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.
Thank you very much for addressing the reviewers' comments and addressing the remaining comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have responded to all of my concerns in an efficient manner. So, I don't have any further comments.
Please address the reviewers' comments in your rebuttal letter and the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The work adds more knowledge to the general understanding of grapevine strigolactone related genes under salt and drought stresses. I estimate that the paper can be recommended for publication in the PeerJ, after consideration of a few suggestions.
The authors need to consider doing a gene duplication events analysis of grapevine SL-related genes with Arabidopsis and rice, which could make the genome-wide analysis more informative.
Line 149-150：The TBtools software does not match the indexed literature (Krzywinski et al., 2009).
It is good designed.
The findings are interesting.
The article is well written and thoroughly covered the literature. This a is a professional article with clear explanation of data.
The experimental design is well perceived.
The finding are novel and benefit to scientific community. The data is robust and statistically sound.
I have following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1) Can the authors comment on why vvD27 showed increased expression at high salt concentration even after 12hrs (Fig 7), in contrast to other genes expression profiles (All other genes showed elevated expression until 6hrs and reduced expression after 6 hrs).
2) The authors annotated motifs of protein corresponding to a gene as motif1. motif2, motif3...etc. Instead, if the authors annotate these motifs based on their unique chemical or biological function, it would be more informative.
3) The authors demonstrated through phylogenetic analysis that The results showed that VvD27, VvCCD8 and VvMAX1 share higher homology with corresponding proteins in soybean. To better support the data, the authors should also provide expression profiles of soybean genes and compare with that of grapevine SL biosynthetic proteins (as shown figure 6).
4) It is not clear how the authors generated SL-related protein sequences from the genome data obtained from Grapevine Genome Browser? Also, did the authors perform BLAST analysis on nucleotide sequence or protein sequence?
Minor comments:
1) Line 90 need to be corrected as - "Recent studies have revealed that some SL biosynthetic and signaling genes play critical roles in abiotic stresses response."
2) Although the authors briefly described in line 63-66, it would be beneficial if the authors prepare an image depicting the Carotenoid pathway.
3) Line 63: Instead of using the word "Firstly", it would be better to use "Initially"
4) Line 47-49 is a broad statement, which require numerous citations. Please review the literature thoroughly and cite all relevant citations. For eg: https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817233116
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.