I have a mix of major changes and minor changes.
1 - They need to present actual tail blood parasite load data for experiments 1, 2 and 3, instead of just saying "no significant effect". Or at least clarify what criteria they use to qualify a blood parasite sample as "no significant effect".
2 - They need to state in main body of text that blood samples between 2 mice were pooled before measuring. Was pooling only done for the PK study or for all of the experiments including the preceding parasite load assays? Were equal volumes of blood from each mouse added?
1 - To clarify, after the sentence "Mice were infected with T. b. rhodesiense one day before the start of treatment" they should insert something like "and the effect of the treatments on blood parasite load was subsequently assessed."
2 - In general they don't refer much to their figures when discussing the experiments. Its difficult for the reader to match up each experiment to the dosing regime. They need to at least refer to which of the 3 regimes in figure 1A they are referring to while discussing each experiment. Better still, present the dosing regime and a plot of the tail blood parasite concentration (this data warrants inclusion as per Major Changes, point 1) together. ie. make 3 different panels, one per experiment, each showing dosing regime and blood parasite load results together, with x-axes aligned.
3 - Likewise, Fig 1b could be merged with 1c to make a new figure, as the x-axes should align.
4 - Mention somewhere in the main body of the manuscript that UPLC MS/MS was how they quantified their compounds.
5 - Consider including all PPB and t1/2 values for the 3 tested compounds in main manuscript body, maybe as a small table, rather than relegating them to the supplementary material.