Genome-Wide Identification of NAC Transcription Factors in Chimonanthus praecox and Transgene CpNAC30 Affects Salt and Drought Tolerance in Arabidopsis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title should be paraphrased and should contain information that functional analysis of CpNAC30 gene was performed on Arabidopsis plants 

Line 10 “are involved in regulating” replace with “regulates”

Lines 70-72: Please add the citation

Lines 384-385, “which is consistent with many recent studies,” refer to which studies; provide references.

Please provide more information regarding plant growth and applied treatments; how did you apply NaCl, PEG, ABA, and GA? Was it a foliar application?

Lines 454-455: The information regarding the duration of low and high-temperature treatments is missing.

Line 493 What is the meaning of “grown normally”? Please paraphrase

Lines 498-499, the Authors mentioned that After 12 d of drought treatment, the phenotypes were observed:” It is not completely clear if authors have watered plants during 12 d? Please paraphrase and provide complete information.

Lines 499-500 lack information regarding the methods used to determine the relative conductivity and chlorophyll content.

Why did authors measure the relative conductivity and chlorophyll content only after simulating drought stress but not after NaCl treatments?

Can authors explain a significant drop in the relative expression of CpNAC30 after 36h of drought stress, considering that significant upregulation was observed after 12h and 24h?  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts, and we also appreciate reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript according to these comments. In general, we have revised our manuscript thoroughly and provide the point-by-point responses as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

The manuscript presents relevant information for the advancement of knowledge. It was well prepared, with minor review.

-          Introduction: The information about NACs is relevant, with important examples, I would just ask for a more in-depth explanation about the mechanism of action of these proteins.

-          The results were well presented, there was no suggestion for this item.

-          Figure 5a: Why evaluate over time? Insert discussion.

-          4.5. Plant materials and growth condition: Insert number of repetitions, and time for plants to have 6 to 8 leaves.

- Conclusions: We suggest that the conclusion be more objective

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts, and we also appreciate reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript according to these comments. In general, we have revised our manuscript thoroughly and provide the point-by-point responses as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf