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.
The original Academic Editor is no longer available and so I am making a decision in my role of Section Editor.
It appears all the suggested revisions have been fulfilled; the manuscript is ready to move forward. The annotation terms added were helpful. I am hopeful that the information provided here may lead toward new insights in dealing with salt tolerance. Congratulations on your efforts.
The revised manuscript is an improved version but the Section Editor notes some outstanding issues that must be addressed:
> The way in which the data is presented prevents the reader from moving forward on any information provided. GO: annotations assist in the area, and by not connecting an attachment to the individual hypothetical peptides do not allow the reader to assess the authors interpretation. In figure 2b there are assignments into 15 groups of interactions; which peptide goes with which? In figures 3 and 4 there are bar and pie charts with general assessments; to better understand the assignments which peptides were assigned to the categories. For instance if I were to pick a random Traes listing, which GO and KEGG was it assigned to and where did it fall withing the provided Venn bin? Also the text annotations of GO need to be accompanied by the proper GO: numerical assignments to streamline interpretation.
May be considered for publication.
May be considered for publication.
May be considered for publication.
The authors successfully addressed all of my questions and concerns.
No comment
No comment
Authors should address all the comments and suggestions raised by both reviewers in their review reports. Please highlight all the changes in your revised manuscript.
[# 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/ #]
It sounds relevant.
Moderately okay.
Considerable.
The manuscript reveals differential tolerance to salt stress through proteomics analysis supported by the downstream qPCR experiments. The work is a straightforward proteomics analysis, which was further annotated based on the existing database search. Although the manuscript may advance our understanding of salt tolerance in Tritipyrum, I would suggest some improvements to be done before considering for publication.
Line 94: How do you know that these genotypes are having contrasting tolerance to salt stress? Any reference or preliminary experiments on that?
Line 104: Although the sensitivity to NaCl depends on species/cultivars, 250 mM NaCl is too high. Why did you choose this concentration for inducing salt stress? How about the pH of the solution culture?
Line 118: Please briefly write the protein extraction method.
Line 138: List the names of the genes studied for qRT-PCR.
The manuscript by Yang R and colleagues delineates the molecular understanding of salt tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivum) utilizing both transcriptomic and proteomic analysis. The authors utilized salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive wheat to find differentially expressed genes and proteins to address the molecular pathways and processes important for the salt-tolerant phenotype in wheat. I found this study to be interesting, well-crafted, and insightful.
1. qPCR validations were carried out using the same samples used for proteomic analysis. I would recommend using separate samples for the validation process to ensure the reproducibility of the findings
2. The authors mentioned differentially expressed proteins in other species like barley, rice, sweet potatoes (in the introduction). It would be interesting to know the common DIPs among different species to single out the most prominent molecular pathways/processed involved in salt tolerance.
3. It would be helpful to dissect the role of some of the differentially expressed genes/proteins experimentally using genetic knockdown/knockout or overexpression experiments.
1. I would suggest elaborating figure legends to ensure better 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.