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 revising the manuscript in response to reviews.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript has been reviewed by four reviewers. Two reviewers suggested major revisions and two reviewers suggested minor revisions.
We hope that their comments prove useful to you as a guide for revisions prior to resubmission.
We ask that you resubmit a tracked copy showing all edits, a clean revised copy with all changes accepted, and a point by point response to the reviews. We anticipate that revisions may require 4-8 weeks. If you require more time, please let us know and an extension can be granted.
We look forward to receiving your revised version.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This MS aims to uncover Genome-wide characterization of the C2H2 zinc finger transcription factors in Pleurotus ostreatus and expression analyses under abiotic stress. In my opinion, it meets the journal's basic requirements.
It would be better to explan the basis of setting heat and cold stress treatment conditions in Introduction. the primordia were cultured at 38 °C for 1 h 3h for heat stress treatment, it is somewhat incomprehensible.
All the bioinformation was infered from PC15. While P. ostreatus 3125 was used in this study. There are not the same strain. It would be better to be discussed in the discussion.
Line 118, "Scientific Edible Fungal" ?
In this study, author used bioinformatics method to analyze the C2H2-ZFPs of Pleurotus ostreatus. 18 C2H2-ZFs were identified in P. ostreatus genome. The methods and results are acceptable. However, I think your research is too simplistic. I hope you can add some analysis and experiments. As far as writing, there are lots of small problems should be fixed.
no comment
no comment
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Dozens of grammar mistakes in the manuscript should be corrected. Such as Line74-75, 127, 157, 168, 188,190,192, 218 and so on.
no comment
no comment
I suggest the authors cluster the genes in the heatmap of Fig.3b to make it more visual and helpful for analysis of the similarity of different genes.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It is solid and reliable work and I believe it is worth to be published on the pages of PeerJ journal. However, some changes need to be done. First of all, the title doesn't correspond to the content of your article. Basically, you discuss the influence of abiotic (temperature) and biotic (developmental stages, hormones) on the expression of the studied genes. Second, the English language should be considerably improved. I suggest that the manuscript should be corrected by the English native speaker and researcher. I have some concerns regarding the figure legends, namely figures 4 and 5. They reflect the methods used. I would prefer to see the actual finding: visually in your plots and written in the legends. I would also recommend using keywords different from the title, which might increase the "visibility" of your paper for the web search engines, but this is rather a recommendation, not mandatory.
Respectfully,
Reviewer.
well done
no comments
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.