Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an interesting piece of work on the general picture of Nucleoside diphosphate kinase genes s in Brassica genus.

Some major points needed to be improved to further valorise the manuscript:

- please, check the latin names, some of them are wrong and/or the abbreviation is not used after the first mention

- please check if you are speaking about genes or putative NDPK , sometimes there are confused  (such occurring in Table A1)

- very few details are given in Materials and Methods on gene expression (e.g. protocols and reagents)

- no statistical analysis was reported for gene expression analysis

Comments on the Quality of English Language

as reported above

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors:

The authors should add graphic abstract.

The authors should do English editing to the manuscript.

 

Title:

Why you select only Brassica napus and not the other two species, may be you can adjust the title based on that.

Introduction

 Please add short note about B. napus, B. rapa, and B. oleracea and their uses and importances.

Material and method

Why you choose 16, 9, and 8 NDPK genes particularly to identify, please explain in more details

Discussion

Please, try to focus on your results analysis and highlight your work importance and its impact.

Conclusion

Future prospective should be added for further development in this area.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing are minor recommended 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf