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.
As improved considering the previous suggestions, article accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
> line 105 "our previous studies" should be changed to "our previous studies and those of others" since one of the two papers cited is not by these authors.
Article may be accepted publication as the language has improved. but still the following issues have been identified
line 34 "such receptors". No receptors have been mentioned yet.
line 35-36 "it is unclear whether photosynthesis is affected by PAMP...". Incorrect. A 2002 paper did studies similar to those described here (but actually in more detail). The authors need to cite previous work and explain what is different/new about their study (or is it just confirmational?)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22550958/
line 105 "Our previous studies". The paper cited is not by the authors of the current manuscript."
Revise the article accordingly.
Your revised article has been approved by reviewers. But the manuscript needs professional editing. Consider that even the definition of PAMP is incorrect; they are pathogen-associated molecular patterns, not pathology-related molecular patterns (line 31). The next sentence of the abstract "This immune triggering pattern is relatively conservative and is the result of long term plant evolution" has multiple errors. The pattern is "relatively conserved" (not conservative). And then "the result of long term plant evolution" makes no sense. These are microbial pattern, not plant patterns. Maybe the authors mean that recognition of these patterns is the result of long term plant evolution but that is not what is said. I stopped reading at this point, but a quick skim suggests that the whole paper needs editing." Revise the article and while resubmitting submit a certificate from professional editing services.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Well written
Adequate
Proper
Paper is revised as per reviewers suggestions thus can be accepted.
The manuscript is revised with the suggestions of the reviewers. It is found clear and suitable for publication.
The experimental method is also improved in the revised manuscript. However, the accession number of the NCBI for PR-4, PR-10, VDE, CP12 genes and photosystem b (Psb) family gene may be included in the materials and methods part.
All are well written.
No comments.
Revise the article considering the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
MS is well written and research finding are interested and novel. However, some minor modification is needed to improve the MS.
1. Aims of the study or hypothesis is not given.
2. Elaborate the result part with some data showing how much fold expression or how much per cent increased or decreased.
3. Remove general statement form discussion and conclusion part (as highlighted in attached pdf).
4. Some minor correction are highlighted in the attached pdf.
The manuscript is interesting and would be useful for peanut researchers. However, there are some lacuna or need clarification in the materials and methods parts which may be rectified. Modification of the manuscript by clarifying or incorporating the suggestions would be highly useful to the readers to understand the article.
Moreover, there are some spelling errors or typo errors in the manuscript. Some of the Examples are listed here.
1. In the manuscript, both FLG22 or flg22 were found which may be uniformly written.
2. Correct the sentence of Line 355 "photosynthesis, thus improving the disease resistance of plants. inhibited photosynthesis"
The materials and methods of the manuscript were not written in proper ways. The following points are suggested for improvement of the manuscript.
1. What is the concentration of Calcium nitrate tetrahydrate used in the Hoagland nutrient solution?
2. What is the condition of light and temperature for incubation with FLG22 and 200 g ml-1 chitohexose for different hours?
3. How much of leaves sample of peanut were taken for treatment with FLG22 and chitohexose?
3. Some of the abbreviations are required to write expanded form. Examples are PEA, NQP, CP12, PsbS, PsbP, etc.
4. Primer sequences of PsbO and PsbP genes were missing in the manuscript/material and methods.
5. In the manuscript, four genes such as PR-4, PR-10, PsbO and PsbP genes where selected for expression analysis through real time PCR. However, the expression analysis of last two genes, PsbO and PsbP genes were not included in the results and discussion parts. This may be rectified.
6. In the result part, FLG22 and chitohexose induced CP12 and PsbS gene expression were mentioned. However, the expression analysis of these two genes, CP12 and PsbS were not given in the materials and method parts. Similarly, expression analysis of the Violaxanthin de-epoxidase (VDE) were not included in the materials and methods.
After rectifying the materials and materials and incorporating as suggested in experimental design in the results, the finding of the manuscript would be further improved.
NA
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.