Next Article in Journal
Identification and Characterization of Verticillium nonalfalfae-Responsive MicroRNAs in the Roots of Resistant and Susceptible Hop Cultivars
Next Article in Special Issue
Transformation of European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) Callus as a Starting Point for Understanding the Molecular Basis of Ash Dieback
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analysis of Drought Stress Response in Opium Poppy Plants during the First Week of Germination
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Traceable DNA-Replicon Derived Vector to Speed Up Gene Editing in Potato: Interrupting Genes Related to Undesirable Postharvest Tuber Traits as an Example

Plants 2021, 10(9), 1882; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10091882
by Giovana Acha 1,†, Ricardo Vergara 2,*,†, Marisol Muñoz 2, Roxana Mora 2, Carlos Aguirre 2, Manuel Muñoz 3, Julio Kalazich 4 and Humberto Prieto 2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Plants 2021, 10(9), 1882; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10091882
Submission received: 9 August 2021 / Revised: 30 August 2021 / Accepted: 31 August 2021 / Published: 10 September 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The manuscript presents a courageous approach to genetic manipulation in plants, more precisely in potato, by using a traceable vector derived from DNA-replica, in order to break the genes involved in the formation of negative traits that occur in the process of tuber preservation.

 

The design and evaluation of the LSL-based vector T-DNA pGEF-U, designed to allow genome editing when a traceability manufacturer, Green Fluorescent Protein 109 (GFP), allows monitoring of vector-cell interaction during the process, is presented through the paper. For the evaluation of the system, genes associated with unwanted post-cancer events that cause enzymatic and non-enzymatic browning of potato tubers were targeted.

 

Specific issues

We have identified a few things that can be improved.

 

  • The title of the paper can be presented in a simple, less detailed wording.
  • It is usually not recommended to use the abbreviations in the abstract.
  • The introduction contains few bibliographic references to the current state of knowledge in the field, I think it should be updated and brought to the level of 2021.

For the rest things are fine, correct research methods, data processing and their interpretation is appropriate to the scientific level of the publication, the comparative analysis with other results is well carried out.

The graphical presentation of the results is especially interesting.

By improving the introduction part of the manuscript, it will also expand and improve the references.

Congratulations and good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop