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.
Thank you very much for your response to the reviewers' comments and for the careful revision of the manuscript. I agree with your decision to keep "Survey Methodology" section in the manuscript.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeff Ross-Ibarra, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
Based on the unanimous opinion of 3 reviewers and my own reading, it is clear that you are presenting an interesting and important review, which is generally well-written, is of broad interest, and will be a useful addition to the field.
Some minor issues are raised by two reviewers and obviously they need to be addressed. Please pay close attention to the reviewer #3 request to provide a clear description of different techniques you are discussing in your article. Probably, a good idea would be to have a special section, in which various techniques are introduced and their strengths and weaknesses are discussed.
1. Line 30, can rephrase to "suggests what researchers should focus on in future studies".
2. Line 45, "are taken up" to "take up" or "absorb".
3. Line 46, "are" to "is"; "compound" to "compounds".
4. Line 56, delete the 2nd "is"; Line 57, delete the "is".
5. Line 64-66, references are needed here.
6. Line 81-87, the Survey Methodology section is not needed.
7. Line 115-116, the sentence "Transcription factors directly change the expression level of many genes" is unclear.
8. Line 127-132, the SDS PAGE principle is not necessary; it is just a basic analytic technique.
9. Line 161, for a literature review, "seems that" sounds unsure, can be rephrased to it is proposed that.
10. Line 165, the 1st sentence can be deleted.
11. Line 199-200 can be deleted. The basic molecular biology concept is not necessary here.
12. Line 211-212, the sentence is unclear.
13. Line 220, "less" than what?
14. Line 221, "undergoes" to "undergo".
15. Line 227, "post-translational" to "post-transcriptional".
16. Line 254-255, this sentence is not needed.
17. Line 272-278, references are needed.
18. Line 294, "future" to "subsequent".
19. Line 310-312, this sentence is unclear. a number of or the number of?
20. Line 322, what "these protein" represents? (Sub-group A was mentioned).
21. Line 338, "membranous" to "membrane".
no comment
no comment
English is clear and professional.
Experiment design looks good and research is under scope of the journal
Experiments are well designed.
i recommend acceptance of the article for publication.
In this review, the authors focused on studies of the molecular response of canola to salinity to unravel the different pieces of the salt response puzzle. The paper includes a comprehensive review of the latest studies, particularly of proteomic and transcriptomic analysis, which will be helpful for understanding the mechanisms of salt tolerance and cultivating the salt tolerant canola varieties. However, this manuscript still has some content need to be modified or explanted.
The experimental design is reasonable。
no comment
1. Line 468-470: the authors introduced that the report examines the results of proteomic, transcriptomic, genetic engineering, QTL mapping, and genetic studies to put together current understanding of canola salt response. However, there is no description of QTL mapping in the text, and there is less explanation in transcriptome. Could you please make an explanation?
2. line 479-486: in this paragraph, the author introduced many methods, and told us that the progress of these methods will remarkably help to elucidate the unknown or less-known aspects, whether the author can explain in detail how they can be applied in future studies.
3. In the paragraph of ‘Dynamic Changes of Canola Transcriptome and Proteome. This section describes the transcriptome dynamic change rarely, only discussed in proteomics level. Could you please add some content about dynamic changes of canola transcriptome?
4. line142 ‘root and leaves’ was changed to ‘roots and leaves’.
5. line250 ‘root and leaves’ was changed to ‘roots and leaves’.
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.