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.
Thank you for your speedy reply; we are thrilled to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication in PeerJ!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for taking into account the technical comments provided by the reviewers. Attached herewith, please find a file containing suggestions for improving your contribution in terms of editorial, grammar, and style. Kindly review these suggestions and send us a revised version when it is convenient for you. At this stage, it is not necessary to provide a rebuttal letter.
We are pleased to inform you that the reviewers have expressed favorable comments regarding your submission. To move forward with the publication process, we kindly request that you revise your work to address all of the reviewers' comments. Your attention to these comments will greatly assist in ensuring the quality and success of your submission. Thank you for your efforts.
Here, the authors did a broad description of the Lateral Organ Boundaries Domain (LBD) transcription factor (TF) gene family using different bioinformatic tools and RT-qPCR analysis in different tissues. The work is really well written, and the results increase the knowledge of the area from which other important hypotheses can be derived. I only have minor comments:
-Lines 20 and 61: correct plant-specific
-Line 76: Do you mean “synthesize” instead of synthesis?
-Line 182: Please indicate the gene's name corresponding to 219 and 1089 bp.
-Lines 184-185: Do you mean the largest (or longest) and the smallest (or shortest) protein?
-Lines 189-191: You mention that you used 40 melon amino acid sequences of CmLBDs to build the phylogenetic tree. However, in your results, you indicate that “122 CmLBD genes could be classified into two major groups”. How can be this possible? Maybe you’re referring to the 122 total proteins (ATs, KGNs, and CmLBDs). Please clarify this point
-Figure 2: Do you mean “Blue boxes indicate 59- and 39-UTR”?
-Figure 7: Please indicate where these expression data come from.
-Figure 8: Please indicate what are we seeing in A and B.
-Lines 282-283: You indicate that your results were mostly consistent with the transcriptome data. Did you calculate the correlation coefficient? Or how can we compare both data? You could show this the Pearson correlation (R) or you could plot both data on the same graph so that trends can be observed.
-What relationship could you find between the expression patterns and the tissues where the genes are expressed with the phylogeny results? Could you observe any trend regarding this? Please discuss.
The methods are well described with sufficient detail.
The results are well supported and the conclusions are well stated.
NA
1. Figure 1 needs to be redrawn. It is suggested that an annotation be added to the upper right corner of the figure to explain what the different colored squares represent, rather than just explaining them in the titles and legends.
2. In your interpretation of the results, you seem to focus more on explaining what each figure is, while I am more interested in understanding what each result reflects. For instance, for Figure 2, apart from the general description (number, what was detected, percentages), could you elaborate more on the relationship between the structure (intron-exon structure) and the function of the LBD genes?
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.