Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenases: The Hidden Players of Plant Physiology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

I thank you for inviting me to participate in this examination of an article in title: 

the manuscript has been well written and well presented, and also the figures have been well presented with a good legend.

But there are some corrections and modifications that should be added in order to valorize and publish in this journal 

All the requested modifications and corrections have been mentioned in the PDF (Attach)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS word. Please see the attachment in detail.

This version of our manuscript has been revised based on your comments. Regarding the expression of NRT2.1 (Part: 6. G6PDHs and sugar signaling), this is a gene but not a protein, the reason we kept the original italics.

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication. Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.

Yours sincerely,

Soulaiman SAKR

Reviewer 2 Report

I get your communication (Glucose-6-Phosphate dehydrogenases: the hidden players of plant physiology) to review. Authors propose a concise overview of the diversity of plant G6PDHs and their mechanisms of regulation, and of their role in four main plant physiological processes: seed germination, nitrogen assimilation, plant branching and plant response to abiotic stresses. This work will provide a solid basis for future lines of research aimed at improving our knowledge of G6PDHs in plant physiology and integrating this hidden player in plant resilience to climate change. In general, the manuscript represents a very big piece of information in a logical presentation. Therefore, it might be conditionally accepted subject to minor revision. Authors have to improve their manuscripts with many non-clear meanings, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and the authors need to address the following issues before it can be accepted for publication.

 1.       Please replace the images in Figure 2A with higher definition ones.

2.       Please leave two spaces at the beginning of each paragraph.

3.       The text format of each paragraph in the manuscript should be unified.

4.       Please delete the second "Correspondence:" in line 13 on page 1.

5.       Please change "Glutathione" to "Reduced glutathione" in line 196 on page 6 and in line 402 on page 10.

6.       Please change “Arabidopsis thaliana glycogen synthase kinase3" to "Arabidopsis thaliana glycogen synthase kinase3 (GSK3)/Shaggy-like kinase" in line 400 on page 10.

7.       Please change "H2O2" to "H₂O₂" in line 462 on page 11, in line 536 on page 13 and in line 614 on page 15.

8.       It is better to use the same format as far as possible according to the requirements of the journal (For example, the journal name is abbreviated).

9.       Please try to quote references from the last 5 years.

 Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your work in process of reviewing the manuscript. We have done all the required modifications to improve the quality of the manuscript. As you recommended, we have replaced the Figure 2A, revised the formatting of each paragraph and carefully revised the content of manuscript. 

Please find my revisions in the re-submitted files. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS word. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication. Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.

Yours sincerely,

Soulaiman SAKR