Transcriptome-Wide Identification of m6A Writers, Erasers and Readers and Their Expression Profiles under Various Biotic and Abiotic Stresses in Pinus massoniana Lamb.
, Yidan Song 1,2,3, Xiang Cheng 1,2,3, Dengbao Wang 1,2,3, Qianzi Li 1,2,3, Jingjing Zhang 1,2,3, Qingyang Chen 1,2,3, Qiong Yu 1,2,3,4,* and Kongshu Ji 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provided valuable and anticipated insights into the regulatory genes of m6A modification and their potential epigenetic regulatory mechanisms in Masson pine. The study performed a complete analysis of m6A writers, erasers, and readers in Masson pine and identified a total of 22 m6A regulatory genes, including 7 m6A writers, 7 m6A erasers, and 8 readers. The authors' phylogenetic analysis revealed that all m6A regulators involved in Masson pine can be classified into three distinct groups based on their domains and motifs. Tissue expression analysis revealed that the regulatory gene m6A can exert a significant influence on the development of reproductive organs and leaves of Masson pine.
The conclusion briefly summarizes the results described
The references are appropriate and most of them from last 10 years
All results are illustrated in detail with figures and tables, which are briefly and clearly discussed in the results section.
The article is suitable for publication in the journal in its current form
Author Response
Point-by-point responses
Reviewer #1:
The study provided valuable and anticipated insights into the regulatory genes of m6A modification and their potential epigenetic regulatory mechanisms in Masson pine. The study performed a complete analysis of m6A writers, erasers, and readers in Masson pine and identified a total of 22 m6A regulatory genes, including 7 m6A writers, 7 m6A erasers, and 8 readers. The authors' phylogenetic analysis revealed that all m6A regulators involved in Masson pine can be classified into three distinct groups based on their domains and motifs. Tissue expression analysis revealed that the regulatory gene m6A can exert a significant influence on the development of reproductive organs and leaves of Masson pine.
The conclusion briefly summarizes the results described
Response #1: Thanks for the comments. The conclusion section has been appended to the end of the article, thereby bolstering the overall structural integrity of our piece (Line 445-457).
The references are appropriate and most of them from last 10 years
All results are illustrated in detail with figures and tables, which are briefly and clearly discussed in the results section.
Response #2: Thanks for the comments.
The article is suitable for publication in the journal in its current form
Response #3: Thank you for your comments on our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed manuscript presents research results regarding a comprehensive analysis of m6A writers, erasers, and readers in Masson Pine. The topic is interesting and timely. The abstract briefly reflects the manuscript's content and the performance of the obtained results. The structure of the manuscript is correct. However, there are some disadvantages, the correction of which can help improve the manuscript. Below, I present my remarks.
1. At the end of the Introduction, it would be better to highlight the unsolved parts of the general problem and to add the main contributions of the authors' research.
2. Adding a block diagram of the research stepwise procedure in the Materials and Methods section can improve the readability of the manuscript.
3. Please add a Conclusions section, which briefly reflects the research procedure, the results obtained, their significance, and further perspectives of the authors' research.
Author Response
Point-by-point responses
Reviewer #1:
The reviewed manuscript presents research results regarding a comprehensive analysis of m6A writers, erasers, and readers in Masson Pine. The topic is interesting and timely. The abstract briefly reflects the manuscript's content and the performance of the obtained results. The structure of the manuscript is correct. However, there are some disadvantages, the correction of which can help improve the manuscript. Below, I present my remarks.
- At the end of the Introduction, it would be better to highlight the unsolved parts of the general problem and to add the main contributions of the authors' research.
Response #1: Thanks for the suggestion. Based on the suggestion, we have now reformulated this big phrase in line 87-96. We would like to take this opportunity again to thank the reviewer for the very helpful comments that dramatically improve our manuscript.
- Adding a block diagram of the research stepwise procedure in the Materials and Methods section can improve the readability of the manuscript.
Response #2: We think this consideration is very necessary. We add a block diagram of the research stepwise procedure in the Materials and Methods section (Line 374-375). This greatly improves the readability of our manuscript.
- Please add a Conclusions section, which briefly reflects the research procedure, the results obtained, their significance, and further perspectives of the authors' research.
Response #3: We thank this referee for the very positive comments and thorough reviews. The conclusion section has been appended to the end of the article, thereby bolstering the overall structural integrity of our piece (Line 445-457).
