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 significantly improved the manuscript keeping in view the suggestions of honorable reviewers. Now the paper is in good shape and may be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors are requested to revise the manuscript, especially for the comments of Reviewer 1. Please revise the manuscript as per the questions raised by reviewer and submit it again.
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude once again for the opportunity to review this work. Furthermore, I must commend the improvements evident in this revised version. The text is now significantly more cohesive, clear, and descriptive. Congratulations on the accomplished work. I have some observations and they are relatively straightforward.
In the PDF provided, corrections are in red and/or highlighted. However, I would like to point out a few items described below:
1) Some paragraphs are not indented in the same manner as the others. These instances have been highlighted in the PDF;
2) I have a question regarding line 210. In the previous version, this section was described using roots, and now it is mentioned as leaves. Has there been a deliberate change in this aspect?;
3) In the results paragraph beginning at line 242, I have a few observations:
a) I believe there is no need to restate the names of the species. Is there anything specific about the species mentioned in this section? I am somewhat confused because more species are described in the methodology;
b) The species Arabidopsis thaliana is not described in the methodology section;
c) The species Potentilla anserina is written incorrectly;
4) In the discussion section (between lines 298-305), I suggest rearranging the order of the sentences. It might be more compelling to place the second sentence of this section first, followed by the initial sentence, and then the sentences concerning FARM and SARM. In other words, a swap between the first and second sentences in this demarcated region;
5) Regarding the submission, it is a matter of organization in some figures' captions. The captions for the figures, specifically Figures 3 and 4, have different formatting from the others.
I hope this helps!
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
I understand that the authors are facing some technical difficulties in performing some of the experiments suggested. However, I believe, they have successfully addressed majority of concerns raised in the review. The rewriting of the manuscript is also very useful. The manuscript now can be accepted for publication.
However, I will highly encourage the authors to perform some direct biochemical experiments like knockdown experiments to definitely prove the functions of the genes in their future publications.
No comments
No comments
No comments
The authors addressed all my comments in the first review report.
The authors addressed all my comments in the first review report.
The authors addressed all my comments in the first review report.
Major revision is required. Please go through the comments raised by the reviewers and provide your point-to-point response (especially reviewers 1 and 4 raised very valid concerns).
**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.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The text has been satisfactorily written with a professional, clear, and unambiguous tone throughout. However, there are areas where clarity and conciseness could be improved to enhance the overall quality of the text. References have been appropriately used to provide historical and contextual background in the field of study. The article maintains a professional structure, including the use of figures, tables, and sharing of raw data. However, there is a need for some sections to be rewritten for better clarity and conciseness. Additionally, certain issues regarding figure references in the text, supplementary materials, and references should be organized according to the suggestions outlined in the provided PDF. The article is autonomous and presents results that are relevant to the hypotheses being investigated. These results contribute meaningfully to the topic under consideration. Overall, the text demonstrates a strong foundation but requires revisions in specific areas to meet the standards of clarity, conciseness, and organization as outlined in the attached PDF feedback.
My notes have all been made in a PDF document. However, I will include all the notes below as this will help prevent any potential loss of work in case of technical issues.
# Abstract #
Line 18) Add 'acting on ... (cited one function of this biosynthesis)' after 'sesquiterpenes and triterpenes'
Line 20) Belongs; transcriptome with capital letters musct be change; 'Rosaceae-FPPS clade' (I suggest that you annotate this information on the cladogram image and provide additional details regarding it in your results section?)
Lines 21 -22) These two sentences look similar. I suggest making a change to avoid visual similarity as it might cause confusion.
Line 22) Replace 'were' with 'was'
Line 24) Add "a" between 'provide precursor'
Line 25) Add "the" between 'in plant'
# Introduction #
Line 34) Replace 'played' with 'play'
Line 41) Add "the" before "methylerythritol"
Lines 47-48) After the ";" on '(GGPP;C20)', '(GFPP;C25)' and 'sesterterpens(Chen'
Lines 50-54) I suggest rewriting this paragraph as it was a bit confusing.
Line 54) What does IPP mean? Write down what the abbreviation stands for so that any reader of your article can recognize what you're writing about.
Lines 55-56) FPPS and DMAPP: It was not mentioned before? Put what it means the first time the abbreviation appears. Then just use the abbreviation.
