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 authors have addressed all concerns and now the paper may be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Sir
I suggest to accept this paper if authors do the minor revisions suggested by referee
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should 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) #]
The script requires a thorough revision of the English language. Several references are irrelevant.
no comment
no comment
General Comment:
The script has been substantially revised by the authors, but it still requires a lot more improvements, as follows;
• It requires a thorough revision of the English language.
• Several references are irrelevant.
• The modified title of the script is not very convincing. Authors may consider about changing it.
• Fig. 1; the inoculated plants resemble the mock- and non-inoculated plants. I am not convinced with the authors’ assertion. This experiment should be revised.
• With respect to Fig 4, authors wrote “the studied NTF2 protein sequence also showed closest relationship with same members of its own genus Nicotiana tabacum and Nicotiana sylvestris as revealed for gene sequence.” However, Fig. 4 depicts that prey sequence is constituting a close group with “Nicotiana attenuate”. BTW, it should be N. attenuata.
• Additionally, Fig. 4; authors claimed that “They looked to be evolved from the Gossypium raimondii.” Again this isn’t true.
• The used sentence in discussion section “DNA betasatellites associated with helper mono-, bi-partite begomoviruses replicate, encapsidate, and spread via begomoviruses” is highly vague and need to be corrected.
• Supplementary data is not referred anywhere in the script.
• The study demonstrated by Kamal et al., 2019 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00656/full) should be discussed with the results of the study.
Kindly revise manuscript as per referee comments.
Regards Dr Zia
[# 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. #]
[# 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) #]
The quality of used English language is of insufficient quality.
Several irrelevant references are used and several important and relevant references are not cited.
Figures are of poor quality. Figure legends are not properly described.
The authors reached a conclusion that goes far beyond the scope of the study. Furthermore, the hypothesis is missing, and it should be stated clearly in the introduction.
Yes.
Research question can be improved.
Method sectioncan be improved and need to demonstrate all the things (see my comments)
See my comments
The manuscript is aimed to investigate to unveil the potential interacting partners of βC1 protein in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana. The investigation is interesting, giving the new insight into host-virus interaction. The script was planned to provide valuable information to develop resistance mechanism against betasatellite requiring geminiviruses. Nonetheless, the script has some flaws that necessitate a thorough review and revision of the text. The authors reached a conclusion that goes far beyond the scope of the study. Furthermore, the hypothesis is missing, and it should be stated clearly in the introduction.
Main concerns refer to the presentation of results, the figures and the language.
Authors are non-consistent while using the microbe names, NTF2 gene name and abbreviations.
For detailed comments - see the appended file.
This manuscript is well written. English is relatively good and raw data is provided.
Research question is well defined and proven through experiments.
I have one reservation though. There is no interaction studies in-vivo. I would recommend authors should perform an experiment where they can show in vivo interaction of betaC1 and nuclear transport factor 2.
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.