The TIR-Type NLR Protein Is Involved in the Regulation of Phelipanche aegyptiaca Resistance in Cucumis melo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, correct a few spelling mistakes and English grammar:
Line 15: Elaborate DEGs, before using the abbreviation.
Line 46: Change to “of the parasite”
Line 53: Change to Majority instead of Major.
Line 53 and 54 is a repetition.
Line 84-85: Change to : some … receptors …. Varietites have been …
Line 114-115: Rephrase this sentence with correct English grammar.
Line 207: accuracy instead of accurate
Line 208: met instead of can meet
Line 218: linolenic acid (no capital letter)
Figure 1: The quality of the figure needs to be improved.
Line 228: differentially – spelling mistake
Line 229: patterns
There are several other spelling mistakes in the legend of Figure 1. Please, correct them.
Figure 2: It would be more obvious to the reader if the R1 -S2 labels were added to each of the boxes instead of the footer at the bottom. Also, I would say that the colour range is blue to orange and not red.
Same comments are applicable for Figure 3.
Line 290-300: Write the numbers instead of using 1, 5 etc.
Line 337-338: Correct with proper English grammar.
Line 384: transgenic should not be capitalised.
Line 389: a significant difference
Line 405: seem not seems
Line 410: with the host
Line 411: by the parasite
Line 439: delete one homologues
Line 443: remained – spelling mistake
Line 465: our – no capital letter
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have revised the manuscript by Xiao et al. This manuscript requires extensive revisions. My comments can be found in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the manuscript is of great interest nevertheless some minor issues should be revised before publication. Material and methods should be improved; the timing of plant growth for material collection and the transformation protocol used are not well explained. If I understood well, the authors used the agroinfiltration method to transform melon roots, which is known to induce a transient gene expression. The authors did not explain the condition of the transformation nor cited an appropriate reference. Furthermore, the homologues gene code for the TMV resistance in melon. The authors did not discuss this result. The discussion should be improved. The English grammar should be revised.
Lane 284. The sentence is not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is interesting and valuable. The subject of research is original, the methods are adequate, results are very well described, interpreted and discussed.
The manuscript is also very well written, clear and understandable. I have only some small suggestions concerning the arrangement of the text, and
There is no space between the subchapters (e.g. in the Material and Method section).
Line 66. „pathogen-associated molecular Pattern” please consequently use small letters (i.e., change Pattern for pattern”) since in other abbreviations the first letters are small.
LIne 148. Functional – Exchange for small f.
Line 384. Transgenic – exchange for small t.
Line 465. Our – Exchange for small o.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In this article, the authors report their findings on transcriptome analysis involved in host resistance to P. aegyptiaca at the attachment stage in compatible and incompatible interactions. This work is vital due to increase our understanding of the resistance mechanism against parasitic plants. This study shows the expression level of genes that are involved in melon resistance against P. aegyptiaca. The paper is informative and constructed well and clearly but requires comprehensive grammar correction. In addition, a few points are listed below that require to be answered.
1- Not clear, construction of transgene expression plasmids and generation of transgenic plants (Explain more).
2- The discussion is unfocused and contains numerous parts, which are general information.
3- Figures are not clear enough to distinguish the details, and authors should make them large with high resolution.
4- Line 419- adjust the (Figure 2,3) to (Figure 2 and 3).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the update. Now, the manuscript is eligible for publication in the journal Agronomy.
Author Response
Many thanks.
Reviewer 6 Report
Major corrections were made in line with the reviewer s requests. However, there are still some aspects that can be improved. The figures should be clearer, and the conclusions somewhat better structured. I recommend a careful review of the entire manuscript.
Success!
Author Response
Thank you for your attention and valuable comments. We attach great importance to your suggestions.
We have reuploaded the figures as clear as possible, and restructured the conclusions. Moreover, we reviewed the entire manuscript again, and revised some details.
