Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Tommaso et al. presented an attempt to find an UhpT homologous 21 PA strains found in cystic fibrosis patients. They focused on OPA, a subfamily of MFS proteins. The manuscript was well written and the presented results are interesting. I have a few comments:

 

Fig 3,4 & 5. It would be better to add predictive confidence scores from AF2 to the structures using color bars. Could authors also provide average pLDDT scores?

 

Line 27. A period is missing at the end of the sentence. “UhpT-like protein in the PA genome.”

 

It would be nice to discuss what future experiments could be done to examine the functional differences or conservations between UhpT and GlpT. 

Author Response

Point 1: Fig 3,4 & 5. It would be better to add predictive confidence scores from AF2 to the structures using color bars. Could authors also provide average pLDDT scores?

 

Response 1: Since the two structures are superimposed, I provided a different figure with the sequence associated with the pLDDT score and I added them as Supplementary materials 7. Also I added the pLDDT scores in figures 3,4,5 and 6 description.

 

Point 2: Line 27. A period is missing at the end of the sentence. “UhpT-like protein in the PA genome.”

 

Response 2: Provided.

 

Point 3: It would be nice to discuss what future experiments could be done to examine the functional differences or conservations between UhpT and GlpT.

 

Response 3: Since this study is considered an in-silico approach, we cannot tell whether the hypothetical UhpT in P. aeruginosa is expressed in the bacteria. However, an experiment of protein expression (e.g. RNA-seq) could be useful to see whether UphT is translated from PA.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Distantly related homologue of UhpT in Pseudomonas aeruginosa" publishes the results of a study devoted to the search for a protein homologous to UhpT present in many bacteria in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The study is of scientific and practical interest, since such proteins are involved in the transfer of drugs, with the help of which resistant bacterial species are eliminated. There is novelty in the work, the text is written very clearly, the terms and processes are explained in detail everywhere. The article will be of interest to a wide range of readers, including due to the fact that the authors have made the results of their research accessible to perception. It is proposed to accept the article after minor changes. Small formal remarks are in no way able to spoil the impression of a perfectly written article.

1) Lines 144, 264, 265, Extra line.

2) Line 39 omitted the comma between the links in parentheses.

3) Lines 158, 291 and 310. It is advisable to separate the tables from the signatures.

Author Response

Point 1: Lines 144, 264, 265, Extra line.

 

Response 1: Provided

 

Point 2: Line 39 omitted the comma between the links in parentheses.

 

Response 2: Provided

 

Point 3: Lines 158, 291 and 310. It is advisable to separate the tables from the signatures.

Response 3: I used the Word format downloaded from the website and it is formatted in this way.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf