Improving Ergometrine Production by easO and easP Knockout in Claviceps paspali
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript of Qiao et al. is devoted to the study of the synthesis of ergometrine strain Claviceps paspali, wild type and mutants with knockout of two genes. The authors presented interesting results, an excellent description of all the experiments and a relevant discussion of the results obtained. The main provisions are confirmed by the results, the demonstration material is well selected. I have no comments on this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Improving ergometrine production by easO and easP knockout in Claviceps paspali” (fermentation-1724898). We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the comments and concerns. All changes to the manuscript can be easily found in the manuscript with revision changes highlighted. The response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows. We appreciate your attention to our revised manuscript and hope that it meets all the requirements for publication in Fermentation.
Sincerely Yours,
Authors of the Manuscript
May 17, 2022
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript of Qiao et al. is devoted to the study of the synthesis of ergometrine strain Claviceps paspali, wild type and mutants with knockout of two genes. The authors presented interesting results, an excellent description of all the experiments and a relevant discussion of the results obtained. The main provisions are confirmed by the results, the demonstration material is well selected. I have no comments on this manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor remarks
Latin words should be presented in italics.
Some Latin terms in the references are not presented in italics.
Avoid the use of the first-person plural (for instance, we do that). The scientific paper should be written in the third-person singular.
All other minor remarks were highlighted in the document.
Major remark
A literature review should be improved by inserting the newer references. There are a lot of older references that can be replaced by new ones.
The novelty of this study should be inserted in the manuscript. Also, the aim of this manuscript should be better presented in the document.
Provide the conclusion section. Please, insert the only main conclusions in that section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Improving ergometrine production by easO and easP knockout in Claviceps paspali” (fermentation-1724898). We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the comments and concerns. All changes to the manuscript can be easily found in the manuscript with revision changes highlighted. The response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows. We appreciate your attention to our revised manuscript and hope that it meets all the requirements for publication in Fermentation.
Sincerely Yours,
Authors of the Manuscript
May 17, 2022
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Latin words should be presented in italics.
Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out these errors. Latin words have been presented in italics in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Some Latin terms in the references are not presented in italics.
Response 2: The Latin terms in the References have been presented in italics in the revised manuscript
Point 3: Avoid the use of the first-person plural (for instance, we do that). The scientific paper should be written in the third-person singular.
Response 3: Actually, both the first-person plural and the third-person singular are currently present in the scientific paper. But according to your suggestions, we have done our best to use the third-person singular in the revised manuscript, and only kept a few first-person plurals in the text.
Point 4: All other minor remarks were highlighted in the document.
Response 4: We have noticed and corrected all other minor remarks highlighted in the document. In addition, the quality of Figure 6 has also been improved to highlight the peaks of e and f in the groups of AN-lpsB+lpsC+easO and AN-lpsB+lpsC+easO+easP.
Point 5: A literature review should be improved by inserting the newer references. There are a lot of older references that can be replaced by new ones.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, we have done it in the revised manuscript
Point 6: The novelty of this study should be inserted in the manuscript. Also, the aim of this manuscript should be better presented in the document.
Response 6:
Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have done our best to improve our manuscript based on your suggestions.
Point 7: Provide the conclusion section. Please, insert the only main conclusions in that section.
Response 7: The conclusion section has been added at the end of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors evaluated the "Improving ergometrine production by easO and easP knockout in Claviceps paspali".
The paper is well organized and well written. I propose its publication in the present form.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Improving ergometrine production by easO and easP knockout in Claviceps paspali” (fermentation-1724898). We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the comments and concerns. All changes to the manuscript can be easily found in the manuscript with revision changes highlighted. The response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows. We appreciate your attention to our revised manuscript and hope that it meets all the requirements for publication in Fermentation.
Sincerely Yours,
Authors of the Manuscript
May 17, 2022
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The authors evaluated the "Improving ergometrine production by easO and easP knockout in Claviceps paspali". The paper is well organized and well written. I propose its publication in the present form.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive comments and support of the publication of this article in Fermentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
