CsSE59 Encoding Invertase/Pectin Methyl Esterase Inhibitor Is a Candidate Gene Conferring the Virescent True Leaf Phenotype in Cucumber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

29^th July, 2022

The manuscript ID 2524342 “CsSE59 Encoding Invertase/Pectin Methyl Esterase Inhibitor is a Candidate Gene Conferring the Virescent True Leaf Phenotype in Cucumber” presents an interesting topic. The manuscript is well written, however, I have following suggestions for revision.

 

-          Lines 29 -30: will help us to understand the genetic mechanisms such 29 as photosynthesis, chloroplast development, and degradation -> helps to understand the genetic mechanism of photosynthesis, chloroplast development, and degradation

-           Line 30: degradation. (Chen et al., 2018). -> degradation (Chen et al., 2018).

-          Line 33: Check the citation of (T. Nothnagel, 2003)

-          The end of the Introduction should include clear objectives and numbered predictions, so to put the study in a more hypothesis-driven context. In addition, just before the objectives statement, there should be a concise rationale statement (Why this specific study was needed?). What specific knowledge gap existed?

-          Line 135: supplemented -> presented

-          Lines 131 – 135: Which genes were targeted for qRT-PCR? It is not clear how the targeted genes were selected? Why was qRT-PCR done before RNA-seq analysis, instead of after RNA-seq analysis for confirmation of gene expressions?

-          Line 169: many mutant lines were obtained. Why did the authors select only se59 and what was the basis of selection.

-          Lines 316 – 328: This is not discussion of your results but review of literature/introduction.

-         -  Lines 341 – 376: In discussion section: The authors have been emphasizing more on their agreement with other studies than on the novelty of their own findings. So, what new have you discovered then? You are basically confirming what others have already found. Revise the sections.

-          - Provide conclusions based on the study objectives in a separate section.

 

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

The manuscript ID 2524342 “CsSE59 Encoding Invertase/Pectin Methyl Esterase Inhibitor is a Candidate Gene Conferring the Virescent True Leaf Phenotype in Cucumber” presents an interesting topic. The manuscript is well written, however, I have following suggestions for revision. - Lines 29 -30: will help us to understand the genetic mechanisms such 29 as photosynthesis, chloroplast development, and degradation -> helps to understand the genetic mechanism of photosynthesis, chloroplast development, and degradation Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this sentence (Lines 30-31). - Line 30: degradation. (Chen et al., 2018). -> degradation (Chen et al., 2018). Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this mistake (Line 31). - Line 33: Check the citation of (T. Nothnagel, 2003) Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this mistake (Line 34). - The end of the Introduction should include clear objectives and numbered predictions, so to put the study in a more hypothesis-driven context. In addition, just before the objectives statement, there should be a concise rationale statement (Why this specific study was needed?). What specific knowledge gap existed? Thank you for your suggestions, we have added clear objectives and numbered predictions. We also stated why the study was carried out (Lines 71-79). - Line 135: supplemented -> presented Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this mistake. - Lines 131 – 135: Which genes were targeted for qRT-PCR? It is not clear how the targeted genes were selected? Why was qRT-PCR done before RNA-seq analysis, instead of after RNA-seq analysis for confirmation of gene expressions? Thank you for your suggestion. The qRT-PCR was done after RNA-seq analysis for confirmation of gene expressions. So, we have adjusted the order of the sections (Lines 161-168). - Line 169: many mutant lines were obtained. Why did the authors select only se59 and what was the basis of selection. We did screen out a number of leaf color mutants. Through the phenotypic observation of these mutants, we found that the phenotype of se59 was unique, such as the true leaves of se59 showed a light green phenotype, while the cotyledon color was normal green. At present, no similar phenotype has been reported in cucumber. Therefore, we think that se59 is a new mutant. - Lines 316 – 328: This is not discussion of your results but review of literature/introduction. Thank you for your suggestion. we have modified the discussion section. - - Lines 341 – 376: In discussion section: The authors have been emphasizing more on their agreement with other studies than on the novelty of their own findings. So, what new have you discovered then? You are basically confirming what others have already found. Revise the sections. Thank you for your suggestion. we have modified the discussion section (Lines 333-335; 378-381). - - Provide conclusions based on the study objectives in a separate section. Thank you for your suggestion. we have added the “conclusions” section (Lines 382-392).

