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.
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript has improved after the last revision and can be accepted for publication.
Congratulations on accepting your manuscript, and thank you for your interest in submitting your work to PeerJ.
With Thanks
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I would like to thank the authors for their careful handling of all the raised comments/suggestions.
I believe that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.
Dear Authors
The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. It needs a major revision before publication. The authors are invited to revise the paper, considering all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Please note that the requested changes are required for publication.
With Thanks
**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.
1. I believe that the first paragraph of the introduction (L. 48-60) has no relation to the objectives of the study and might be removed.
2. It is significantly important to add a paragraph to the introduction section showing the novelty of the performed experiment and how the applied methods were different from those mentioned in the previous study published on the same genes by Wang et al. 2018 (the authors already mentioned that their study is based on Wang’s study). In other words, what is the differences in the applied methods that allowed the authors to identify the new genes that weren’t identified by Wang et al. 2018.
3. Please move the definition of SUMOylation (L.74-75) to the beginning of the paragraph to facilitate understanding for the readers with no background on this topic.
4. L. 118: Please mention the IDs of the three wheat SUMO genes that were obtained from Ensembl Plants database.
5. L. 130: “Further validation of the identified TaSUMO family members was conducted using the InterPro website (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/, accessed on 19 January 2022) by submitting the predicted protein sequences.” What do the authors mean by “predicted protein sequences”? The results of this analysis were not shown nor discussed in the article?
6. L. 141: Please avoid repeating the same location. I believe that mentioning “the Plant Production Department, KSU” would be enough.
7. L. 188-190: Please mention the model used generate the phylogenetic tree.
8. L. 231: The authors mentioned that the primers were designed based on the sequences of the four potential SUMO genes identified in their study; however, in the supplementary table S1 are shown to be obtained from previously published articles. Which one is correct?
9. L. 258-259: “indicating that TaSUMO4-7 are evolutionarily conserved SUMO family members”. I think that the results presented in the study don’t support this conclusion. The phylogenetic tree (figure 3a) shows only one well-supported clade encompassing genes identified in Triticum aestivum, Sorghum bicolor, Brachypodium distachyon, and Oryza sativa which are all monocots. Moreover, the amino acid sequence alignment shows few conserved amino acids across those proteins. It might be helpful to show the conserved amino acids in the figure.
10. L. 307-309: What kind of statistical analysis was performed? Please explain in the methods section.
11. The quality of Figure 6B should be improved.
Conclusions
12. Please add some information about the potential drawbacks of the study and the future work based on the obtained results.
General comments
13. Figure 5 was not mentioned in the whole manuscript.
14. Supplementary figure and tables have no headers (the headers are only on the submission system).
See my comments on the attached letter
See my comments on the attached letter
See my comments on the attached letter
See my comments on the attached letter
The writing is clear and unambiguous.
The literature reference has been covered satisfactorily.
The raw data is shared
Comments:
In line 360, the authors claim, “These findings are the first reports on SUMO genes in the wheat genome.” However, TaSUMO1-3 have already been identified. The authors should revise this statement to reflect the novelty of their findings accurately.
Experimental design in clear and precise.
Comments:
• The identification of four new SUMO genes is significant. However, it would strengthen the study if the authors demonstrated the conjugation ability of these SUMO proteins using techniques such as an in vitro SUMOylation assay.
• It would further support the study if the authors could give an insight on the conservation of these genes across different wheat varieties and other related plant species.
• In Figure 1, the panels are labelled as a, b, a, b and c. It would be nice if they could name the different panels with different alphabets.
• In Figure 7, the authors present the nuclear localization of TaSUMO4-7. Including a nuclear marker would enhance the clarity of localization. Additionally, a negative control should be included to distinguish specific signals from background fluorescence, thereby strengthening the validity of the data.
• In Figure 9, the authors use GFP:SCE1a. However, they do not specify whether SCE1a is from wheat or another plant system. Given that SCE1a is not well-characterized in wheat, how can the authors be certain that the SCE1a used in this study functions as expected? Clarifying this point would improve the study’s credibility.
Conclusions are well stated.
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.