Versatile Physiological Functions of Plant GSK3-Like Kinases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review by Mao et al describes plant GSK3-like kinases, a family of highly conserved protein kinases with diverse biochemical and physiological functions. These kinases are well known to be developmental and stress regulators in plants, and the review is an important summary of the recent data on the kinase family. The authors summarize recent literature on the role of GSK3-like kinases in plant growth and development and plant response to abiotic and biotic stresses. The manuscript is focused not only on model organisms, like Arabidopsis, but also describes GSK3-like kinases from other species.

The review is well structured, comprehensive and clearly written. It summarizes recent developments in the field.

I have several comments to improve the manuscript:

1. Since different research groups use different nomenclature for GSK3-like kinases, it would be useful to make a table, where the different protein names would be listed. Also the authors may list known substrates for each GSK3-like kinase in the same table.
2. Full protein names should be written all capitalized, please check throughout the text.
3. Page 2, lines 53-57: too long sentence, please rephrase.
4. Page 3, lines 135, 136: please check the correct name for NbCycD1;1.
5. Page 3, line 145: SPEECLESS should be SPEECHLESS.
6. Page 4, lines 167-173: too long sentence, please rephrase.
7. Page 5, lines 223 and 233: please use uniform way for amino acid residues, check it throughout the text.
8. Page 6, line 256: VvSK should be VvSK1.
9. Page 6, line 302: the 1^st should be the first.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

1. Since different research groups use different nomenclature for GSK3-like kinases, it would be useful to make a table, where the different protein names would be listed. Also the authors may list known substrates for each GSK3-like kinase in the same table.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We created Table 1 that lists the names, protein/locus IDs, and their protein substrates. Your suggestion also prompted us to carefully analyze the nomenclatures of  these plant GSK3-like kinases and found that the naming of the rice GSK3-like kinases is very confusing. We thus added one sentence (line 89-92) to alert the readers about the naming confusion, especially for “OsGSK2” and the rice “GSK2” that are meant for two different proteins but were used in correctly in literature.  

2. Full protein names should be written all capitalized, please check throughout the text.

Response: While full names of some proteins should be written all capitalized, many other names were written with all lower-case letters and some were written with capitalized first letters of individual words. We had to look at the original publications of each of the discussed proteins and used the original styles of these full names.  

3. Page 2, lines 53-57: too long sentence, please rephrase.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We broke the long sentence into two shorter ones.

4. Page 3, lines 135, 136: please check the correct name for NbCycD1;1

Response: The correct full name for NbCycD1;1 is Nicotiana benthamiana Cyclin D1.1 and the abbreviated name is NbCycD1;1 with a semicolon instead of a period.

5. Page 3, line 145: SPEECLESS should be SPEECHLESS.

Response: We corrected the typo.

6. Page 4, lines 167-173: too long sentence, please rephrase.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We broke the long sentence into two shorter sentences.

7. Page 5, lines 223 and 233: please use uniform way for amino acid residues, check it throughout the text.

Response: Thanks. We decided to use the three-letter code for amino acids with superscripted number to indicate position in a polypeptide. 

8. Page 6, line 256: VvSK should be VvSK1.
9. Page 6, line 302: the 1^st should be the first. Corrected.

Responses: Thanks. We changed VvSK to VvSK1 and changed “the 1^st” to “the first”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

I reviewed your article.

I think that this manuscript is very well compiled about the molecular functions of plant GSK-like kinases.

Certainly, it has better that author draw many figures for explanation. I write additional comment as follows. 1. I think it is better to make a diagram because it is difficult to understand the relationship between each gene. 2. I think it's better to write "conclusion" if possible.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Certainly, it has better that author draw many figures for explanation. I write additional comment as follows. 1. I think it is better to make a diagram because it is difficult to understand the relationship between each gene. 2. I think it's better to write "conclusion" if possible.

 

Response: Following this reviewer’s suggestion, we created a figure that graphically summarizes the discussed functions of the plant GSK3-like kinases in plant growth/development and in plant tolerance against various abiotic/biotic stresses. We think that such a summary figure could serve as the “conclusion” of the entire review manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors reviewed recent findings of plant GSK3-like kinases. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and useful to me. My comments are as follows:

 

1. Page 1, lines 4-12: Please rewrite this part and give us right affiliations. In addition, one corresponding author’s e-mail is missing (line 12).