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper under review reflects the results of an interesting study which might also have some practical implications. The manuscript is generally well-written, the results are sound and well presented. I have but a few concerns regarding this manuscript that are mostly related to the description of the methods (please see the specific comments and questions below).

Abstract:

…EMS-induced…---please expand at first occurrence.

L13: the leaves of the mutant turned pale green, not just green (as in WT), right?

L26: …ratio of chlorophyll and carotenoid… => …by the content and ratio of chlorophylls and carotenoids…

L28: …leaf color mutation…---please re-phrase.

Section 2.1: the following information is missing: planting substrate, illumination conditions, light source, irrigation regime. How many plants were involved into the experiment at its different phases?

L89: model, manufacturer of the leaf area meter? Please specify the manufacturer for all pieces of the equipment used in this work.

L97: manufacturer of the gas exchange system? Which parameter was used as a measure of photosynthesis?

Section 2.5: please give the reference for the pigment assay method.

Section 2.8: please give references for all the software mentioned in this section.

Section 2.9: please provide detailed information for the software used to carry out the bioinformatic data treatment in this section.

Figure 3: please correct the typos in the Y axes legend in all four panels.

Some language polishing is required.

Author Response

The paper under review reflects the results of an interesting study which might also have some practical implications. The manuscript is generally well-written, the results are sound and well presented. I have but a few concerns regarding this manuscript that are mostly related to the description of the methods (please see the specific comments and questions below). Abstract: …EMS-induced…---please expand at first occurrence. Thank you for your suggestion. we have added the full name of EMS-induced at the occurrence (Line 11). L13: the leaves of the mutant turned pale green, not just green (as in WT), right? The young true leaves of the se59 mutant were pale green, while the old true leaves were normal green as in WT (Lines 12-13). L26: …ratio of chlorophyll and carotenoid… => …by the content and ratio of chlorophylls and carotenoids… Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this sentence (Lines 27-28). L28: …leaf color mutation…---please re-phrase. Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified this mistake (Line 29). Section 2.1: the following information is missing: planting substrate, illumination conditions, light source, irrigation regime. How many plants were involved into the experiment at its different phases? Thank you for your suggestions. We have added the planting substrate, illumination conditions, light source, and irrigation regime. The plant number involved into the experiment also added in this section. (Lines 87-90) L89: model, manufacturer of the leaf area meter? Please specify the manufacturer for all pieces of the equipment used in this work. Thank you for your suggestions. We have specified the manufacturer for all pieces of the equipment used in this work(Lines 92-93; 101-102; ). L97: manufacturer of the gas exchange system? Which parameter was used as a measure of photosynthesis? Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the manufacturer of the gas exchange system and the parameter used as a measure of photosynthesis. The absorption of carbon dioxide refers to the net photosynthetic rate(Line 102). Section 2.5: please give the reference for the pigment assay method. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the reference for the pigment assay method(Line 114). Section 2.8: please give references for all the software mentioned in this section. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the reference for all the software mentioned in this section. Section 2.9: please provide detailed information for the software used to carry out the bioinformatic data treatment in this section. Thank you for your suggestion. The detailed information for the software has added(Lines 151-152; 155-158). Figure 3: please correct the typos in the Y axes legend in all four panels. Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified this mistake.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of this paper can be accepted for publication.

Minor English corrections are required at certain places.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of this paper can be accepted for publication.

Thank you for your review.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English corrections are required at certain places.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have examined the manuscript in detail and corrected the mistakes in writing. 

 

Submission Date

10 July 2023

Date of this review

06 Aug 2023 11:10:48