Next Article in Journal
Effect of Dimer Structure and Inhomogeneous Broadening of Energy Levels on the Action of Flavomononucleotide in Rigid Polyvinyl Alcohol Films
Next Article in Special Issue
Differential Chromosome- and Plasmid-Borne Resistance of Escherichia coli hfq Mutants to High Concentrations of Various Antibiotics
Previous Article in Journal
Combined Exposure to Diazinon and Nicotine Exerts a Synergistic Adverse Effect In Vitro and Disrupts Brain Development and Behaviors In Vivo
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Mutational Analysis of Redβ Single Strand Annealing Protein: Roles of the 14 Lysine Residues in DNA Binding and Recombination In Vivo

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(14), 7758; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147758
by Katerina Zakharova 1, Brian J. Caldwell 1,2, Shalya Ta 1, Carter T. Wheat 1,2 and Charles E. Bell 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(14), 7758; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147758
Submission received: 16 June 2021 / Revised: 9 July 2021 / Accepted: 11 July 2021 / Published: 20 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Small Prokaryotic Proteins Interacting with Nucleic Acids)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Zakharova  et al present an article on the RedB Protein and the roles of the 14 lysine residues in DNA binding and recombination in vivo .

The article is interesting and well structured.

However, I have some doubts regarding the results published by Matsubara in 2013 (doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0078869) which contrast with those present in this work. Although the authors state that the differences may be dependent on experimental conditions, these may make the interpretation of the data unclear.

Could the authors carry out an experiment under the same conditions as Matsubara to validate their claim and the experimental differences obtained?

Author Response

The reviewer raises a valid point regarding differences between some of our results and those of Matsubara et al. Since the editor Dr. Qui requested our re-submission within three business days, we do not have enough time to perform the additional experiments under the conditions of Matsubara et al., which would have been an extensive amount of work anyway. We have however added further information to the Discussion section to more thoroughly compare our results with Matsubara et al., and more thoroughly describe the experimental differences. We hope that this will help to improve the manuscript despite our lack of additional experiments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The mutagenesis study is fine. You have obtained new results that suggest a novel mechanism in ssDNA binding and oligomerization of the Red-beta protein, by virtue of  the original assay methods.  The manuscript is readable and is arranged very well.  So, I recommend the editor to accept the manuscript as is.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their favorable remarks and support for publication as is.

Back to TopTop