Research Advances in Oxidosqualene Cyclase in Plants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript forests-1851305, entitled " Research Advances in Oxidosqualene Cyclase of Plants", reviewed the the the research advances of the main members of Oxidosqualene cyclase family in plant. However, there are still some problems, which need to be revised.
1. The part of abstract should be much more improved. The abstract should be written concisely to introduce briefly the research progress and main academic views of bio-function of oxidosqualene and its pathway in plant.
2. There are some grammar and format errors. These should be corrected by a professional of English .
3. In this manuscript, the Molecular biological mechanism of bio-function of oxidosqualene and its pathway in plant should be summarized and reviewed.
Based on these comments, I suggest its publication after major revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current article “Research Advances in Oxidosqualene Cyclase in Plants” presents novelty and originality, and it has an important scientific interest and the subject has a great potential economic value. In my opinion the full article is clear. However, the unique point that could be improved is the way that conclusions are presented. It must be summarized, and it should remind the reader of the main argument.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Research Advances in Oxidosqualene Cyclase in Plants Comments to the author: The author touched on the research progress of the main members of the OSC family in plants, the structure and function, biosynthesis of triterpenes, and molecular evolution of OSC. This review is very important for providing the foundation for the application of synthetic biological strategies to produce high-value terpenes in the future. However, there are some small mistakes that need to be corrected. They are listed as follows: 1. The review designs for publication in forests. However, the whole paper only mentioned the oxidoqualene cyclase in plants, which is not specific for forest research. It should be noted how the review is connected to forest research. 2. P1, L12; “interest” should be changed to ‘role’. 3. P2, L61, and L62; the sentence needs to be corrected. 4. P5, L228; should change to ‘believed to be involved in against various stress'. In conclusion, this review is interesting. However, I can’t find a strong connection between the Research Advances in Oxidosqualene Cyclase and the forests. I suggest the author submit to the other journals.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The newer version is almost as same as the first one.
2. This review discussed many things in OSC family research in plants. However, it is too general and not very specific. It is for the scientific journal and not the biological reading book. I mentioned that the review is not qualified for publication in forests. Because it only showed several examples in the main text about forests and didn’t mention anything about the forests in the abstract, which didn’t prove that the OSC family is important for forests. It mentioned “plants” a lot and in the title. However, which kind of plants? How it be useful? Which kind of function are they? It is not specific at all. The review is too simple, and it didn’t answer these questions very well. I do believe the author would like to figure out the OSC family has strong roles in forests and can contribute greatly to forest research. However, I can’t see that. The review is too thin and needs more specific information. It doesn't qualify for publishing in a science journal. Thanks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
