The Genetic Regulation of Secondary Metabolic Pathways in Response to Salinity and Drought as Abiotic Stresses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Transcriptome analysis and gene expression for genetic evaluation of secondary metabolic pathway due to abiotic stress by drought and salinity" aims of this review manuscript as a key for any researcher that is aspiring to study the relationship between salinity and drought stresses and secondary metabolite production at the transcriptome and transcription level. I consider this study interesting for readers.

But this study needs a minor revision.

1. The abstract should be more convincing and concrete. Remove unnecessary information from the abstract and focus on the studies targeting to review this manuscript.
2. Line 46, “And” should be a small letter and rearrange the line.
3. Line 69-71, add the reference.
4. Line 74-76, add the reference.
5. Line 85-87, add the reference.
6. Line 102-114, where is the reference to all of this statement ??
7. Line 148-154, 233-236, 586-591 add the reference.
8. Line 180, add space after isoform.
9. Line 195, it’s “Calcium-dependent protein kinases” not Calcium-dependend protein kinases. Please check others' abbreviations properly.
10. Line 197, why “And” would be the starting word?? Please reform the sentence.
11. Line 208, add space before “and”. Check line 211, 220, 304. 341, 352, 518, 544, 547, 559,
12. Line 282-285, lack of reference and incomplete line.
13. Line 371, incomplete line.
14. Line 508-512, rearrange the statement.
15. Line 632-640, add the reference.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript

I made the required changes but I was using my friends computer so the name of the editor on the right will appear in his name. I hope that wont be an issue

Please see the attachment

Looking forward to your feedback and I am glad to make any changes as much as you would propose

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written review that almost covers all the genetic elements involved in abiotic stress tolerance. However, I feel that the English need to be polished and there are some clear errors with this manuscript.

Line 1. I quite don’t understand the title. It feels like it doesn’t match the context. The title needs to be changed accordingly.

• Is there any transcriptome analysis in the context?
• Does the gene expression actually mean the genes (reported in the literature) involved in the drought/salinity? And what matter with gene expression?

Line 12, what kind of global development that leads to the adverse environmental factors in the ecosystem, do the authors mean industrialization? or something else?

Line 16, ‘mental concentration’, might be better to have it changed to metal contamination?

Line 18, ‘Plants’ should be ‘plant’.

 Line 28, ‘in addition, how to determine… ’, the sentence reads odd, may need to change the sentence.

Line 63 to line 66, the sentence reads odd and is not clear, need to make a change to make it easy for understanding.

Line 74-78, Is it really necessary to empathize the usage of secondary metabolites？

Line 82 to 85, what are the roles of these secondary metabolites in plant abiotic stresses? Since this review is about the mechanism that involved TFs and secondary metabolic regulations, I assume that the reported metabolites all play roles in regulating plant abiotic stress. If not, what is the purpose of this sentence? Just want to say some metabolites are important for human health.

Line 105, ‘Reactive’, should it be reactive? Also, in the whole paragraph, the authors proposed a schematic of the signalling pathway by only referring to one reference. I would suggest the authors add more references to support their view.

Isn’t the NO regarded as the metabolite that needs to be addressed in this review?

Apart from all the above, I don’t have any other comments regarding this review.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article and actually providing very good observations.

Please see the attachment

I hope that I have done the required editing as recommended

Looking forward for your feedback

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding the content in the authors' response document. 

1. About the title, I don't have any suggestions, it is up to the authors.
2. Line 32, discuss or discussing or discussions?
3. Line 28, simply change the lengthy sentence to be, Additionally, it offers clues in determining... 
4. Line 55, change the sentence to ''it results in excessive ROS levels in the .....'
5. One more suggestion to the authors for their future review responses. Please produce a clear version of your response to the reviews, please erase the endnote format. It causes too much inconvenience for reading. 
6. I don't have any other further comments

Author Response

Hello,

All the recommended edits have been done.

And with regard to the title, I will see what fits the content best and submit it.

Thank you again for your comments