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 remaining concerns of the reviewers were adequately addressed and therefore revised version is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the remaining concerns of the reviewers and amend the manuscript accordingly.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my concerns in the revised form.
Regarding Fig 1ai, the proteins scale at the bottom should be labeled as N- and C terminal; not 5' and 3' as in the current form (which is for nucleotides, not proteins).
No additional comments.
No additional comments.
I am satisfied with the responses from the authors. I have no other questions.
none
none
none
In the revised submission, the authors have dealt with most of the queries raised in a satisfactory manner. The manuscript is just about acceptable now.
The editors might like to note that reviewer 1 found a number of discrepancies in the original data which have now been changed. It is a pity that the authors were not more careful in the first place!
O,k, now that the m/s has been revised.
o.k.
Please address concerns raised by the 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. #]
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Many places with typos and grammatical errors. They have been pointed out and suitable edits have been suggested. Some figures need restructuring and clarification. There are major comments that need to be addressed with necessary additions and edits in the main text. Please see the attached reviewer's comment for the details.
Some methods subsections and many places in the results section need further explanations. Please see the attached reviewer's comment for the details.
Some raw data are available. I have asked for further raw data showing the calculations/ analysis. Please see the attached reviewer's comment for the details.
Please check the overall language, grammar, and structural organization of the manuscript thoroughly. Details are in the attached reviewer's comment for the details.
The manuscript by Zhao et al, was trying to analyze the diacylglycerol acyltransferase genes (DGAT) family in soybean (Glycine max). While the topic could be interesting, there are many weaknesses that they may need to address in the paper.
Major
1, The comparison of DGAT protein family genes with these in other model plants, such as Arabidopsis and rice is not present. For example, the authors may refer to some relevant papers when performing the analysis (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66860-7).
2, For the result in Figure 1a, the author should descript what is in the 4th panel.
3, For the result in Figure 3, what does the color indicate? The number from 1 to 12, what is that?
4, For figure 4, where does the data come from? Are they from a public database? If so they should describe this in the Materials and Methods.
5, For figure 5 where the author examined the expression using RT-PCR, how samples are prepared, such as the growth condition of plants (temperature, light intensity, soil/medium), which leaves were used, how to sample roots … They should describe this in very detail in the Materials and Methods.
4, For figure 4, where does the data come from? Are they from a public database? If so they should describe this in the Materials and Methods.
5, For figure 5 where the author examined the expression using RT-PCR, how samples are prepared, such as the growth condition of plants (temperature, light intensity, soil/medium), which leaves were used, how to sample roots … They should describe this in very detail in the Materials and Methods.
no
The result and discussion are too short for a research paper. They should write this very detail so that readers can follow what are the findings.
I have two major points.
1. Showing gene sequences does not always mean that the sequence codes for a functional enzyme. The authors should use the term 'putative' throughout their manuscript, including the title.
2. The cited references to DGAT are unusual. There has been quite a lot of work with major oil crops (including soybean) which are not referred to and should be. A useful major review on DGAT which has just been published is that by Chen, G, et al. 2022 Progress in Lipid Research 88, 101181 and this could be used by the authors to improve their manuscript.
No problems
See my comment above about using the term 'putative gene' throughout.
These specific comments are for the authors to improve their manuscript.
line 16. The term 'rate-limiting' is often misleading. It depends on the conditions. The phrase ' can exert strong flux control' is much better.
22. Define Ka/Ks.
34-35. Use the terms 'triacylglycerols' and 'non-esterified fatty acids'
39 and throughout. Rephrase 'rate-limiting' throughout (see above remark)
41. Is fatty acyl-CoAs meant?
150. Give detail for how the isoelectric point was determined.
207. Define/explain 'syntenic'.
258-305. The gene expression patterns are simplified and do not always correspond to what is written in the text. They should be revised. In addition, the data in Figures 4 and 5 should be compared.
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.