Line 60) AtFPPS1: Gene or protein? A person who doesn't know it may have the idea that it's a gene or a protein. I always suggest writing down what it is. Example: AtFPPS1 gene.
Line 67) Replace 'have' with 'has'
Line 73) Add 'the' between 'about molecular'
Line 83) RrFPPS1: Has this been previously documented, or is it the designated nomenclature for the FPPS genes identified in R. rugosa? If there is existing literature on this topic, please discuss it within the introduction section.
# Materials & Methods #
Line 87) Remove 'were'
Line 90) Remove 'the'
Line 107) Supplementary Table 1: In Supplementary Table 1, there are designations for 'F' and 'R.' I believe it would be beneficial to include in the methodology section that these correspond to 'forward' and 'reverse' (or is that not the case?). Furthermore, an explanation of the meaning of these letters should also be provided within the table.
Lines 114-115) Add 'from' before (Bio-Rad); include the reference of this software; Remove the parentheses of 'BioRad'
Line 116) Add 'using' before (Graphpad Prism); include the reference of this software; Remove the parentheses of 'Graphpad Prism'
Line 118) The section 'In-silico Analysis of RrFPPS and Phylogenetic Analysis' appears somewhat unclear as it specifies the sources of the sequences and to which organisms these sequences belong. There is some confusion regarding the inputs under consideration.
Line 119) RrFPPS: I suggest that authors pay attention to how this abbreviation is written, as it is written in different ways throughout the text. Standardization is necessary.
Line 120: Replace 'BLASP' with 'BLASTP'
Lines 122-123) Replace 'using the online software' with 'using ProtParam tool from the online software'; Replace 'Extasy' with 'Expasy'
Line 124-125) 'Multiple sequence alignment of RrFPPS sequences': In Figure 2, there are various organisms. It is necessary to provide a description of who they are here in the methodology. For instance, 'X sequences of ... were utilized to create...'
Line 126) 'Method of MEGA-X': What substitution method was taken into consideration? It is necessary to mention.
Line 134) Replace 'Transgen Biotech' with 'TransGen Biotech'; Scientific names are always italicized
Lines 136-137) 'The sequence information of RrFPPS is shown in Supplementary Table 3': When reviewing your supplementary materials 2 and 3, I have noticed a high degree of similarity, and I believe they are positioned inversely within the text. Supplementary material 2 is referenced as containing GenBank accessions but lacks the corresponding codes, only providing sequences. Conversely, supplementary material 3 includes this information. I suggest consolidating these details into a single file to avoid redundancy.
Line 145) What does 'LB' stand for? I am using this format to suggest that for any abbreviation, its meaning should be explicitly written.
Line 146) Scientific names are always italicized
Line 154) Scientific names are always italicized
Line 165) Add 'the' between ' to desalting'
Line 165) Add 'were' between 'compounds collected'
Line 168) 'GC-MC': The meaning of this abbreviation only appears in the results section, specifically in 'Functional characterization of the recombinant RrFPPS1.' It is necessary to have it explained beforehand
Line 178) 'MS': Another abbreviation without explanation.
Line 181) For the section 'Quantification of transcript levels of RrFPPS genes in salt treatment', it was only described how it was prepared, but what about quantification? I believe it is not as clear as mentioned. I suggest making modifications to this paragraph.
# Results #
Lines 190-192) I believe this statement is better suited for the methodology section.
Line 192) Add 'sequence' after 'protein'
Line 197) Remove 'open reading frames' and the parentheses of ORFs. As the methodology section has already addressed this, I believe there is no need to reiterate the meaning of the abbreviation.
Lines 208-210) As the methodology section has already addressed this, I believe there is no need to reiterate the meaning of the abbreviation.
Line 214-215) Remove 'using the neighbor-joining method in MEGA X software(Kumar et al. 2018).' I believe it is unnecessary to write this, as it is already described in the methodology.
Lines 217-225) I believe that this entire section should be incorporated into the methodology, particularly the codes and their sources, as I have mentioned previously. The authors may also describe the species found in the cladogram, but as it is currently written, it conveys the impression of methodology.
