Yeast One-Hybrid Screening to Identify Transcription Factors for IbMYB1-4 in the Purple-Fleshed Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Anthocyanins are substances with a wide range of biological activities. In the presented manuscript, rabies-like methods were used to prove the participation of the IbMYB gene in the biosynthesis of anthocyanins. This fact is of interest, since the TF MYB family is involved in many biological processes, their main role being the response of plants to various stresses. Two notations are used in the text, IbMYB and PIbMYB. Is it the same gene? or indicated from different types of potatoes? Specify.
In italic genes are not always shown (lines 120, 136, 165).
122 - The description of the TF localization method indicates the use of the method with a slight modification. Specify which
In the methods section, give the conditions for cutting the IbMYB promoter
149 - It is unclear how Leu leaks from PIbMYB genes.
References to issue according to the rules of the journal
1 - remove brackets from J.
7 - specify the name of the journal
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Journal Current Issues in Molecular Biology:
Thank you very much for providing the thorough and excellent reviews on our manuscript cimb-2469501 entitled "Yeast one-hybrid screening to identify transcription factors for IbMYB1-4 in the purple-fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L] Lam.)". The comments have been very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments and the annotated manuscript carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with your approval. The point-by-point response to editor and review’s questions were presented as follows:
Reviewer: 2
1.Comment:Two notations are used in the text, IbMYB and PIbMYB. Is it the same gene? or indicated from different types of potatoes? Specify.
Respond: Done (Line 40). PIbMYB is the promoter of the IbMYB gene. We had explained the acronym in the manuscript.
- Comment: In italic genes are not always shown (lines 120, 136, 165).
Respond: Done (Line 127, Line 143, Line 172).
- Comment: The description of the TF localization method indicates the use of the method with a slight modification. Specify which
Respond: Done (Line 130-131). The time of protoplasmic cells cultured at normal temperature was extended from 20 hours to 24 hours.
- Comment:In the methods section, give the conditions for cutting the IbMYB promoter
Respond: The method of promoter cutting is to design primers to obtain the sequences.
- Comment: It is unclear how Leu leaks from PIbMYB genes.
Respond: The PIbMYB genes inserted into pAbAi owned Leu leaks.
6.Comment: References to issue according to the rules of the journal
1 - remove brackets from J.
7 - specify the name of the journal
Respond: Done (Line 281, Line 293).
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggestions,
1) Check the MDPI guidelines for abstract.
2) Abstract should focus more on abstract and conclusion than methods. Please make necessary changes.
3) Avoid acronyms in the abstract
4) Moderate editing of English language required.
5) Check the narrative flow of manuscript. Especially in Introduction. Study design should be mentioned/explained there.
6) Figure 1 has light reflection in background. Make necessary changes.
7) Line 215. Please provide reference.
8) Line 237-238. Please provide reference.
9) Line 251. The conclusion should be descriptive.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Journal Current Issues in Molecular Biology:
Thank you very much for providing the thorough and excellent reviews on our manuscript cimb-2469501 entitled "Yeast one-hybrid screening to identify transcription factors for IbMYB1-4 in the purple-fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L] Lam.)". The comments have been very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments and the annotated manuscript carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with your approval. The point-by-point response to editor and review’s questions were presented as follows:
Reviewer: 1
- Comment: Check the MDPI guidelines for abstract..
Respond: Done (Line 11-20). We had modified the abstract according to the MDPI guidelines.
- Comment: Abstract should focus more on abstract and conclusion than methods. Please make necessary changes.
Respond: Done (Line 11-20). We had changed the abstract focus more on conclusion than methods.
- Comment: Avoid acronyms in the abstract
Respond: Done (Line 13-18). We had avoided acronyms in the abstract.
- Comment: Moderate editing of English language required.
Respond: Done (Line 251-261). The manuscript language had been edited by editing service agency and the certificate were provided in the appropriate location.
- Comment: Check the narrative flow of manuscript. Especially in Introduction. Study design should be mentioned/explained there.
Respond: Done (Line 34-46). We had added study design in the introduction.
- Comment: Figure 1 has light reflection in background. Make necessary changes.
Respond: Done (Line 251-261). We had changed the light reflection background in figure 1.
- Comment: Line 215. Please provide reference. Line 237-238. Please provide reference.
Respond: Done (Line 223 and Line 245). We had provided references.
- Comment: Line 251. The conclusion should be descriptive.
Respond: Done (Line 260-261). We had modified the conclusion.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors has sufficiently addressed comments raised by me. I endorse paper for publication.
Minor editing of English language required
