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 Dr. Yu,
Hello,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript titled "Comparative proteomic analysis of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedlings under selenium stress" has been accepted for publication.
My best regards,
Dr. Gilda Eslami
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript has significantly improved after revision. The authors had answered all the questions.
Valid
No Comments
The manuscript has more speculative/predictive datasets of MS identified proteins which is not of much information rather than jargon. However, it may be accepted for publication.
The authors have addressed my concerns from the previous reviews
The authors have addressed my concerns from the previous reviews
The authors have addressed my concerns from the previous reviews
The authors have addressed my concerns from the previous reviews
Dear Dr. Yu,
It is my pleasure to inform you that your manuscript titled "Comparative proteomic analysis of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedlings under selenium stress" is largely Acceptable, pending the Section Editor requests below.
My best regards,
Dr. Gilda Eslami
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Gerard Lazo, the Section Editor, has requested that you perform further Minor Revisions. He commented:
"The form of the data made available is not clear from the referenced data resource as PXD013257. It needs to be clear that the readers will have availability to this data in some form. I was pleased to see that annotations were done for the 4000 or so sequences studied; however, some sort of table connecting the GO terms and the sequences needs to be provided. As the terms have numerical entities this needs to be included somewhere. Saying that data is available at a resource, and not having a means to connect the data from the manuscript does not bide well. There needs to be some information included which will connect the data presented to the data said to be available. The manuscript reads well, but should be considered to require ‘minor’ modifications before it can be accepted. At this stage the readers has no connection to the protein sequences highlighted. #]
Clear and unambiguous
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
Manuscript has improved after revision. All questions have been answered satisfactorily by the authors.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
N/A
N/A
N/A
The authors have satisfactorily answered the issues raised by me in the last review.
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ. Although all 3 reviews are bried, as you can see, they collectively make suggestions for revision. Please attend to all their comments in a full rebuttal and edited revision.
it is satisfactory.
it is satisfactory.
Real-Time PCR (qPCR) Verification is neede.Some differential proteins should be selected to perform the mRNA expression level verification in order to validate the labeling results.
No comments.
The manuscript entitled "Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Pepper (Capsicum
annuum L.) Seedlings under Selenium Stress" by Chenghao et al. studies the regulated protein expression in Selenium stress in pepper plant. Overall the manuscript is satisfactory and well referenced & relevant to the concept.
However, I had some minor comments which I mentioned in the next section, after that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
Satisfactory.
Satisfactory.
In table 1, what is the cut-off ratio set up by author to include the peptide candidate in the table?
Did author got any percent coverage (% coverage) of peptide and can highlight the peptide sequences in full length protein sequence that got in Mass spec for the DEP that are highly regulated say 2 times the control.
Did author see any change in band pattern of total protein run on SDS-PAGE and probed by silver staining?
Background and borders of figures are unusual. Please keep it in canonical white background.
The manuscript is well written. There are no grammatical errors. However, the authors should carefully peruse the text to ensure that all Latin/scientific names are italicized.
Please check all the figure legends. the ones for Figure 2 and 3 are incomplete.
Also the text in the figures is unreadable unless zoomed in considerably. If possible please increase the resolution of the figures.
Experimental design is well documented.
The authors discuss their findings in great detail. However, the discussion is limited as each type of DEP is discussed separately. The manuscript will have more impact if the authors could include a more global view of the processes in the plant at the end of their discussion.
This manuscript is very well written and shows showcases a well organized study into stress response in plants. I will be very interested to see further studies based on your current endeavor in the pepper plant and comparisons with other plants undergoing similar stress.
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.