using Lymphoprep separation”, but do not report how pure are these neutrophil populations. Authors quote ref. 44, but not even there neutrophil purity is specified. In the types of experiments performed in this study, it is in fact essential to use highly pure neutrophils to avoid false-positive results mediated by other contaminating leukocytes (e.g. T lymphocytes, pDCs, Nk cells, etcetera). Authors should thus provide formal evidence that the effects mediated by their neutrophil populations are really genuine.

2) Methods state that “PBMCs were used immediately or cryopreserved”, as well as that “thawed PBMCs were rested overnight”. It is therefore not clear how exactly the coculture experiments described in this study were performed, in other words if using autologous (always?) or heterologous (always?) donors. If done in, were the results comparable to those using autologous donors?

3) It would nice if the authors could repeat the experiments under the experimental conditions described by Sabbione et al for Vδ2+ T cells/neutrophil viability to verify their reproducibility.

4) Results are substantially shown as graphs reporting the means plus/minus SD of n experiments of various assays/cell functions. I would encourage the authors to also show, eventually in supplementary files, original representative experiments for each assay/cell function investigated.

5) It is not clear why the THP-1 cell treatment with PMA is necessary to activate MAIT cells.

6) There are no labels indicating the specific number of the Supplementary figures.

7) Supplementary figures 6 and 7 are not mentioned in the text describing the results.

Authors have only partially addressed the issues that this Reviewer has raised.