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 current version is satisfactory and ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for incorporating the suggestions. However I found a grammar error in the title. I would suggest the title as "Identifying a cis-element in PtoCP1 promoter for efficiently controlling constitutive gene expression in Populus tomentosa".
Please also include a conclusion section at the end.
I still see few of the same errors. In the rebuttal letter you say 'Nicotiana benthamiana' but in manuscript it is 'Nicotiana tabacum'. Please clarify. All scientific names e.g. Agrobacterium (Line 93 and 212) and Picrorhiza (Line 51) Nicotiana should be in italic font.
Thanks for revising the manuscript. However, There are still a few errors. e.g Please italicize all scientific names of Populus, Picrorhiza, Agrobacterium etc throughput the manuscript including abstract. which tobacco species was used for transient assay? was it Nicotiana benthamiana? If yes, please specify.
The manuscript was reviewed by four independent experts in the field. All the reviewers found the work interesting but raised several issues which should be addressed in the revision. The reviewers provide detailed comments in their reviews and point out the areas where the manuscript needs to be improved.
After careful evaluation of submitted article entitled “Identifying a cis-element in PtoCP1 promoter to controls efficient constitutive gene expression in Populus tomentosa”, I found this study to be designed well and performed-well. I also noticed the article's presentation and writing style are significantly good. Therefore, I have no comments and would like to recommend this article for publication with minor grammar correction.
All experiments are well designed and performed.
All data are validated.
No additional comments.
1. Introduction (Line 66-68): The authors mention that their study provides an understanding of the function of the cysteine proteases. The results shed light on the promoter element, but the experiments and results do not align with the above statement and overplay the results. Make changes accordingly.
1. The authors perform several deletions in the promoter region to understand the role of the regions/elements. The first deletion is -2270 to -942 (1328 bp); -942 to -466 (476 bp); -466 to -441 (25 bp) and -441 to -112 (329 bp). The authors should explain their choice of making the third deletion small; just 25 bp as compared to others, and whether any prior bioinformatics; as mentioned in the method section; or literature knowledge is available to support that.
2. Line 119: Could the author explain the deduction “at least two elements in ABC determines gene expression” since the experiments used all three elements (35S:ABC) or 35S:AAA/BBB/CCC. There is no test for AB/AC/BC
3. Line 100: the word should be lighter instead of “P2 became brighter”
4. Line 226: replace “selected” with used
1. The discussion parts need to be more precise. Reference to studies that identify various promoter elements seems unnecessary.
1. Line 230: The authors should mention the company's name to acknowledge their service.
The science presented is interesting and important but the paper is not well-written. It lacks a clear structure and assumes a high level of background knowledge from the reader. The information flow from broad to specific is missing, making it difficult to follow the rationale behind the study. This is particularly true in introduction and discussion sections. For example, the Chinese white poplar tree is introduced in line 61, but it would be more appropriate to mention this earlier to provide context for the research.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Identifying a cis-element in PtoCP1 promoter to controls efficient constitutive gene expression in Populus tomentosa (#99158)
Spelling mistakes were observed like drivern in place of driven.
“in close 111 proximity between the P2 and P3” change to “ were in close proximity between the P2 and P3”
Since this seems to be a short research article, the results must have all the description of the figures with highlights of important cis elements and their functions
The transgenic results must be explained in more interesting manner
Rest check for some typographical errors and formatting errors
The abbreviations used at first mention must be elaborated in full.
OK
Ok
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.