Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 28th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 16th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 6th, 2017 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 13th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript!

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

Authors addressed all questions raised by this reviewer and others. This manuscript is suitable for publication in PeerJ.

Experimental design

More detailed qPCR methodologies were added.

Validity of the findings

Fine

Comments for the author

All questions were properly addressed. Thank you for your effort to improve the manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Overall the reviews were very positive. Some small amendments have been suggested. Please, note the annotated manuscript in the attachment.

·

Basic reporting

This was one of the easiest manuscripts I have had to review in recent memory. Very straightforward, well clearly written, rigorously conducted.

Experimental design

Everything appears to be very solid to me and all requirements are met.

Validity of the findings

Discussion and conclusion are concise and to the point, clear and well supported by the data.

Comments for the author

This is a very good paper. I have nothing substantial to recommend in terms of changes. I would only suggest the authors briefly discuss the meaning of the accumulation of aglycones in ground tissue in relation to what happens when the insect chews the needles (a passive but perhaps significant response to feeding). Constitutive levels are important, but so are those related to mechanical damage.

I caught a few typos which I noted in the attached PDF.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comments

Experimental design

no comments

Validity of the findings

no comments

Comments for the author

The manuscript shows very interesting findings and deserve to be published

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

This is a good follow-up report of Delvas et (2011) and Mageroy et al (2015) to show the impact of overexpressing beta-glucosidase gene in spruce cultivar that does not accumulate aglycons. The objective of the project is clearly stated in the introduction, and transformation of spruce was performed to achieve the objective. As spruce transformation is not trivial, this paper includes substantial amount of work. Obviously, this work can be more complete and significant if the possible defensive phenotype of the transgenic spruce is tested with ESBW, but such ecological data is beyond the scope of this work I guess. Confirmatory data of the transgenic spruce using qPCR and LC-MS analyses were solid, and authors delivered well that the multiple spruce lines were transformed. Although authors acquired negative data at the beginning, but they meticulously pursue the changes in chemical phenotype in the second year to show the transgenic spruces uniquely synthesize aglycons.

Although speculative, authors provide explanations as to why the aglycons could be only detected in newly growing shoot tissue after dormancy. More work is necessary to understand better about the physiology of perennial plant.

Overall, it is a concise and well-written article that includes new data in tree biology.

Experimental design

Research question is well defined a the beginning, and following experiments were very focused to address the questions. However, I have two minor comments

The qPCR data in 3A is based in delta-delta Ct value, and its methodology was given in the method. However, sufficient method was not given for the qPCR-data in Figure 2. The Y-axis seems to indicate absolute abundance of the transcript number; however, it is not clear how authors obtained such data. More methodological information is required.

Figure 1 legend and respective text - "...appeared healthier and tall" read very subjective and non-scientific. Can authors define "healthier and tall" in a more objective manner.

Validity of the findings

Ranges of the data variations can be provided for Figure 3b. Error bars can be shown, but if the presentation of the error bars may complicate the figure presentation, authors simply state a sentence such as that "for all samples, less than xx% STD or SE was calculated".

Comments for the author

Structures for isopungenin, pungenin, picein, and piceol can be given in Figure 3 or in a separate Figure (possibly Figure 1), together with the catalytic function of the enzyme in the figure.

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.