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 carefully revised the manuscript and incorporated all the suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the final concerns raised by Reviewer 2.
I have thoroughly rechecked the revised manuscript and now, the revisions as suggested including language editing have been satisfactorily done by the authors which is highly appreciated.
Already reviewed and found well designed and performed.
Impact and novelty well described. All underlying data have been supplied by the authors in a well way.
Not necessarily needed.
The authors have suitably incorporated my comments. The manuscript has improved significantly compared to before. However, the authors still need to address a few comments listed below.
Still figure resolutions are not good even in the submission system. Figures 4-7 are not clear. Change it with a good resolution.
In conclusion, the authors only provided only the main research results and findings without discussing future perspectives or hypotheses. Please add future perspectives or hypotheses in the conclusion section.
Refer basic report
Refer basic report
Refer basic report
The manuscript has been adequately revised by the authors, and I am satisfied with the current version.
OK
OK
Authors are advised to revise the manuscript as per reviewers suggestions.
This study reported: “Identification of common and specific cold resistance pathways from cold tolerant and non-cold tolerant mango varieties which is novel. The use of clear, unambiguous, and professional English language is lacking in various sections which needs language editing. The introduction and background sections provide necessary context, and the literature is thoroughly referenced and relevant to the topic. The structure of the study adheres to the standards set by PeerJ and aligns with the norms of the respective discipline. The figures presented in the study are highly relevant, of high quality, and effectively labeled and described. Additionally, supplementary data has been provided. Annotated file has been provided for revisions.
Original primary research falls within the scope of the journal. The research question is clearly defined, relevant, and meaningful. The study explicitly addresses how it fills a recognized gap in knowledge. A thorough investigation is conducted to adhere to rigorous technical and ethical standards. The methods employed are adequately described, providing enough detail and information to enable replication. However, some methods lack proper citations which are indicated in the annotated file.
Assessment of impact and novelty was conducted. The rationale and benefit to the existing literature are clearly explained. All the underlying data have been provided and they are reliable, statistically sound, and controlled. The conclusions are clearly expressed, connected to the original research question, and limited to supporting the results. Limitations have not been discussed by the authors and satisfactory suggestions for further research need to be included.
The sections need English language editing. Proper revisions are suggested.
Refer additional comments
Refer additional comments
Refer additional comments
The authors have studied and identified the common and unique cold resistance pathways from cold tolerant and non-cold tolerant mango varieties such as Jinhuang (JH; cold tolerant), Tainong (TN; non-cold tolerant) through various experiments. In addition, authors revealed that transcriptomics investigation identified differentially expressed genes in JH and TN mango varieties, with two primary cold resistant regulation pathways and five specific pathways identified in JH mango. The reviewer appreciates the effort of the authors to prove their hypothesis using a series of experiments. However, the reviewer has a few major and minor comments regarding this study. Thus, the authors need to consider the following comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Objective and methodological points are not clear in the abstract.
Lines 35-40: The message is not clear and seems to have syntax error. Rephrase and split it.
Please refer to some recent Mango review papers related to stress and incorporate it into the manuscript introduction and discussion section.
Language editing is more required throughout the manuscript.
Introduction last paragraph information should be modified.
Add appropriate references to the Materials and methods section.
Description of qRT-PCR protocol should be better explained indicating the key information regarding number of biological and technical replications.
Provide separate statistical analysis section in the Materials and methods section.
Please describe more about in the qRT-PCR section in the materials and method section. What is RNA concentration? How much concentration was used for cDNA conversion for qRT-PCR. Cite the appropriate reference.
Line 158: Check the punctuation.
Lines 275-289: Why have authors mentioned ‘KEGG’ along with pathway terms? Eg. thiamine metabolism ‘KEGG’. I think that is not necessary. Check it.
The discussion section looks shallow. It needs to be more discussed with appropriate references.
Please do NCBI-BLAST analysis for primer sequence and mention the accession number and percentage of identity in Table 1.
Figures 4-7 are not clear. Change it with a good resolution.
Please fix the manuscript's grammar, space, punctuation, and formatting errors.
In conclusion, write a few lines about future perspectives or hypotheses about the study.
The present study describes biochemical and molecular responses in cold tolerant and non-cold tolerant varieties of Mango to cold treatment. The study provides some useful insights into the common pathways involved in the cold response in the two varieties as well as specific pathways in a particular variety. The results of manuscript are interesting. However, there are certain points of concerns, which are required to be addressed by authors.
1. Authors should include pictures of leaves showing necrosis and rotting symptoms following the cold stress treatment.
2. The authors have carried out comparison between the same genotypes i.e JH to JH and TN to TN. It would have interesting to study the comparative transcriptome between the two genotypes i.e JH vs TN.
3. The English language needs to be thoroughly edited. At certain place, as detailed under, I have tried to correct the sentence. The authors should revise these sentences accordingly.
Line 86: “Studies have been shown” >>>> Studies have shown
Line 91: subjected to dehydrated >>>>>>> subjected to dehydration
Line 125: These seedlings were being added 50 mL of>>> correct the sentence
Line 275-276: “when two varieties treated at low temperature longer”>>>> “when two varieties were treated at low temperature for longer duration”
Line 307-308: “Then, the important DEGs and signaling pathways 308 were found by high-throughput transcriptomics”>>>>>>>> Then, the important DEGs and signaling pathways 308 could be identified by high-throughput transcriptomics
Line 310-311: “The results showed that a cold tolerant mango variety JH and a cold sensitive mango variety TN were selected”>>>>> “Based on the results, a cold tolerant mango variety JH and a cold sensitive mango variety TN were selected.”
Line 319: “when putback in RT for 3-5 day”>>>>>>”when transferred back to RT for 3-5 days”
Line 319: “leaf rot occurred when place in RT more time”>>>>>> leaf rot occurred when placed in RT for longer duration
Line 320-321: “However, SOD and POD activities in vivo were real-time changed to varying degrees at 36 and 72 hrs after treatment at 4”. ..>>>>>>>>> “However, SOD and POD activities displayed real-time changes to varying degrees at 36 and 72 hrs after treatment at 4”
Line 321-323: This sentence is confusing, and needs to be rewritten for clarity.
Line 329-331: As a cell membrane protective enzyme, SOD plays a role when the temperature changes, and too high or too low temperature will affect the membrane 331 system, resulting in the destruction of proteins and DNA in the cell>>>>>> “Extremes of temperatures can lead to cell damage . In this regard, SOD functions as protective enzyme during changes in temperature.”
Line 356-358: “Studies have shown that Rhododendron plants were treated at low temperatures and the photosynthesis-antenna proteins and photosynthesis pathways were activated (Liu et al., 2020).”>>>>>>>>Similar to these results, low temperature treatment was found to activate photosynthesis-antenna proteins and photosynthesis pathways in Rhododendron (Liu et al., 2020).
Experimental design is fine.
The authors have validated their finding through qRT-PCR.
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.