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 Reviewers are satisfied with the revisions. Thus we can now proceed with acceptance of the manuscript in its current form.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have answered all my concerns, I suggest accept it in the present form.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The manuscript has been improved. I have received comments from the third Reviewer and there are several questions that need to be clarified before publication.
1) The figures are not clear enough and suitable for publication, I wonder if this is because the figure was inserted into the manuscript, so please check the figure quality.
2) Can you add the relationship analysis about the subcellular location and the response to drought stress of some CDPK gene in the DISCUSSION Part?
Minor questions:
1) Some minor mistakes need to be noted: such as the figure 7 legend, t-test, the first t should be italic; P value, the P should be italic.
2) Line 38 sea should be Sea
3) Line 72-73 should be rewritten
4) N-myristoylation should be N, the N should be italic
5) Line 267 CDPK should be italic
Please submit the raw transcriptomics data in the public database and provide the accession number of data. Please also provide the detailed methods for RWC, RE,MDA, PROLINE, SOLUBLE SUGAR AND WATER LOSS RATEE in the material and methods section.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
This manuscript present clear and unambiguous conclusions. I commend the authors for their extensive data set, however, the authors should provide the raw transcriptomics data in the public database (i.e. NCBI), so that the original data are available to the public.
The methods are thorough.
The manuscript presents the results which are well presented and appropriately described. Conclusions are appropriate, and supported by the data.
Shi et al presented a genome-wide identification and characterization of 84 CDPK genes in G. barbadense. In this study, the authors used bioinformatics to identify the members of CDPK gene family and predict the structure, physiological and biochemical features of the protein. Further, the authors analyzed the evolution and classification, and the expression of the CDPK genes. Finally, the authors demonstrated that these CDPKs are associated with the drought.
The manuscript presents the results which are well presented and appropriately described. The methods are thorough. Conclusions are appropriate, and supported by the data. The manuscript is overall sound, and below I have highlighted a few minor concerns.
1.With regarding to data availability: the authors should provide the raw transcriptomics data in the public database (i.e. NCBI), so that the original data are available to the public.
2. Line 29: it should be CDPKs for the short name Calcium dependent protein kinases. The author should check other places in the manuscript for the correction.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Calcium dependent protein kinases (CDPKs) are a class of important calcium signal sensing response proteins, which play an important regulatory role in response to abiotic stress. Shi et al identified the CDPK family genes in sea-island cotton genome and performed a series of bioinformatics analysis, and curried out qRT-PCR for some genes under different stresses and further selected some genes for VIGS analysis of drought tolerance. These findings provide a solid foundation for the development of future molecular mechanism in sea-island cotton. This study is very carefully done and the paper is organized very well, except a few minor mistakes.
Minor
1. Some English spellings, such as line 59, 67-68,89,165,231,246,249,303,341,379.
2. Please cite this paper and compare with your result in the manuscript. Liu W, Li W, He Q, Daud MK, Chen J, Zhu S. Genome-wide survey and expression analysis of calcium-dependent protein kinase in Gossypium raimondii. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 2;9(6):e98189
3. Please provide the detailed methods for RWC, RE,MDA, PROLINE, SOLUBLE SUGAR AND WATER LOSS RATEE in the material and methods section.
..
.
.
This manuscript conduct the CDPK gene family characteristics analysis and also analyze the potential function of some of them respond to drought stress. The manuscript was well written and the story is appealing. However, there are several questions need to be clarified before the publication.
1) The figures are not clear enough, I wonder this is because the figure was inserted into the manuscript, so please check the figure quality
2) Can you add the relationship analysis about the subcellular location and the response to drought stress of some CDPK gene in the DISCUSSION Part.
Minor questions:
1) Some minor mistakes need to be noted: such as the figure 7 legend, t-test, the first t should be italic; P value, the P should be italic.
2) Line 38 sea should be Sea
3) Line 72-73 should be rewritten
4) N-myristoylation should be N, the N should be italic
5) Line 267 CDPK should be italic
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.