Molecular Cloning of Heat Shock Protein 60 (SpHSP60) from Schizothorax prenanti and the Gene Expressions of Four SpHSPs during Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) Infection
, Jiqin Huang 1, Cheng Fang 1, Wanchun Li 2, Hu Zhao 1, Fei Kong 1, Han Zhang 1, Hongxing Zhang 1 and Qijun Wang 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
your manuscript reporting on molecular cloning and characterization of a new heat shock protein (hsp60) as well as its quantitative gene expression after LPS challenge as compared to control, is a nice and well-organized paper in all the sections. The work is simple but well-planned and as such it deserves the publication after minor revision.
Minor comments
Line 86: “Trizol method”, please fix it; Trizol is a reagent not a method.
Line 113: Please rephrase “Measured tissue….”. you measured the mRNA levels in different tissues.
Line 125: “Another” is not appropriate. I suggest tot delate it.
Lines 202-203: please amend “The expression level in the kidney at 24 h after LPS injection was also overexpressed”
Line 256: please check “Due to there being relatively fewer studies”
Line 260: please explain “continuous glycine sequence”
Line 267: please add “too” at the end of the sentence
Line 274 please clarify “with extreme significance” and fix “As it is well known”
Lines 277-279: please consider that bacterial infection and tissue are not environmental conditions. Moreover, the analysis of gene expression can provide useful insights into the comprehension of genes. Please modify the sentence to better explain the meaning.
Line 304: understanding the specific mechanism requires further studies.
Line 323: please substitute “is” with “may be”
Lines 337-344: please, check carefully the references’ numbers here and throughout the text. Pu et al., 2016 is number 15.
Lines 349 350: probably should read “may be required for participating in”; if not please clarify the sentence.
Figures
Figure 1 legend: In “nucleotide sequences” should be singular.
Figure 2 and Fig. 3: I would suggest merging the two figures as they both substantially show the prediction of the secondary structures, either uploading the Fig. 3 as supplemental material.
Author Response
Line 86: “Trizol method”, please fix it; Trizol is a reagent not a method.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion, and the "method" has been deleted.
Line 113: Please rephrase “Measured tissue….”. you measured the mRNA levels in different tissues.
Dear Reviewer, thank you, We have made corresponding codifications according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript.
Line 125: “Another” is not appropriate. I suggest tot delate it.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion.
Lines 202-203: please amend “The expression level in the kidney at 24 h after LPS injection was also overexpressed”
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion, we have amended the sentence.
Line 256: please check “Due to there being relatively fewer studies”
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much, we have modified the expression of this sentence in the revised MS.
Line 260: please explain “continuous glycine sequence”
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much, we have changed the “continuous glycine sequence” to "repeated glycine sequence".
Line 267: please add “too” at the end of the sentence
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion.
Line 274 please clarify “with extreme significance” and fix “As it is well known”
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much, we have modified the expression of this sentence.
Lines 277-279: please consider that bacterial infection and tissue are not environmental conditions. Moreover, the analysis of gene expression can provide useful insights into the comprehension of genes. Please modify the sentence to better explain the meaning.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion and we have modified the expression of the sentences according to your suggestion.
Line 304: understanding the specific mechanism requires further studies.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, we hav revised the sentence.
Line 323: please substitute “is” with “may be”
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion.
Lines 337-344: please, check carefully the references’ numbers here and throughout the text. Pu et al., 2016 is number 15.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion and we have corrected this mistake.
Lines 349 350: probably should read “may be required for participating in”; if not please clarify the sentence.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion, thank you!
Figures Figure 1 legend: In “nucleotide sequences” should be singular.
Dear Reviewer, we have corrected this mistake, thank you!
Figure 2 and Fig. 3: I would suggest merging the two figures as they both substantially show the prediction of the secondary structures, either uploading the Fig. 3 as supplemental material.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion, thank you! we will uploading the Fig. 3 as supplemental material.
Reviewer 2 Report
Molecular cloning of heat shock protein 60 (SpHSP60) from 2 Schizothorax prenanti and the gene expressions of four SpHSPs 3 during Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) infection 4
Line No.
14-28 Abstract -Please write the summary so that it is clear what the purpose was of the paper, what the methods are and what the results of the work are including the innovations. It was hard for me to understand.33-38 -Please write an article about the protein ( HSPs)), structured so that we know what it is about without having to get to the articles.
39 - Important functions, HSPs please explain
58-67 Please emphasize the objectives of the study
70-74 , 80-84- Please add more information about the fish keeping conditions if any. Photo Period, water flow and more if it available..
76-84. Please describe in more detail the sampling method and bring sources in the literature if the next thing is done or this is the first time the sampling is done on fish.
85-102, Add references to the methods as it done in lines 111 and 121.
184-186. Add to the title the statistical test done in the figure.
It is not clear to me the comparison was made between the averages. N=4? Is it t-test?
93-96. Add to the title the statistical test done in the figure.
272-275 Request an explanation of what this means. What is the difference between the findings of this work and the previous information and not just a repetition of the results. Thi is disruption.
Author Response
14-28 Abstract -Please write the summary so that it is clear what the purpose was of the paper, what the methods are and what the results of the work are including the innovations. It was hard for me to understand.
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion. In fact, due to the limitation of 250 words in the abstract, there is little information about the results described in the abstract. we have made corresponding modifications in the revised manuscript according to your suggestions.
33-38 -Please write an article about the protein ( HSPs)), structured so that we know what it is about without having to get to the articles.
Dear Reviewer, we authors agree with your suggestion, and an article about the protein ( HSPs) was retained.
39 - Important functions, HSPs please explain
Dear Reviewer, the reference 7-15 describes important functions of HSPs. Unfortunately, the description in our manuscript is inappropriate and has been modified in the revised MS.
58-67 Please emphasize the objectives of the study
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion, we have emphasized the objectives of the study
70-74 , 80-84- Please add more information about the fish keeping conditions if any. Photo Period, water flow and more if it available..
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, the information has been added.
76-84. Please describe in more detail the sampling method and bring sources in the literature if the next thing is done or this is the first time the sampling is done on fish.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, more details have been added.
85-102, Add references to the methods as it done in lines 111 and 121.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, the references have been added.
184-186. Add to the title the statistical test done in the figure. It is not clear to me the comparison was made between the averages. N=4? Is it t-test?
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion,we have added to the title the statistical test done in the figure.
N=4, it is not t-test, but one-way ANOVA.
193-196. Add to the title the statistical test done in the figure.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, we have added to the title the statistical test done in the figure.
272-275 Request an explanation of what this means. What is the difference between the findings of this work and the previous information and not just a repetition of the results. Thi is disruption.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. Our previous description was not clear, so we made a more detailed analysis and cited relevant literature. Please refer to the revised draft.
