Comparative Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Molecular Mechanism of UV-B Irradiation in Promoting the Accumulation of Phenolic Compounds in Wounded Carrot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main idea of the study is interesting regarding the possible benefits achieved by postharvest treatments in carrots. Nowadays in the context of a world that is increasingly demanding healthy food, studies like this must be carried out. This study clearly showed how the combination of two postharvest treatments, fresh-cutting, and UV-B irradiation, can increase some compounds of carrots that could be beneficiary to human health due to their antioxidant capacities.
General concepts comments:
The methodological approach is well established, but I indeed missed the analysis of samples just treated with UV-B in the first experiment. The increase in UV-B treated samples was much higher than in wounded samples, so maybe UV-B by itself would be enough for the beneficial increase in compounds. It would be worth trying the combination of cutting and UV-B in a different order, preventing in that way other non-beneficial effects of storage of cut vegetables. I suggest and encourage authors to repeat it this way.
Other comments:
In Figure 5, it would be very helpful for the reader if the heat map adjust better with the metabolic pathway. I mean, the authors could show the heat map with the same division they used for the diagram.
In line 189 (M&M 2.6), the authors mention nine genes, but in the results (Figure 6) they showed the relative expression levels of ten. Maybe I misunderstood, but if not, please correct it.
Concerning this result, I would recommend moving the validation of DEGs to supplementary material.
In line 303, I think there is a mistake. The authors said that there are 5017 upregulated and 1929 downregulated genes in the comparison of UV-B vs. W, and according to Figure 3, the comparison is against CK.
Specific comments about the text:
I would recommend some changes in styling and English. Some are mandatories and others are just suggestions.
Abstract Line 11: Change “have been” to “has been”
Abstract Line 22: Rephrase to avoid using pathway so often in the same sentence
Abstract Line 23: add “a” to “a better understanding”
Abstract Line 24: Add “of” to “understanding of the molecular…”
Introduction Line 31: Rephrase “chronic diseases such as chronic diseases…”
Introduction Line 45: add “and” or “or” before UV irradiation.
Introduction Line 53: Change “comparation” to “comparison”
Introduction Line 61: Change “is” to “it”
Introduction Line 65: Change verbal forms “moved” and “provokes”
Introduction Line 74: Change “understand” to “understanding”.
M&M Line 81: Add “were” to “carrots were selected”
M&M Line 91: Remove “at”
M&M Line 110: Add “the” to “one-half of the samples”
M&M Line 112: Change “of” to “as”.
M&M Line 117: Change verbal form “were” to “was”.
M&M Line 125: Change verbal form “stand” to “standing”
Results Line 189: Remove “which”
Results Line 198: Change verbal form “calculate” to “calculated”
Table 1: There is a mistake in the word “Wouned” which should be written correctly.
Results Line 247: Change “with” to “to”.
Results Line 265: Change verbal form “were” to “was”
Results Line 274: Change “of” to “in”
Results Line 327: Change “response” to “respond”
References Line 445: Journal name in italics
References Line 502: Journal name in italics
References Line 524: Journal name in italics
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
your manuscript 'Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals the molecular mechanism of UV-B irradiation in promoting the accumulation of phenolic compounds in wounded carrot' is interesting and well written. Only few amendments are to be done.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for your new version.