 

2. Page 2, line 62: Arabidopsis thaliana has to be ‘italic’.

 

3. Page 3, line 139: A typo: pant should be replaced by plant.

 

4. Page 3, lines 141: For consistent, suggest capitalize ‘mitogen-activated’

 

5. Page 4, line 195: How come “TDIF RRECEPTOR” and “PHLOEM INTERCALATED WITH XYLEM” are all uppercase? Also, ‘RRECEPTOR’, is another typo.

 

6. Page 5, 223: For consistent, suggest use ‘Thr¹¹⁹’ to replace ‘threonine-119’. (Please refer to lines 105 and 238)

 

7. Page 6, line 282: Golden2-like ‘kinase’ 1.

 

8. Page 6, line 304: For consistent, suggest superscript 467 (Thr⁴⁶⁷).

  

9. Page 7, line 309: Please make sure MsK4 is correct. According to line 314, TaGSK3, MsGSK4 may be the right abbreviation.

 

10. Page 8, lines 377&380: The same, please double-check MsK1 is right.

 

11. Page 9, line 414: I personally think the ‘(Medicago sativa)’ is redundant.

 

12. Lines 529, 667, 702, and so on: the genus names should be capitalized and the whole species names should be italic.

Author Response

Reviewer #3.

1. Page 1, lines 4-12: Please rewrite this part and give us right affiliations. In addition, one corresponding author’s e-mail is missing (line 12).

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. It appears that this is caused by the automatic conversion of the submitted docx/pdf files into a pdf file of a different format. We corrected these errors on the downloaded word file, and we are hoping that the conversion of our revised manuscript won’t cause the same errors.

2. Page 2, line 62: Arabidopsis thaliana has to be ‘italic’.
3. Page 3, line 139: A typo: pant should be replaced by plant. 
4. Page 3, lines 141: For consistent, suggest capitalize ‘mitogen-activated’

Responses: Thanks for finding these errors. We corrected these mistakes. 

5. Page 4, line 195: How come “TDIF RRECEPTOR” and “PHLOEM INTERCALATED WITH XYLEM” are all uppercase? Also, ‘RRECEPTOR’, is another typo.

Response: From our reading of the original publication of TDR/PXY, we decided to use “TDIF Receptor” and “Phloem intercalated with Xylem” as the full names of TDR and PXY, respectively.  We also corrected the spotted typo. 

6. Page 5, 223: For consistent, suggest use ‘Thr¹¹⁹’ to replace ‘threonine-119’. (Please refer to lines 105 and 238).

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We decided to use the three letter code for amino acids with superscripted number to indicate position in a given polypeptide.   

7. Page 6, line 282: Golden2-like ‘kinase’ 1.

Response: The full name of “GLK1” is “GOLDEN2-LIKE1”. GLK1 is not a kinase but a transcription factor with “LK” derived from “LIKE”.   

8. Page 6, line 304: For consistent, suggest superscript 467 (Thr⁴⁶⁷).

Response: We made the suggested change.

9. Page 7, line 309: Please make sure MsK4 is correct. According to line 314, TaGSK3, MsGSK4 may be the right abbreviation.
10. Page 8, lines 377&380: The same, please double-check MsK1 is right.

Response: We looked at the relevant publications and found that MsK1 and MsK4 are the correct names but we made a mistake for their full names. The full names for MsK1 and MsK4 are Medicago sativa protein kinase1 and 4. We therefore made the corresponding changes.

11. Page 9, line 414: I personally think the ‘(Medicago sativa)’ is redundant.

Response: Thanks for your advice, and we removed “Medicago sativa” from the text. 

12. Lines 529, 667, 702, and so on: the genus names should be capitalized and the whole species names should be italic.

Response: Thanks for spotting these irregularities, which were caused by my outdated version of Endnote X8 (OS X). We subsequently discovered many additional errors and had to manually corrected them by looking at pdf copies of all referenced research articles.