Line 232) Add 'a' between 'that high'
Line 233) Replace 'high transcript in S7 of flower' with 'a high transcript in S7 of the flower'
Line 234) What would S1 - S7 represent? These terms have only appeared here in the results section. I believe this should be included in the 'Materials and Methods' section; Replace 'at S7 stage' with 'at the S7 stage'
Line 235) 'Fig 3A': Please be mindful that from this point onward, all figure numbers in the text are out of sequence. For instance, in the upcoming sections, you reference Fig 3A and Fig 3B; however, in Figure 3, there are no designations of A and B. I suggest reviewing all the figures and their corresponding references throughout the text.
Line 241) The references are not following a standardized style. Please select one style and consistently apply it throughout.
Line 242: Replace 'The WoLFPSORT program' with 'the WoLFPSORT program'
Line 242-244) This section should have been included in the methodology (the initial part is already written there).
Line 246-247) It would be more appropriate to incorporate this excerpt into the 'Discussion' section.
Line 247) Replace 'previous report' with 'a previous report'; Replace 'results showed RrFPPS1' with 'results showed that RrFPPS1'
Line 252) For the section 'Functional characterization of the recombinant RrFPPS1', I recommend a rewrite, as this entire section appears to have been extracted from an already written abstract, with sentences indicating an introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion.
Line 265) For the section ' Expression analysis of RrFPPS genes in salt treatment', I suggest revising this paragraph. I believe that Figure 7 is relevant to this topic. If indeed, the first and second sentences of the Figure 7 caption could be incorporated here.
# Discussion #
Line 273) For the section 'Discussion', I believe there could be a more in-depth discussion regarding why RrFPPS clustered with the isoform 2 of RcFPPs.
Line 278) Replace 'revealed RrFPPS1' with 'revealed that RrFPPS1'
Line 279) Replace 'it is cytosolic proteins' with 'it is a cytosolic protein'
Line 280) 'RcFPPS2': What is the correct way to be written? As described in the results?
Line 282) Replace 'number of FPPSs have' with 'number of FPPSs that have'
Line 287) Replace 'role in determination' with 'role in the determination'
Line 293) Replace 'that RrFPPS1 share a close' with 'that RrFPPS1 shares a close'
Line 305) Replace 'active and play a' with 'active and plays a'
Line 311) Replace 'gene expression were' with 'gene expressions were'
Lines 311-313) In my opinion, this sentence appears to be disconnected from the current context of the text. I recommend either rephrasing it or relocating it within a different paragraph of the discussion.
Line 317) Replace 'manipulate the expression of' with 'manipulate the expression of the'
Lines 329-331) Is there any existing literature demonstrating that this has been proposed for another species? If so, please provide a discussion based on this to illustrate its potential validity for R. rugosa. I suggest, in a certain manner, bringing your objectives here in order to describe that they have been addressed.
Additional:
1) Please pay attention to the sections starting from 'Funding,' as I believe the font sizes may differ.
2) Please pay close attention to the final formatting of the references, as some of them have line breaks.
# Figures #
1) Black or dark blue? Red or Pink?; I suggest modifying the color of the domain regions' lines for enhanced visibility and improved contrast; What do these abbreviations stand for? Please include them in the text (in the 'Materials and Methods' section) as well as in the image caption.
2) MEGAX: Pay attention to the consistent spelling of program names, as some have been spelled differently throughout the text; For this figure, I have some questions and suggestions to be addressed: a) Where is A. thaliana mentioned in the text? It is not present in the image. b) Why are only isoforms 1 and 2 of R. chinensis and R. rugosa displayed? What about the other species? c) The text mentions the names of eight species, but why are other names appearing? If the mentioned names are significant, please explain why they were chosen. It may be more effective to begin with a broader discussion before addressing the specific species. d) Building on the previous point, if it's important, I suggest adding a star (or another symbol) next to those names in the image. e) I recommend discussing the significance of FPPS being present in R. rugosa as well to emphasize the relevance of the research. f) Consider marking the angiosperm and gymnosperm groups on the image. g) In the "Discussion" section, it would be more interesting to delve further into the issue of angiosperms and gymnosperms because, as suggested, the findings could contribute to the floriculture industry. What would be the impact of the contribution from these groups, given that gymnosperms do not have flowers, yet the results indicate an increased expression of FPPS in flowers?
3) What would the term 'digital' mean?; The floral stages are not clearly explained in the text. I suggest addressing this in the text (in the 'Materials and Methods' section).; In the text, you use 'Fig 3A' and 'Fig 3B,' but there is no such differentiation here. Please, be mindful of this.
4) Add 'obtain with RT-qPCR' after 'R. rugosa Zi Zhi'
5) Scientific names are always italicized.; 'GFP' (?); P355:GFP: Would this serve as your control? If so, please make that explicit.
The submitted manuscript demonstrates several strengths in alignment with the journal's Objectives and Scope. Firstly, the text falls within the scope of the journal's subject matter, meeting the primary criterion for publication. Additionally, the research in question addresses a well-defined, relevant, and substantial research question. It highlights the significance of the research for the floriculture industry and contributes to the understanding of FPPS in R. rugosa. The rigorous nature of the research is evident in its execution. The methods employed in the study adhere to high technical and ethical standards, reflecting a commendable level of scientific rigor. However, it is essential to note that the description of the methods provided in the manuscript could benefit from a more thorough review. While the methods are generally presented, enhancing their clarity and comprehensiveness would enhance the manuscript's overall quality. This would be particularly important for facilitating replication by fellow researchers. In summary, the submitted work aligns with the journal's Objectives and Scope, addresses a relevant research question, demonstrates rigorous research practices, but would benefit from a more detailed and comprehensive methodological description for replication purposes.
The research holds significance within its context. However, there is room for improvement in terms of data description. I believe that through a thorough rewriting and reorganization of the study, it can achieve a more cohesive conclusion.
Firstly, I would like to extend my congratulations on the work accomplished. I believe that some adjustments are needed to enhance the text for publication. I have provided feedback in the attached PDF document, including suggestions for both the text and the images. The suggestions in blue represent grammatical corrections, while those in red indicate areas that require closer attention. However, should you encounter difficulties in accessing the PDF, I have included all the suggestions in the 'Basic reporting' section here in PeerJ.
Please be mindful of the 'Supplementary Material' as the information is presented with varying font sizes and the scientific names are not formatted in italics. Additionally, please review the textual content, as some paragraphs do not adhere to the journal's guideline of justified text.
Your kind consideration of these comments would be greatly appreciated.
The manuscript titled under review offers insight into the search for farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FPPS) genes in R. rugosa. There are, however, a number of aspects where the paper could have been presented in a more organized and precise manner.
1. While the paper determines the existence of the RrFPPS genes and their expression patterns, the actual function of these genes within the plant is not robustly validated. The paper mentions their involvement in terpene biosynthesis but stops short of demonstrating how these genes directly influence this metabolic pathway beyond FPP production. Experiments like gene known down in the producer are necessary to understand the real involvement of FPPSs in terpene biosynthetic pathway.
2. The authors decided to focus on RrFPPS1 due to its high sequence similarity to a known gene from Rosa chinensis, but the manuscript is completely missing out on the potential significance of RrFPPS2, which also appears to have high sequence similarity, conserved domains key to FPPS structure and cytosolic localization. The expression id FPPS2 is higher than FPPS2 in both flower and leaf and also increases much more compared to FPPS1 under salt treatment. These observations are indicative of the important role of FRRS2, but there is no data or experiment based on FPPS2. This undermines the statement “These findings support the notion that RrFPPS1 is responsible for producing FPP in the cytosol, which is then used in the biosynthesis of FPP-derived compounds” where the role of FPPS2 is unknown. Claiming potential functional similarity based on sequence similarity is not valid.
3. Using the Arabidopsis FPPS protein as a BLASTP query is an established method. However, any inherent limitations of this technique or reasons for choosing this specific protein as a reference could have been briefly elaborated upon.
4. While the paper mentions sequence alignments and highly conserved regions of the RrFPPSs protein, and claims “Therefore, the conservation of these regions suggests that RrFPPS shares a similar mechanism of substrate binding and catalysis with other plant FPPS enzymes.” Is very premature. Validation of mechanism should come from biochemical experiments or at minimum from a structural similarity rather sequence similarity. A deeper discussion on any variations observed, or their potential implications would add more depth. Additionally, in the phylogenetic analysis, a more explicit distinction between angiosperms and gymnosperms and their relevance in the context of the study could be beneficial for the readers.
5. The tissue-specific expression patterns of RrFPPS in R. rugosa are well-documented. However, discussing the biological or ecological implications of these patterns, particularly the differences between RrFPPS1 and RrFPPS2, would make the findings more impactful.
