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.
Thanks for addressing the revisions requested. Now, your manuscript is accepted in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thanks for addressing all of the technical comments. Kindly review the attached PDF with suggestions to enhance the manuscript's readability and include them at your convenience.
Please provide a comprehensively revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter.
Please see the attached.
Please see the attached.
Please see the attached.
Please see the attached.
The present manuscript by Bolshakov and collaborators deals with a full experimental overview of the roles carotenoid molecules play in photoprotection, damage and salvation of photosystems.
The manuscript is overall easy to follow and conclusions are sound respect to the obtained results and proposed experiments which make the work worthy of publication. However, there are a couple of minor points I'd like authors to have addressed before acceptation.
Because of the complex nature of the system under study, authors should point out to readers how qualitative their results are, instead of quantitative; this can be observed by a reader through their abuse of the word "relatively" or "relative", sometimes up to even four times in a single paragraph. I don't hold this against the authors, because the systems tackled herein are extremely complex in nature.
I wish the authors could address the issue of oxygen photoconsumption with a control experiment instead of just speculating that singlet oxygen is formed and then interacts with BChl.
References are quite dated, only a handful of them date after 2018, it would be nice to correct this.
The experimental design is sound and reaches to the scope set initially by the authors.
Results align with expectations set initially by the authors as per their designed experiments.
This manuscript should be accepted after minor revisions.
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.