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.
Thank you for fixing the remaining linguistic issues and submission of the edited manuscript. It is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All remaining technical issues were addressed and the revised version is almost acceptable now.
Please have the manuscript proofed to resolve the language. PeerJ does not provide copyediting as a standard service, please ensure that the English language in this submission meets journal standards; this includes the use of clear and unambiguous text which is grammatically correct, and conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Please address remaining concerns of reviewer #2, who pointed to several really minor issues.
No coments
No coments
No coments
Dear authors,
Congrats to improve your manuscript. The discussion section was really revised and well corrected.
Figures are now appropriated.
I have a few suggestions before make the manuscript accept.
- Change the description of ED50: I think welcome call it: Dose to 50% of mass reduction.
- I keep do not understanding "endurance or durability coefficient" in the Table 1. I believe it might be the "resistance factor" or "resistance index". If so, please specify in the Table which wild mustard population was your Susceptible standard
Once the authors make these minor revisions, the article can be considered welcome to publication!
Congratulations for your work and your phD project.
Sincerely,
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
As you can see, all reviewers raised some serious concerns. Therefore, please address their critiques and revise manuscript accordingly.
[# 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/ #]
The authors report Trp-574-Leu MUTATION IN WILD MUSTARD (Sinapis arvensis L.) AS A RESULT OF ALS INHIBITING HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS in Turkey. However this is not the first time this resistance has been reported. Thus the manuscript has no novelty for PeerJ and should be rejected
The experiments are well designed
The results are valid and obtain from a well performed experiment with many samples
Reporting for ALS resistance due to Trp574 mutation has been reported before for Turkey
Figures are not appropriated. The authors should use a better map image (Fig 2), give the legends (Fig 3) and remove the software layout (Fig 4 and 5).
The English must be strongly reviewed specially in M&M section.
The investigatin was not rigourous due to other positions at ALS gene those can harbor target-site mutations. I my point of view, the authors sould investigate all ALS sequence to conclude about the remaining resistant populations.
As far as my concern, resistance factor must be calculate based on I50 values. 50% control or 50% mass reduction.
Congrats for your job.
However, there are some concerns about the methods and discussion.
- Why do not the authours investigated other target site mutations over the ALS gene?
- Why do you prefer showing ED90 instead of ED50. We know that ED50 is the best parameter to estimate the levels of resistance.
- The discussion must be improved. If you did not find Trp574Leu in the remaining resistant wild mustard populations, what would be the causes of resistance on those? I suggest you implement two or three more paragraphs in the discussion section talking about what it should change on weed control praticies at wheat fields in Turkey. Is there any other resistance mechanism evolved in wild mustard against ALS herbicides? If no, how about discuss around related species.
Sinapis arvensis L. is a worst weed in wheat fields in Turkey. This study detected the level of resistance and investigate the TSR to tribenuron-methyl in Sinapis arvensis. These results are helpful for understanding the resistance status and the mechanism of Sinapis arvensis. to ALS inhibitors. However, there are also some shortcomings. The organization need to be improved some sentences about herbicide resistance description were also not rigorous. Therefore, I'm afraid that the authors should pay much attention to carefully improve the manuscript before it can be considered for publishing in Peer J.
no comment
no comment
The major concerns are as following:
1. The detailed information on the methods used for collecting the seeds is needed. Did the seeds bulk？
2. How many copies of ALS gene in Sinapis arvensis.
3. How about the ALS enzyme activity, suggest to supplement the In vitro ALS activity assay.
4. L151 "Unite Taq DNA Polymerase" is a high-fidelity thermostable DNA polymerase ?
5. The discussion section need to be significantly improved. In this section, based on the obtained results, the authors should compare the similarity and difference between this current research and other reports，and discuss the possible reasons, then make conclusion and pointed out the novelty and importance of this research.
Some of the spelling and/or grammar errors in the manuscript：
1. L25: Change "Tribenuron methyl" to "tribenuron-methyl".
2. L31: Italics for Latin names.
3. L48-49: Change to "75.6 billion dollars ", "2.5-2.7 billion dollars ", "5 billion dollars ".
4. L64: "As wheat is a hoe plant weed control" ?
5. L77-79: Check to the tense.
6. L95: Change to "Ala 122".
7. L96-97: Delete the sentence " se Ala-122……...(Powles and Yu, 2010; Vencill et.al., 2012) ".
8. L106: Change "have" to "had".
9. L113 "pre"?
10. L115: suggest change "gr da-1" to g a.i. ha-1".
11. L119: Change to "Do -responses to tribenuron-methyl"
12. L120-L121: Change to "1, 2, 4, 8 and 16-fold".
13. L129-130: "in %"?
14. L137: "%90"?
15. L150-151: Change to "0.5mM", "3.5mM", "0.9mM"."0.5 Unite Taq DNA Polymerase"?
16. L152: Change "sek" to "sec". Change "cycle" to "cycles".
17. L158-160: Check to the tense and italics for Latin names.
The English writing is somewhat poor. These are some tense and grammar errors here and there. I just correct some of these errors. The authors should ask for help from native English speaker to polish the manuscript to improve the quality and readability.
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.