Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Evolutionary Expansion, Structural Diversification, and Functional Prediction of the GeBP Gene Family in Brassica oleracea" describes a well done basic bioinformatic study. However, in my opinion it does not match with the aims and scopes of Horticulturae, a journal that is more focused in applied researches. A submission to other journal of MDPI such as Plants, Genes or Biology section Bioinformatics is more appropriate.

However, provided authors are disposed to introduce some changes, it is possible to fit the manuscript to an horticultural approach. I consider that focusing on the fact that Brassica napus is an allopolyploid between B. oleracea and B. rapa, and Arabidopsis thaliana is a model plant of the brassicaceae family, the manuscript could gain the applied aims and scopes required by Horticulturae. This fact must be mentioned in Introduction, and not just in Results as a low significance agro-biological event, and general and specific objectives must be included in references to generate basic knowledge on this botanical family highly relevant to food production.

Then, in Material Methods and in Results, focuses on the phylogenetic relationships among the three Brassica species must be done, considering A. thaliana as a control of the achieved studies, because of their possibility of being used as an experimental control in the in silico analysis.

Finally, Discussion must be more comprehensive in the application of these results for improving horticultural systems and Conclusion must be in concordance with the objectives that must be added. 

Other recommendations: scientific names of species must be always in italics.

All Figures’ quality must be greatly improved. They are illegible in present version.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and all changes have been highlighted in the revised version for your convenience.

In response to Reviewer 1’s comments regarding the integration of horticultural perspectives, we have added relevant discussions in both the Introduction and Discussion sections. Additionally, we have elaborated on the phylogenetic relationships among the three Brassica species and Arabidopsis in the first part of the Results section.

Issues related to italic and bold formatting have been thoroughly reviewed and corrected. We understand that some formatting errors may have occurred during the submission process, and we have ensured that they have all been resolved.

Finally, we have uploaded the original files for all figures, tables, and supplementary materials to the submission system. All figures are now in high resolution to ensure quality for editorial use.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors, in the article titled Evolutionary Expansion, Structural Diversification, and Functional Prediction of the GeBP Gene Family in Brassica oleracea, accurately identified 28 genes of the GeBP family in Brassica oleracea and, through phylogenetic, structural, and functional analyses, demonstrated their role in plant development and stress response. One gene, BolC01g019630.2J, stands out in particular, as it exhibits characteristics of a transmembrane transporter, suggesting a potential novel role for GeBP genes in environmental signal perception.

I recommend that you include a clearer statement of the research aim in the introduction. In the discussion section, add previous findings and support your discussion more thoroughly. In the conclusion, emphasize how your research contributes to scientific advancement. Be careful not to repeat your findings.

There are numerous formatting errors in the text – ensure that Latin names are written correctly, fix citation formatting, edit the references, adjust spacing, and use the correct font style (some words are bold or italicized inconsistently).

Other comments and suggestions are noted in the attached text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and all changes have been highlighted in the revised version for your convenience.

Regarding Reviewer 2’s detailed suggestions provided in the annotated PDF, we have carefully addressed and incorporated all the recommended changes. In addition, we have clearly stated our research objectives in the Introduction section, as suggested.

We have also added appropriate citations for all websites mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Furthermore, we have included additional references in the Discussion to strengthen our arguments and provide more robust support.

Issues related to italic and bold formatting have been thoroughly reviewed and corrected. We understand that some formatting errors may have occurred during the submission process, and we have ensured that they have all been resolved.

Finally, we have uploaded the original files for all figures, tables, and supplementary materials to the submission system. All figures are now in high resolution to ensure quality for editorial use.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have considered all my comments. The manuscript has been extensively modfied and the present version has enough scientific quality for being published in Horticulturae. Hence, it was adjusted to the scope of this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept in its current form.