Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kang-Di Zhou and colleagues present a review article on recent advances on kinetochore related proteins and their role during cell meiosis in plants. Functional relevance in other organisms is also discussed. In general, the article is comprehensibly written and summarizes interesting recent results. Some improvements in the overall presentation would be necessary in increase the article’s visibility.

Some of the references are not cited in the text. Please cross check once more. Another recent review about the spindle assembly should also be cited in the introductions or discussed in another appropriate place (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-070721-084258). Please also update the Biorxiv reference 39 with the relevant peer reviewed version (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300877120)

Lines 29-32 and 80-84: The exact same information is also contained in the abstract. Please rephrase one of the two.

Lines 126-136: Since no microscopic images are shown, please consider avoiding the use of words like GFP or YFP when describing experiments and rather discuss results using words like tags, or tagging.

Some sentences, like in the lines 237-242 are very similar to the actual sentences in the relevant publications. Please rephrase to avoid plagiarism.

The quality of Figures 3 and 4 should be improved. In general, the article would benefit by the addition of other images or sketches representing the mechanisms discussed. Each chapter should ideally be accompanied by a relevant figure, like for example the SAC and CPC proteins included in Table 1.

The crucial involvement of the cytoskeleton is not discussed. Authors may want to consider elaborating more on the role of microtubules.

Authors may also want to consider including some of the main recent findings in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Kang-Di Zhou and colleagues present a review article on recent advances on kinetochore related proteins and their role during cell meiosis in plants. Functional relevance in other organisms is also discussed. In general, the article is comprehensibly written and summarizes interesting recent results. Some improvements in the overall presentation would be necessary in increase the article’s visibility.

1. Some of the references are not cited in the text. Please cross check once more. Another recent review about the spindle assembly should also be cited in the introductions or discussed in another appropriate place (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-070721-084258). Please also update the Biorxiv reference 39 with the relevant peer reviewed version (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300877120)

RESPONSE: Thanks for your careful reading and insightful suggestions, we have checked the references and cited the recent review (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-070721-084258) in the chapter of spindle assembly checkpoint. And we have updated the reference 39 with the relevant peer reviewed version.

2. Lines 29-32 and 80-84: The exact same information is also contained in the abstract. Please rephrase one of the two.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your careful reading and insightful suggestions, we have rephased the information in the abstract, now it reads “Abstract: The central player for chromosome segregation in both mitosis and meiosis is the macromolecular kinetochore structure, which is assembled by > 100 structural and regulatory proteins on centromere DNA. Kinetochores play a crucial role in cell division by connecting chromosomal DNA and microtubule polymers. This connection helps in the proper segregation and alignment of chromosomes. Additionally, kinetochores can act as a signaling hub, regulating the start of anaphase through the spindle assembly checkpoint, and controlling the movement of chromosomes during anaphase. However, the role of various kinetochore proteins in plant meiosis has only been recently elucidated, and these proteins differ in their functionality from those found in animals. In this review, our current knowledge of the functioning of plant kinetochore proteins in meiosis will be summarized. Also, the functional similarities and differences of core kinetochore proteins in meiosis between plant and other species are discussed. Besides, the potential applications of manipulating certain kinetochore genes in meiosis for breeding purpose are explored.”

3. Lines 126-136: Since no microscopic images are shown, please consider avoiding the use of words like GFP or YFP when describing experiments and rather discuss results using words like tags, or tagging.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your careful reading and insightful suggestions, we have changed the text as suggested. Now reads “The GFP-tailswap expressing Arabidopsis plants showed sterility due to defects during sporogenesis and the CENH3 signal was reduced to an undetectable level in meiocytes [15]. Moreover, Arabidopsis plants expressing the C-terminal part of CENH3 fused tag (EYFP-), named EYFP-CENH3(C) (C-terminal of CENH3 containing loop1 region) construct (Figure 3) showed chromosome segregation defects, decreased fertility, and the impaired loading of the tag (YFP-) signal in meiosis [13]. Strikingly, EYFP-CENH3(C) expression can even reduce the amount of endogenous CENH3, the insufficient CENH3 loading leads to the formation of lagging chromosomes and micronuclei [13]. Therefore, in contrast to mitosis, the N-terminal tail of CENH3 plays a key role in different loading mechanisms of CENH3 during plant meiosis [13].”

