Next Article in Journal
Killing Mechanisms of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Map-Based Cloning, Phylogenetic, and Microsynteny Analyses of ZmMs20 Gene Regulating Male Fertility in Maize
Previous Article in Journal
Innovative Therapeutic Strategies for Effective Treatment of Brain Metastases
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nitric Oxide-Induced Dormancy Removal of Apple Embryos Is Linked to Alterations in Expression of Genes Encoding ABA and JA Biosynthetic or Transduction Pathways and RNA Nitration
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Global Gene Expression of Seed Coat Tissues Reveals a Potential Mechanism of Regulating Seed Size Formation in Castor Bean

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(6), 1282; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20061282
by Anmin Yu 1,2, Zaiqing Wang 1,2, Yang Zhang 3, Fei Li 1 and Aizhong Liu 4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(6), 1282; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20061282
Submission received: 21 January 2019 / Revised: 27 February 2019 / Accepted: 28 February 2019 / Published: 14 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript describes using transcriptome analysis to examine gene expression in regulating seed size in castor. The experiments were appropriate designed and conducted, and the results were objectively analyzed and discussed.  The information is useful in understanding the mechanisms of seed size determination in plants.  The manuscript is overall well written but there are some areas (seed details below) need to be revised:

1) General info about castor bean

Castor is an important industrial crop because its seeds contain 90% ricinoleic acid, an usual fatty acid utilized in many specific applications.  Study mechanisms involved in seed size determination could be beneficial to implementing approaches for crop improvement.  Authors should include some general info of castor bean in Introduction, and discuss the significance of the discovery from this study to castor crop improvement. (also see the comments in the manuscript).

2) Abbreviation use

All abbreviations used the first time should be described in full name. Authors should carefully go through whole manuscript to correct the problems. As some of the terms are very technology-orientated, so it is helpful to audience if authors could describe the purpose of using the specific methods for data analysis. Eg., RPKM, KEGG, and GO, etc.  

3) Model

Model presentation should be part of Discussion.  Please move the model to Discussion.

4) English editing

Authors should go through manuscript for English proof editing. There are incomplete info in the manuscript (see details in comment next to the manuscript text).


Author Response

Dear editor

On behalf of all co-authors I would like to express my deep thanks to two anonymous reviewers for giving us constructive comments to improve our previous version. According to reviewers’ suggestions and comments, I have carefully revised the previous version throughout. The point by point responses are listed in the attanched file.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reports data from a study aimed at investigating the molecular mechanisms involved in seed size determination in castor bean. The topic is relevant as it contributes to deciphering the regulation of seed size in plants, furthermore it provides important knowledge that ca be translated to cultivated grain crops.

The experimental approach and methodologies used are appropriate and the results are well presented and correctly discussed.

The manuscript is well written although some English misspelling should be corrected and, in some points, an English revision should be needed. In conclusion only minor revision are necessary.

Author Response

Dear editor

On behalf of all co-authors I would like to express my deep thanks to two anonymous reviewers for giving us constructive comments to improve our previous version. According to reviewers’ suggestions and comments, I have carefully revised the previous version throughout. The point by point responses are as following:

 

Response to reviewer 2

 

Point 1: The manuscript is well written although some English misspelling should be corrected and, in some points, an English revision should be needed. In conclusion only minor revision is necessary.

 

Response: Thanks for the positive evaluation. As mentioned by reviewer 1, we have edited this manuscript and carefully revised and corrected all errors throughout (see the revised version in red).


Back to TopTop