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.
All concerns of the reviewers were adequately addressed and revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed my concerns, and I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.
The authors have addressed all of my criticisms in this revision. I recommend publishing the article in its current form.
No comments.
No comments.
Please address concerns of all reviewers and amend manuscript accordingly.
[# 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. #]
a. The writing should be improved to make your descriptions and statements clear and accurate. I suggest the authors have someone who is proficient in English review and help edit your manuscript. For example, lines 135-137, 145-147, 157-158, 181-182 could be rephrased to make it clear.
b. In the description of Figure 2, the authors stated that “The yellow box represented the CDS region and green box represented the UTR”, but in the figure legend CDS is in green and UTR is yellow.
c. The first part of the introduction needs more references. For example, references are needed to support your statements in lines 44-46 and 58-59.
a. Molecular weight and isoelectric point are important physicochemical properties of proteins, but I don’t see why it is necessary to report these values, they are not relevant to the current study. Also, what’s the purpose of averaging the molecular weight of all Dof proteins?
b. If the authors decide to keep all the data (calculated MW and pI), please include the unit when you talk about MW values, lines 180-181.
c. The method section needs more information, the current writing is unclear on how some experiments were done. For example, from the description in line 169, it’s not clear how the relative expression levels were calculated.
d. It is unclear how the statistical analysis was performed, the authors only mentioned the software used in the study (line 170).
a. In the “Potential role of VcDof genes in response to abiotic stress” section (lines 345-355), the authors didn’t discuss the potential role of these genes, only the gene up-regulation data were discussed.
b. Figure 5 has a citation (line 254), is this figure generated based on your own data or data from other researchers (the cited work)?
no comment
no comment
no comment
It is advised to add more detail to all figure legends.
Figure lengend_figure 2B describes that the yellow box represented the CDS region and green box represented the UTR. However, the figure is mislabeled. Please revise.
Authors in this manuscript studied the Dof transcription factors in blueberry and presented potential functions of blueberry Dof Tfs against abiotic stress. Li et al., identified 51 VcDof genes in blueberry and analyzed their physicochemical properties and phylogenetic relationships of the VcDof genes. Cis-acting promoter, tissue-specific, and abiotic stress expression analysis of Dof Tfs revealed that VcDof1, VcDof11, and VcDof15 play important roles in blueberry abiotic stress tolerance. Overall, the authors presented the recent findings clearly, and the discussion was written in a clear and concise manner. I support its publication given that the authors address the below issues.
Major:
1. In table 2: The Ks and Ka/Ks columns contain the same values. The authors need to correct this.
2. Line 223: The authors wrote, in line 223, “The results showed that the ka/ks ratio of 95.83% collinear gene pairs……”.
However, in table2: VcDof32- VcDof50 has Ka/Ks value of more than 1. The authors need to recheck their math. (Is the correct value be 91.66%) ?
3. Lines 225, 321: Pairs of genes were subjected to positive selection. 7&24 and 32&50 as well?
4. Line 238: The authors wrote, “12 % of VcDof genes contain an ‘O2-site’ promoter…….”. However, as per Fig 4c, it is 18 %.
Minor:
1. Line 241: correct spelling of ‘promoter’
2. Maintain consistency in writing Dof. For example, in line 178: the authors used non-italics VcDof40, and in line 182, they used italics VcDof15. In line 199, it is all caps (DOF).
3. Use space between sentences and open brackets. Example: lines 204, 207, etc
4. Lines 223, 320, and table 2: It is ‘Ka/Ks’. not ‘Ka/ks’ (capitalize K in ks)
5. Line 225: Correct the sentence. (remove ‘this’)?
No comment
No comment
No comment
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.