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.
Congratulations! Your manuscript is accepted!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Manuscript is refined in a good manner after revision and fit for publication from my end.
The experimental designs are well written with proper cited refrence.
Study conclusion meet up the requirement of original research problem.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The author has revised the problems according to the review's comments.
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. Please address the comments of all three reviewers and revise the manuscript.
1. Clear and unambiguous English used throughout the manuscript.
2. Literature references are adequate which provided sufficient information about the manyscript context but in discussion part of the results there is a lag of recent references to claim the hypothesis if possible Authors can add some more recent information in the discussion part.
3. Figures, Tables and Raw data are adequate with the given manuscript.
Research design and methodology fit adequately according to the hypothesis testing and all the ethical standards measures have been taken care of. Material and Methodologies have been described with sufficient information.
Authors claims of DE mRNA s determining the difference salinity stress level has been well established the expression of gene. All underlying data have been provided and conclusion are well stated.
Overall manuscript is well written and the results are well established with the testing hypothesis. Discussion part is well accompany with the output results. I think manuscript is well suited for the publication with the minor addition of some recent references.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
This article analyzed the RNA-seq data of salinity-tolerant and salinity-sensitive alfalfa to identify some mRNA and lncRNA associated with salinity tolerance. I think the results are interesting and the study is well organized. However, there are some issues need to be revised as below.
1. Please clarify the specific variety of GN5 and GN3.
2. The article “Medina CA, Samac DA, Yu LX. Pan-transcriptome identifying master genes and regulation network in response to drought and salt stresses in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 26;11(1):17203.” also identified some mRNA and lncRNA in response to high salinity in alfalfa. Compare to this article, what is the novelty of your study?
Alfalfa, as a kind of perennial forage crop showing high quality and productivity, is distributed wildly in the world and shows moderate salinity resistance. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have crucial functions in regulating post-transcriptional translation and transcription levels of genes. This study conducted comparative transcriptomic analysis for identifying differentially expressed lncRNAs and mRNAs within roots in the two varieties (salinity-tolerant and salinity-sensitive) after NaCl treatments. The aim is to explore the molecular mechanism for salinity stress responses of alfalfa.
There is a problem need to be revised as follow:
1 Line 87-88, ‘The present work conducted comparative transcriptomic analysis for identifying differentially expressed (DE) lncRNAs and mRNAs within roots’, but on information about mRNAs described in the Introduction.
No comment.
No comments.
There are some problems need to be revised as follow:
1 Line 89, the description of GN5 (salinity-tolerant) and GN3 (GN3, salinity-sensitive) is not easy to understand.
2 Line 95, ‘Two alfalfa varieties, GN5 (salinity tolerance) and GN3 (salinity sensitive)’ used in this study should be given the real variety name other than the code.
3 Line 134, ‘Summary of raw sequence date’, date should be revised to data.
4 Figure 1, the writing of lincRNA is wrong in the legend, and revised to lncRNA.
5 Line 361 or 586, ‘cultivars’ or Line 95 ‘varieties’ should be selected an used in the manu.
67 Some tables number such as table 1 in line 647 and table 2 in line 648 should be changed.
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.