All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulation on your publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michael Wink, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Before accepting your manuscript, I need you to address the comments from Reviewer 1.
n/a
n/a
Since the prediction of the molecular structure and function of MRPs in this study is based on only 2 vulture samples and relied on the in silico analysis, the reviewer suggests that the authors should give discussion on the molecular functional study of MRPs using other approaches (for example the molecular cloning study, and the gene or protein manipulation). Advantages and disadvantages of the analyses should be discussed comparatively.
The discussion detail will clarify the reliability and the bias issue of the results in this study.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The Authors have successfully addressed all reviewer suggestions.
Thank you very much for your interesting work. Both reviewers were giving you some advice to complete your manuscript before consider to published in PeerJ. We hope you can address all comments, point by point. I am looking forward to receiving your revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
This manuscript is interesting and well prepared.
In this study, only 2 vulture samples were collected. One was used for NGS analysis, and another was used for PCR and Sanger sequencing. Could the other add more samples for both NGS and Sanger sequencing to make the data more valid? Alignment of the sequences from both analyses will give the consensus information of the MRPs’ genetic background in vultures.
To predict the molecular structure and function of MRPs, the in silico analysis was used in this study. Could the authors give discussion on the molecular functional study of MRPs using other approaches (for example the molecular cloning study, and the gene or protein manipulation)? Advantages and disadvantages of the analyses should be discussed.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The manuscript entitled “Expression and phylogeny of multidrug resistance protein 2 and 4 in African white backed vulture (Gyps africanus)” is quite well structured and written. The authors have addressed each of my concerns and I am happy to recommend acceptance of this manuscript in its present form with just some corrections required.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.