Identification, Phylogeny, and Comparative Expression of the Lipoxygenase Gene Family of the Aquatic Duckweed, Spirodela polyrhiza, during Growth and in Response to Methyl Jasmonate and Salt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper the authors studied the phylogeny and comparative expression profiles of LOX family of S. polyrhiza) during growth and in response to methyl jasmonate and salt. The work is interesting and adds value to the existing knowledge.
However, this is a very specific area of research and the authors could not correlate the LOX with other pamaremers in plant under stress.
For example, the authors could measure lipid peroxidation to show if LOX has a correlation in their observations.
There are many formatting and typographical errors in this manuscript. e.g. references are not formatted as per MDPI.
Discussion is poorly written and needs a mechanistic explanation of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A renewed interest in alternative sources of human nutrition has necessitated greater understanding of the genetics of aquatic plants like duckweed. This study provides a foundational information towards such understanding. The most glaring limitation of this research is the comparative transcriptomic approach using a suit of LOX genes whose differential expressions cannot be directly correlated with plant physiological responses. In fact, holistic approaches like RNA-seq would have potential to unravel the transcriptomic landscapes under different conditions, with qPCR aiming to support RNA-seq results at the target genes. This reviewer understands that holistic approaches may require more resources than available, but the much-needed information can only come from such approaches. Other comments follow:
Title
If duckweeds are all aquatic in nature, perhaps the authors need not say aquatic duckweed (?)
Abstract
This reviewer believes that the abstract section of a manuscript has one very specific objective, that is: elaborating the manuscript’s title. In this manuscript, phylogeny aspect of the study is referenced in the title but completely missing in the abstract. Other issues:
Line 20: please italicize the species in ‘Spirodela polyrhiza’. Also, its customary to abbreviate ‘genus’ once full scientific name is disclosed at its first mention. For example, S. polyrhiza.
Line 22: perhaps ‘expressed at higher levels’ instead of ‘expressed at a higher level’.
Key words
This reviewer believes that the purpose of the ‘key words’ section is to broaden search and/or cataloging terminologies beyond the contents of the manuscript’s title. As such, it is prudent to include words that are not included in the title.
Introduction
This reviewer believes that studies involving plant species that are relatively obscure need to provide detailed taxonomical and other information pertinent to genetic studies, for example, chromosome number, ploidy, genome size, reproductive behavior, ecological distribution etc. Although the authors discuss some of these in the discussion, more information would fit the introduction section. Other comments:
Line 48: Sentence structure error perhaps at ‘methyl ester (MeJA), oxylipins that provide’.
Results
This reviewer appreciates that the authors’ provided a thorough and neat results’ subsections. A few comments:
Figure 5. The fact that there is some missing data involving LOX2 target for Sp7003 need to be disclosed and explained.
Lines 181-182: ‘LOX gene expression varies to a great extent between clones’ may be misconstrued as variability among three biological replicates (essentially, clones!) and not the two lines used. Just a confusion and would appreciate if the definition of clones is provided in M&M.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This reviewer appreciates authors’ efforts in addressing their concerns and would recommend the manuscript be published in its updated form.