6. The expression analysis of RrFPPS genes under salt treatment is intriguing. But to have a more comprehensive understanding of the plant's response mechanism, diving deeper into the biochemical or physiological pathways that might be influenced by this increased expression is necessary.
In summary, while the study on the identification of RrFPPS genes in the Rosa genome offers valuable information and demonstrates a commendable effort in understanding the terpene biosynthesis in R. rugosa, there remain aspects that could benefit from deeper exploration and validation. The potential implications of the findings, particularly concerning plant defense mechanisms and terpene biosynthesis, are exciting and warrant further investigation.
no comment
no comment
The overall paper is well-written. However, the figures need the following attention:
• For Figure 1, it would be more effective with a higher resolution.
• In Figure 3, while the scale bar is mentioned in the figure legend, it should explicitly be labeled as Log2 FRKM.
• Figure 5 lacks information concerning the light field.
• Figure 6 requires both x and y-axis labels.
The Experimental Design section is lucid and well-articulated. However, a few adjustments are needed:
• Ensure chemical formulas are correctly presented. For instance, in line 166, the formula should be MgCl₂ with the "2" subscripted. Similarly, in line 170, the formula for water should be represented as dH₂O with the "2" subscripted.
• For the GC-MS measurement description, ensure that the '-1' in 'min-1' is superscripted.
• In line 166, the notation "50% glycerol" is ambiguous. Please specify if this refers to volume percentage.
The paper effectively supports its arguments with evidence. However, I recommend a few minor adjustments:
• Regarding line 276, the reference to unpublished data raises a question: is it a preprint? If it is, please include it in the references.
• When addressing the expression analysis of RrFPPS genes under salt treatment, it's crucial to cite Figure 7 in the main text to prevent any confusion for the readers due to a lack of supportive data.
The study is a comprehensive and well-executed exploration of terpene biosynthesis in Rosa rugosa. The research successfully identified and characterized a key enzyme, Farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FPPS), particularly RrFPPS1, responsible for the synthesis of farnesyl diphosphate (FPP) in R. rugosa. The detailed molecular, biochemical, and bioinformatic analyses, including the phylogenetic analysis, subcellular localization, and functional characterization of RrFPPS1, provide valuable insights into its role in terpene biosynthesis. The findings related to the tissue-specific expression patterns and the response of RrFPPS1 to salt stress add depth to the study, highlighting the ecological significance of this gene. Furthermore, the potential for enhancing the fragrance, medicinal properties, and stress resilience in R. rugosa through overexpressing native FPPS genes is an exciting prospect for the floriculture industry. However, it is suggested that further research involving gene manipulation techniques, such as VIGS or CRISPR-Cas9, to specifically manipulate the expression of RrFPPS1 may be considered in future studies to enhance our understanding of this gene's precise functions. Overall, this study represents a valuable contribution to the field of terpene biosynthesis and has the potential to impact horticultural practices and the fragrance industry positively.
The experimental design is meticulously structured and effectively aligns with the study's objectives. The choice of Rosa rugosa 'Zi Zhi' as the plant material is well-justified, particularly given its relevance to the floriculture industry and essential oil production. The use of standard techniques for RNA extraction and gene expression analysis, alongside appropriate internal control genes, ensures reliable results. The inclusion of in-silico analysis and phylogenetic comparisons provides valuable insights into the evolutionary context of RrFPPS genes. The subcellular localization studies, which combine computational predictions and experimental verification, offer a robust foundation for understanding the cellular roles of RrFPPS proteins. Furthermore, the enzymatic assay and GC-MS analysis are pivotal in establishing the functionality of RrFPPS1 in FPP biosynthesis, a key element of terpene production. The study's exploration of the salt stress response adds an important ecological dimension to the research. Overall, the experimental design is comprehensive and well-structured, contributing significantly to our understanding of terpene biosynthesis in R. rugosa.
Validation of this study is supported by the robust combination of experimental techniques, ranging from molecular biology and bioinformatics to in vitro enzymatic assays, consistently corroborating the central role of RrFPPS1 in FPP biosynthesis. The inclusion of quantitative RT-qPCR, phylogenetic analysis, and subcellular localization experiments, complemented by the clear response of RrFPPS1 and RrFPPS2 to salt treatment, collectively validate the findings and the proposed role of RrFPPS1 in the context of terpene biosynthesis and environmental adaptation in Rosa rugosa.
