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.
Thanks for addressing all the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have improved the manuscript. I don't have any further comments, and I recommend to accept the manuscript for publication.
Please consider all the reviewer's suggestions and prepare a revised version along with a rebuttal letter.
**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.
The writing and use of English are clear and unambiguous. The cited literature is appropriate for the field of study concerning TPS enzymes. Tables, figures, and supplementary materials are available, and the raw data are consistent with those presented in the manuscript. However, some figures should be edited for ease of understanding as Figure S2:
*Please include the axis labels for the graphs shown in Figure S2. For example, does the X-axis correspond to time or retention volume?
*Supplementary Table 1 listed in lines 281 and 287, must be Supplementary Table S2
In general, all the methods are clearly described and provide the necessary information for comparison and, if necessary, replication. I only have one comment in the section on Crystallization and Optimization of TPS crystals:
* Line 286, Please indicate the exact temperature for incubating the crystallization plates.
* Lines 482-486..The optimal crystallization condition selected based on the CsTPS crystal size and shape parameters was condition 16. You mention that this condition was optimized, considering several variables (precipitating agent, etc.). Please show the results of the crystallization optimization.
*Lines. 548-560...The discussion regarding the structural adaptation and comparison of CsTPS with other TPSs needs more information related to the structural component of this type of enzymes. I suggest you improve the description in this section to justify the discussion regarding the possible relationship between the Michaelis-Menten constants and the structural adaptations of CsTPS.
* Lines 562-576...The selection criteria for the best CsTPS crystallization conditions were based on crystal size and shape. However, I suggest that these crystals should be subjected to X-ray diffraction experiments to gain more information about their quality (diffraction pattern) and if they are suitable for TPS structural analysis.
no comment
no comment
Why were different cultivars of C. sativa considered?
no comment
no comment
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.