4. Some sentences, like in the lines 237-242 are very similar to the actual sentences in the relevant publications. Please rephrase to avoid plagiarism.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your careful reading and insightful suggestions, we have changed to “In maize, the localization patterns of Knl1 signals overlap with those of Mis12 and Ndc80, indicating that the deficiency of Knl1 can likely impair kinetochore function. This impairment leads to abnormal chromosome behavior during cell division in early endosperm development, ultimately resulting in defective kernels [38]. During meiosis, maize MIS12 interacts with NDC80, forming a visible MIS12-NDC80 bridge. This bridge fuses sister kinetochores, directing sister kinetochores’ mono-orientation behavior during metaphase I and initiating the homolog chromosomes segregation [41].”

5. The quality of Figures 3 and 4 should be improved. In general, the article would benefit by the addition of other images or sketches representing the mechanisms discussed. Each chapter should ideally be accompanied by a relevant figure, like for example the SAC and CPC proteins included in Table 1. 

RESPONSE: Thanks for your insightful suggestions, we have uploaded all figures in the separated files and the quality became much better.

Yes, as you suggested, we included either figures or tables for different chapters. For “introduction”, figure 1 is accompanied. For “Kinetochore structural proteins”, figures 2-4 are accompanied. For “SAC and CPC proteins” included in Table 1.

6. The crucial involvement of the cytoskeleton is not discussed. Authors may want to consider elaborating more on the role of microtubules.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your insightful suggestions, but there is a lasted review named “A microtubule perspective on plant cell division”, which has summarized the role of microtubules in detail. So we didn't elaborate more on microtubules.

7. Authors may also want to consider including some of the main recent findings in the conclusion section.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your insightful suggestions, for conclusion section we mainly included the recent findings for breeding research.

We also made other changes and highlighted them in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the review of the role of kinetochores in meiotic processes in plants is really interesting. I don't have much to add, as the review is meticulously done and well written. The only thing is at the level of format: the first letters of the keywords are in lower case, and in the bibliographic references the names of the journals should be written in abbreviated form and including the doi. I conclude that my opinion is that it can be accepted and published in the present form after correction of the small formatting details indicated.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

In my opinion the review of the role of kinetochores in meiotic processes in plants is really interesting. I don't have much to add, as the review is meticulously done and well written. The only thing is at the level of format: the first letters of the keywords are in lower case, and in the bibliographic references the names of the journals should be written in abbreviated form and including the doi. I conclude that my opinion is that it can be accepted and published in the present form after correction of the small formatting details indicated.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your insightful suggestions, we have changed the keywords to “kinetochore; meiosis; spindle assembly checkpoint; chromosomal passenger complex; cohesin”; And we have changed the name of the journals to its abbreviated form and added the doi.

We also made other changes and highlighted them in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript has been improved.

The authors probably misunderstood and did not respond to the comment on improving the overall quality of figures. It was not meant to simply improve the resolution, but to invest more time in making figures more impressive and informative, in order to increase the article’s visibility. In any case, I leave it to the authors to decide on the presentation of their manuscript.

I have no further suggestions for the authors, just one more minor comment:

Figure 3 legend, Line 137: Please rephrase the first sentence.

Author Response

The revised version of the manuscript has been improved.

The authors probably misunderstood and did not respond to the comment on improving the overall quality of figures. It was not meant to simply improve the resolution, but to invest more time in making figures more impressive and informative, in order to increase the article’s visibility. In any case, I leave it to the authors to decide on the presentation of their manuscript.

I have no further suggestions for the authors, just one more minor comment:

Figure 3 legend, Line 137: Please rephrase the first sentence.

RESPONSE: Sorry for not understanding and not responding your comment. Thanks for your insightful suggestions, we have made some changes of figures to increase the article’s visibility.

We have rephrased the first sentence, now reads” The schematic diagram illustrates the constructs utilized for expressing different CENH3 variants in Arabidopsis.”