Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

you have carried out very interesting and original investigation with an overlap for the potential pharmaceutical use of the study species. The manuscript mainly requires formal editing, minor linguistic proofreading and clarification of some methodological procedures.

First of all, the form of references  does not meet the requirements of the Journal. It is necessary to add explanations of abbreviations and symbols used in the tables.

The section 2.1. should be written in past tense. The section  within lines 79 to 92 should be written more precise or authors might prefer to cite a reference.

Some sentences should be reframed, for example lines 33 (...improving flavor of what...; 47 (has helped made progress), 113 (leaf samples were constructed); 223 (a sentence should not begin with the word "And"); 260 (was uncovered to be antidiabetes); 335 (leaf growing - leaf development).

Formal errors mainly concern missing word spaces, inconsistent writing of enzymes (upper and lower case). I suggest verifying the correct formatting of the concentration units and others.

The title of the section 3.2. should be more concise.

What is the reason behind the order of pictures (from D to A) in fig. 1? Is correct talk about seedlings (line 61 and 70-71) in the case of clonal progeny?

The Conclusions should be more specific. 

 

Author Response

you have carried out very interesting and original investigation with an overlap for the potential pharmaceutical use of the study species. The manuscript mainly requires formal editing, minor linguistic proofreading and clarification of some methodological procedures.

First of all, the form of references  does not meet the requirements of the Journal. It is necessary to add explanations of abbreviations and symbols used in the tables.

Thanks, It has been modified according to expert advice.

The section 2.1. should be written in past tense.

Thanks, It has been modified according to expert advice.

The section  within lines 79 to 92 should be written more precise or authors might prefer to cite a reference.

Thanks, the reference has been added according to expert advice.

Some sentences should be reframed, for example lines 33 (...improving flavor of what...; 47 (has helped made progress), 113 (leaf samples were constructed); 223 (a sentence should not begin with the word "And"); 260 (was uncovered to be antidiabetes); 335 (leaf growing - leaf development).

Thanks, It has been modified according to expert advice.

Formal errors mainly concern missing word spaces, inconsistent writing of enzymes (upper and lower case). I suggest verifying the correct formatting of the concentration units and others.

Thanks, It has been modified and checked according to expert advice.

The title of the section 3.2. should be more concise.

Thanks, the conclusions have been modified as “RNA-seq and data analysis” according to expert advice.

What is the reason behind the order of pictures (from D to A) in fig. 1? Is correct talk about seedlings (line 61 and 70-71) in the case of clonal progeny?

Thanks, the order has been changed according to expert advice, and the word seedlings has been modified according to expert advice.

The Conclusions should be more specific.

Thanks, the conclusions have been rewritten according to expert advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript needs serious revision. I have two categories of comments: large and small.

Large comments:

1. The volume of the text and the amount of scientific material is not enough for the "Article" type of publication. This is "Communication".
2. The manuscript includes parts that are not written properly. The abstract is very small. Please rewrite it paying particular attention to the results of their novelty. One or two sentences in the Abstract should be devoted to discussion and conclusions. At the end of the Introduction part, you should briefly formulate the purpose of the work and the tasks that you performed, describe the meaning and novelty of the work. After reading the manuscript, readers should understand whether you have achieved your goal or something went wrong. In the Result part, you wrote very small names of the subparts. You have to make them much more detailed. The Conclusions part does not include conclusions. Draw clear conclusions from the obtained results and rewrite this part.
3. The text is full of abbreviations and letter designations of chemical compounds. A separate file should be made in the supplementary material, in which all the decryptions of abbreviations and laboratory codes will be presented.

Small comments:

1. Line 3 and 10: The name of the species must be written with a small letter. Check all text, please. It is necessary to add the abbreviated name of the author who described the species at the first mention.
2. Line 11, 14, 30 etc.: Reduce the genus name to one letter with a point on the second and subsequent mentions. A space is needed between the name of the genus and the species. Check all text, please.
3. Line 26 (and all text): The design of the links is wrong. Read the instructions for authors and correct links throughout the text.
4. Table 1: A detailed legend for the table is needed so that the reader understands what is represented in the columns. What is "A", "B" and so on?
5. Figures 2, 3: The letters in the figures are not clear. Fix it!
6. The design of the references is wrong. Read the instructions for authors and correct references, according to the journal rules.

Author Response

This manuscript needs serious revision. I have two categories of comments: large and small.

Large comments:

1.The volume of the text and the amount of scientific material is not enough for the "Article" type of publication. This is "Communication".

    Thanks, the volume of the text has been added to meet the request for the "Article" type of publication. The scientific material were Cyclocarya paliurus red leaves clones which performed higher secondary metabolites concentration, for the purpose of studying triterpenoids dynamic during C. paliurus leaf coloring.

2. The manuscript includes parts that are not written properly. The abstract is very small. Please rewrite it paying particular attention to the results of their novelty. One or two sentences in the Abstract should be devoted to discussion and conclusions. At the end of the Introduction part, you should briefly formulate the purpose of the work and the tasks that you performed, describe the meaning and novelty of the work. After reading the manuscript, readers should understand whether you have achieved your goal or something went wrong. In the Result part, you wrote very small names of the subparts. You have to make them much more detailed. The Conclusions part does not include conclusions. Draw clear conclusions from the obtained results and rewrite this part.

        Thanks, the abstract has been rewritten to illuminate the results, disscusion, conclusion and the novelty; At the end of the Introduction part, I have briefly formulated the purpose of the work and the tasks, described the meaning and novelty of the work; In the result part, I have wrote the subparts with more detailed; the conclusions have been rewritten according to expert advice.

3. The text is full of abbreviations and letter designations of chemical compounds. A separate file should be made in the supplementary material, in which all the decryptions of abbreviations and laboratory codes will be presented.

      Thanks, abbreviations have been added according to expert advice.

Small comments:

1. Line 3 and 10: The name of the species must be written with a small letter. Check all text, please. It is necessary to add the abbreviated name of the author who described the species at the first mention.

      Thanks, It has been modified according to expert advice.

2. Line 11, 14, 30 etc.: Reduce the genus name to one letter with a point on the second and subsequent mentions. A space is needed between the name of the genus and the species. Check all text, please.

      Thanks, It has been modified according to expert advice.

3. Line 26 (and all text): The design of the links is wrong. Read the instructions for authors and correct links throughout the text.

      Thanks,the references have been modified according to expert advice.

4. Table 1: A detailed legend for the table is needed so that the reader understands what is represented in the columns. What is "A", "B" and so on?

      Thanks, it has been noted according to expert advice.

5. Figures 2, 3: The letters in the figures are not clear. Fix it!

      Thanks, it has been modified according to expert advice.

6.The design of the references is wrong. Read the instructions for authors and correct references, according to the journal rules.

      Thanks, the references have been modified according to expert advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I see that the manuscript have gotten better. Thank you for taking my comments seriously.