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.
Your revised version of the manuscript is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jun Chen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I appreciate the authors' effort in revising the manuscript satisfactorily.
I appreciate the authors' effort in revising the manuscript satisfactorily.
I appreciate the authors' effort in revising the manuscript satisfactorily.
I appreciate the authors' effort in revising the manuscript satisfactorily. The current version is suitable for publication in PeerJ.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
No comment
yes
yes
yes
yes
Please revise your manuscript according to the comments from the reviewers.
Reviewer 2 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is clear, unambiguous, and technically correct. The introduction, background issues, and references cited are sufficiently reported. The article structure is acceptable. Raw data have been checked, and they are consistent. The figure's resolution is not good, and all the figure's resolution MUST be improved.
Well-designed. Methods are consistent and well described.
No comments.
- The resolution of all the figures is terrible. The authors must improve the resolution.
- Figure S2 is not cited in the manuscript.
- A fluent speaker should proofread the manuscript. Please see some suggested English and punctuation corrections in the attached file.
- In the abstract, there is a lack of cis-acting element prediction results. The abstract does not provide a good outline for the study.
- What is the limitation of this study? What can be further done to confirm the functions of (CYP450) gene family can be discussed.
- How was the heat map constructed?
- Arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.
- All gene names must be in italics.
- All the scientific names in the references must be in italics.
Literature references, and sufficient field background/context provided.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
The research question is well-defined, relevant & meaningful.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
No comment
Recommendations:
The manuscript entitled as “Genome-wide identification of the CYP82 gene family in cucumber and functional characterization of CYP82D102 in regulating resistance to powdery mildew” can be accepted after substantial changes. It is good work but it needs few additional points.
The subject of the study is very interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance. The data presented are of more than national interest.
Title is good.
The abstract section is very hard to understand so please carefully revise it with the following information; background information, aim, objectives, methodology, objectives, results and conclusion information. The author should mention the most prominent results in % in abstract.
Kindly use the scientific name of the cucumber throughout the manuscript.
Arrange the keywords alphabetically and start new word with small letter.
The introduction articulated very well but it needs a little bit improvement, for instance the CYP82 gene family should be introduced better and a clear working hypothesis should be introduced. Some of following literature should be consulted and cited in introduction and discussion section.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48947-z
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-023-04647-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132955
Why CYP82 gene family and CYP82D102 was chosen?
The authors should elaborate the Materials and Methods part more in detail.
Authors estimated the genes expression via qRT-PCR. But I have seen no figure of gene amplification in the manuscript. Authors must add a raw gel/blot image of gene amplification with proper PCR protocol and conditions before qRT-PCR.
Mention the specs of qRT-PCR instruments.
The qRT-PCR protocol needs to be elaborate well.
The protocol is too descriptive, especially for qPCR. How the author checks the specificity/efficiency of primers? Which kind of solution mixture was used for qPCR? I suggest including the details of the methodology of respective assays.
Tables and figures should be clear. I would recommend avoiding abbreviations in titles or add abbreviations meaning in figure legends. Tables should be arranged on portrait page. Figures and tables should be understood without reference to the text. Therefore, all necessary information should be included in the table/figure itself or the corresponding legend, for example, the definition of all abbreviations or a brief description of the treatments and the statistical analysis. Legends of figures and tables in the manuscript should be extended accordingly.
Discussion is good enough to support the results.
The list of references should be carefully checked and corrected. Some references do not seem to correspond to the text where they are cited and appear to have been randomly selected.
Please add some comprehensive conclusions in the end. It looks like a general description. It should be more concise and attractive. Also add some future recommendations.
Please solve all the abbreviations, even if it is evident and then apply them consequently, please check all the text.
Revise italics throughout the manuscript
English should be improved. The manuscript requires a thorough proofread by a person who is fluent in English.
it is all ok!
it is all ok!
it is all ok!
The research content of this paper is substantial, the analysis is proper, and the logic is clear. At the same time, the transgenic experiment of cucumber is also carried out and the preliminary experimental results are obtained. It is a good paper, and it is recommended to accept it directly after minor revision. The comments are as follows:
1. The pixel of the picture, as shown in Figure 1, needs to be increased.
2. The legend in Figure 2 can be more detailed.
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.