Next Article in Journal
Sorbitol Reduces Sensitivity to Alternaria by Promoting Ceramide Kinases (CERK) Expression through Transcription Factor Pswrky25 in Populus (Populus simonii Carr.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of miRNAs in Response to Sweet Potato Weevil (Cylas formicarius) Infection by sRNA Sequencing
Previous Article in Journal
Breast Tumour Kinase (Brk/PTK6) Contributes to Breast Tumour Xenograft Growth and Modulates Chemotherapeutic Responses In Vitro
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Characterization and Target Prediction of Candidate miRNAs Related to Abiotic Stress Responses and/or Storage Root Development in Sweet Potato
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/genes13030404
Review Report
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Blocking IbmiR319a Impacts Plant Architecture and Reduces Drought Tolerance in Sweet Potato

Genes 2022, 13(3), 404; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13030404
by Lei Ren 1,2,†, Tingting Zhang 1,2,†, Haixia Wu 1,2, Xinyu Ge 1,2, Huihui Wan 1,2, Shengyong Chen 3, Zongyun Li 1,2, Daifu Ma 4,* and Aimin Wang 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Genes 2022, 13(3), 404; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13030404
Submission received: 16 January 2022 / Revised: 15 February 2022 / Accepted: 21 February 2022 / Published: 24 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics and Genomics of Sweet Potato)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ren et al.'s study focus on the characterization of IbmiR319 based on its effect on plant architecture and drought response. While congratulating the authors on this interesting study, I have the following comments.

Major comments

  1. The authors look at the expression of IbTCP11/17 (targets of miR319) from lines 418-424. Here authors capture the early response to PEG compared to the drought response (water withdrawal) assessed earlier. To have a meaningful comparison, the authors need to show the expression level of these two genes in the drought assay (Lines 400-417). As the authors briefly mentioned, PEG stress is more severe than water withdrawal, so it will not give a solid verification provided there are two variables, inducer, and timing. In our experience, we observed completely different responses when we tried to compare PEG, air drying, and water withdrawal. This is essential given that no temporal expression baseline is established for IbTCP11/17 under water withdrawal stress and the presence of other regulatory mechanisms of IbTCP11/17.
  2. It is interesting to see that only MDA content increases in response to drought. The possible mechanism/reason should be included in the discussion. 
  3.  The discussion needs to be further expanded. Esp. RNA-Seq results need to be further discussed.
  4. There should be a summary (concluding statement at the end). This manuscript ends very abruptly. 

Minor Comments

  1. Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written and the presented evidence supports the conclusions being made. There are some small edits that need addressing for clarity.

Pg 1 line 45: the wording "and so on" is awkward and imprecise. Please rephrase and indicate what other processes are being referred to.

Pg 2 line 67: don't assume that everyone reading the manuscript are aware of miRNA roles in plant stress physiology.

Pg 3 Plasmid and sweet potato genetic transformation section: Include relevant protocols instead of just referring to another manuscript. Citing the original source is required but so are details needed to reproduce and evaluate the soundness of the manuscript.

The same applies to other parts of the materials and methods:

Pg 6 line 239: I don't understand the point being made here. "sequester the normal expression" is nonsensical. Please clarify and rephrase.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed some of the suggestions made. However, Comments #1 (gene expression assay) and #3 (proper discussion on RNA-Seq data) aren't properly addressed. 

Back to TopTop