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.
All issues pointed out by the reviewers were addressed and the revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have the revised The manuscript properly, and now it can be accepted.
Well-structured and defined
The findings are valid
Non
Many thanks for the revisions to your manuscript. The authors have made efforts to improve the manuscript. The authors have now included supplementary data in the Data Availability Statement section as requested. The revised version has been greatly enhanced.
The research question is well defined, with the main objective of this study being to validate the direct interaction between TFs and the LDOX promoter.
This research's findings indicate that MYB1R1 interacts with the LDOX promoter, and the qRT-PCR data reveal inverse expression levels of MYB1R1 and LDOX between variegated and red petals. The findings align with the research hypothesis and are supported by the data presented.
I have only one remark for the revised version:
Please provide the accession number/GenBank of genes listed in Table 1, based on which the primer sequences were designed.
Please address the concerns of all reviewers and revise the manuscript accordingly.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
attached
-
-
-
-
-
I have reviewed the article entitled” Screening of transcription factors interaction with LDOX promoter to regulate the anthocyanin biosynthesis in peach,”. The work seems interesting.
1. The title should be revised.
2. The gene's name should be italicized.
3. Lines No 37-38 should be specific and in line with the current study
4. It is better to improve the language
5. The introduction section should be polished, concise, specific, and revised.
6. Avoid repetition in the Materials and Methods section.
7. In the result section, please precisely and logically explain figures, etc.
8. The discussion section should be in-depth and logically explained.
9. For further details, please have a look at the revised MS article file.
The authors’ study falls within the scope of the PeerJ. The work has identified 1190 proteins, and among them, MYB1R1 TF was found interacting with the LDOX promoter via Y1H assay. MYB1R1 protein was further characterized. The thesis is well prepared and clearly written. The results obtained use appropriate analytical methods.
Use appropriate analytical methods.
-
I have a few comments are need to be addressed in the revised version.
1. The study speculated that MYB1R1 interacts with LDOX to negatively regulate the synthesis of anthocyanins. According to the expression analysis of the MYB1R1 gene via qRT-PCR (Fig. 10), the expression levels of these two genes were opposite, with the expression level of LDOX being lower in striped petals than in red petals. In contrast, the expression level of MYB1R1 was higher in striped petals than in red petals. To strengthen this speculation, the authors should extend the expression analysis of other genes involved in regulating coloration patterns, such as structural genes in the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway (e.g., PAL, CHS, CHI, F3H, DFR, ANS, UFGT, etc).
2. Fig. 2: Please label notation (A, B, C) as mentioned in its legend for each sub-figure (panel).
3. Fig. 3: It would be better if the authors labeled notation (A, B, C) for the three group vectors [pHIS2-LDOX-1+pGADT7-PRUPE_5G182000; pHIS2-LDOX-1+pGADT7-PRUPE_1G430000; and pHIS2-LDOX-1+pGADT7-PRUPE_6G229000], respectively. This would make the figure more easily observed and tracked between the text and figure data since this figure includes many sub-figures. In addition, please note that the authors presented in this figure’s legend with characters/symbols as “(+), (-)”, denoted for “pHIS2-P53+pGAD53m as positive control” and “pHIS2-LDOX-1+pGADT7, as negative control”. However, no legend notation of characters/symbols [“(+), (-)”] was labeled in Fig. 3.
4. Revise “PLDDT” (L316, 319) to “pLDDT
5. Note that the manuscript includes supplementary data; therefore, please include these data in the Data Availability Statement section.
Best regards,
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.