Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 18th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 5th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 5th, 2015 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on July 1st, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 3rd, 2015.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations and thank you for your support of PeerJ.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please respond to the reviewer's comment. Thanks.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Overall, the revised manuscript was significantly improved. Authors did a job to address the reviewers' questions and concerns. Particularly, the added kinetic simulations strengthen the quality of results. However, there is a minor concern here. I could not find the following reference at the reference section. Line 221"Indeed, preliminary experimental evidence (J. omichinski, personal communication)"

Experimental design

"No Comments"

Validity of the findings

"No Comments"

Comments for the author

Overall, the revised manuscript was significantly improved. Authors did a job to address the reviewers' questions and concerns. Particularly, the added kinetic simulations strengthen the quality of results. However, there is a minor concern here. I could not find the following reference at the reference section. Line 221"Indeed, preliminary experimental evidence (J. omichinski, personal communication)"

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please provide a point-to-point response letter to the reviewers' concerns.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

In this paper, the author describe an computational MP2/CBS//B3PW91/6-31G(d) study of the final steps of the reaction of removing the methane from methylmercury catalyzed by MerB. This reaction steps occur in a complex potential energy surface where several distinct pathways are accessible and may operate concurrently. The topic is interesting, however, there are still questions need to be addressed.

Experimental design

Please specify what is MP2/CBS//B3PW91/6-31G(d) study?

Validity of the findings

What is the novelty of this study, compared with the recently computed mechanism of the related enzyme MerA further underline the important role of Asp99 in the energetics of the MerB reaction?

Comments for the author

In this paper, the author describe an computational MP2/CBS//B3PW91/6-31G(d) study of the final steps of the reaction of removing the methane from methylmercury catalyzed by MerB. This reaction steps occur in a complex potential energy surface where several distinct pathways are accessible and may operate concurrently. The topic is interesting, however, there are still questions need to be addressed.
1. Please specify what is MP2/CBS//B3PW91/6-31G(d) study?
2.What is the novelty of this study, compared with the recently computed mechanism of the related enzyme MerA further underline the important role of Asp99 in the energetics of the MerB reaction?
3. Please be aware of the grammar in the context.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Introduction:
The purpose of this study implies to investigate the mechanistic pathway of mercury removal during the final steps of the reaction catalyzed by MerB as well as the regeneration of the active site for a new round of catalysis. Although the research gap based on the previous studies was clearly pointed out in the introduction, there is a lack of precise statement of purpose.

Methods and results:
Based on my understanding, all the methods and results were built on theoretical analysis via computer software. Lack of experimental data compensates the theoretical results.

Discussion:
The length of discussion section is un-proportionately shorter than results section. Discussion in depth is needed to address the important role of Asp99 in the energetics of MerB reaction. This manuscript seems to be uncompleted. No conclusion/summary or future perspectives directly or indirectly were included at the end which left the audiences a strong sense of an uncompleted paper.

References:
Lack of updated references. outdated references from 1986, 1997, etc. play a large part in this section.

Overall, lay language is excessively used in this manuscript (for example, lines 250, 259, 264). The whole manuscript could be written more precisely.

Experimental design

Please see above

Validity of the findings

Please see above

Comments for the author

Please see above

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.