Title:
The title is informative but lacks specificity. It would be beneficial to include a more focused aspect of the research, such as the specific objective or a key finding. Consider revising the title to provide a clearer indication of the study's scope.
Abstract:
The abstract is quite comprehensive but can be improved by providing specific details about the methods used in the study. It should briefly mention the techniques employed for molecular cloning, characterization, and expression analysis. While the abstract mentions the significance of the findings, it could be more explicit in highlighting the practical implications of the research for the floriculture and fragrance industries. Explain how the results could potentially lead to practical applications or improvements.
Introduction:
- The introduction should provide a clear rationale for why studying Farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FPPS) in Rosa rugosa is important. Explain how this research addresses a gap in knowledge or contributes to the field of plant terpenoid biosynthesis.
- The introduction mentions various plant species where FPPS has been studied, but it lacks a direct connection to the research's focus on Rosa rugosa. Try to establish a more direct link between previous research and the specific objectives of your study.
- The objectives of the study are mentioned but could be stated more explicitly and concisely. Clearly outline the goals of the research in a separate section.
Materials & Methods:
- Mention the date when the plant materials were collected. This information is essential for readers to understand the timing of the experiment.
- Specify the plant tissues or organs collected for RNA extraction and the rationale behind selecting these tissues. Explain how these tissues relate to the objectives of the study.
- Describe the parameters and conditions used for gene expression analysis, including RT-qPCR cycling conditions. Ensure that the primer sequences mentioned in the Introduction are presented in this section.
- Mention the specific statistical tests or software used for the analysis of gene expression data and provide relevant references for these methods.
- Include more information about the databases, parameters, and thresholds used for sequence homology and domain prediction. Explain the significance of Pfam and the Conserved Domain Database for your analysis.
- Specify the reason for choosing Nicotiana benthamiana as the model organism for subcellular localization. Provide details about the control used for comparison with the RrFPPS localization.
- In the section on quantifying transcript levels for salt treatment, describe the plant growth conditions and the specific treatments in more detail. Explain the significance of the 1-hour NaCl treatment in relation to the study's objectives.
Results and Discussion:
- The mention of conserved regions (FARM and SARM) is informative. However, it would be beneficial to provide a brief explanation of their biological importance and their relevance to enzyme function. In the phylogenetic analysis, a brief interpretation of the evolutionary relationships revealed by the tree would be helpful.
Grammatical errors:
- "To investigate terpene biosynthesis in R. rugosa, particularly FPPS-derived terpene biosynthesis..."
Suggestion: Consider rephrasing for clarity: "To investigate terpene biosynthesis in R. rugosa, especially terpenes derived from FPPS..."
- "The analysis revealed two potential FPPS (Rru05G067530 and Rru05G000330) that appeared to be full length, then they were designated as RrFPPS1 and RrFPPS2."
Suggestion: Combine the sentences for better flow: "The analysis revealed two potential full-length FPPS genes, designated as RrFPPS1 and RrFPPS2 (Rru05G067530 and Rru05G000330)."
- "The full-length cDNA sequence of RrFPPS1 was 1153 bp, including an 82 bp 5’-untranslated region and a 42 bp 3’-untranslated region."
Suggestion: Make it clearer by adding "measuring" or similar: "The full-length cDNA sequence of RrFPPS1 measured 1153 bp, including an 82 bp 5’-untranslated region and a 42 bp 3’-untranslated region."
- "The subcellular localization results showed RrFPPS1 was found to localize in the cytosol."
Suggestion: Use a more active voice: "The subcellular localization results indicate that RrFPPS1 is localized in the cytosol."
- "The gene identification and characterization are well-executed, providing a solid foundation for the study."
Suggestion: Consider adding a conjunction (e.g., "and") for better sentence structure: "The gene identification and characterization are well-executed and provide a solid foundation for the study."
- "In the context of roses, sesquiterpenes have been traditionally used as flavors and fragrances and possess various biological properties..."
Suggestion: Add a conjunction or punctuation for clarity: "In the context of roses, sesquiterpenes have been traditionally used as flavors and fragrances, and they possess various biological properties..."
I have attached a track change file for minor typo errors. Please pay special attention to italicizing scientific names and names of genes.
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.
Excellent Review