Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: WEDELOLACTONE FACILITATES THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF PARTHENOGENETICALLY ACTIVATED PORCINE EMBRYOS BY REDUCING OXIDATIVE STRESS AND INHIBITING AUTOPHAGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language of this paper is professional, the background introduction is acceptable, the structure of the article is clear, the charts are used properly, and the results are complete.
Experimental design: In this paper, the improvement of natural compound wedelolactone (WDL) on animal early embryonic development was reported for the first time, and the related mechanism was explored, which has reference value for further optimizing embryo culture medium. A variety of conventional embryo culture and detection techniques were used in this study, but some descriptions in this paper are not specific and clear enough and need to be supplemented and improved.
Validity of the findings: This paper found that WDL can improve the in vitro development rate of porcine parthenogenetic early embryos, improve mitochondrial function, reduce ROS, and reduce the level of apoptosis and autophagy. However, the research on relevant molecular mechanisms is relatively weak, some results are unclear and inaccurate, and there is a lack of difference statistical results. Discussion in view of some results is unreasonable and imperfect, and it is necessary to further consult the literature to supplement the discussion.
Additional comments: Major points
1. Please describe the duration of WDL treatment, how long the half-life of WDL is and how the control group is treated. Whether it is necessary to change the medium and add fresh WDL during embryo culture.

2. How many embryos were used for blastocyst staining and difference statistics? Please specify.

3. Line105-106 does not need to count the fluorescence density, but the number of bright spots; Line 150-151 need to count the fluorescence intensity (Nrf2) and the number of bright spots (LC3) respectively. How to count the number of bright spots in blastocysts?

4. Fig2b. TUNEL color is not clear, and the merge diagram should be given. C and D should be compared with the total number of positive cells (expressed in %), as described in line105-106.

5. Fig4. Why does LC3 have obvious distribution in zona pellucida, and whether the specificity of antibody is poor? What form and distribution does the small green spot represent for LC3?

6. Fig6. The staining seems to be nonspecific, the increase of Nrf2 is not obvious, and the change of gene expression is not completely consistent with that described in the result. It is suggested to carry out WB experiment to verify the change of Nrf2 expression.

7. There was no error bar in qPCR control group, and the statistical difference was not indicated. Generally, it is more meaningful when gene expression changes more than twice in qPCR detection.

8. Please discuss the regulation of pluripotent genes in early embryos and their relationship with cell proliferation.

9. Early embryonic development requires a certain degree of autophagy, which is conducive to the elimination of maternal factors and the reduction of ROS. Please discuss it in combination with the results of this study.

10. Line286-292. Please check the content and logic, including the relationship between autophagy, p62 and Nrf2. According to the results of this study, autophagy decreased rather than increased after WDL treatment. In most autophagy processes, the abnormal increase of autophagy will be accompanied by the decrease of substrate p62.

Minor points
1、Line11 Please check the description “anti-free radical scavenging”

2、Line162-163 Please check the PCR condition of “37℃ 30s”; should be 18s rRNA

3、Line147 Please indicate the specific time of “overnight”

4、Line169 The significance of difference (P < 0.05) was not defined

5、Line 180 remove “%”


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: WEDELOLACTONE FACILITATES THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF PARTHENOGENETICALLY ACTIVATED PORCINE EMBRYOS BY REDUCING OXIDATIVE STRESS AND INHIBITING AUTOPHAGY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article must be written in English and must use clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. The article must conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
Experimental design: The submission should clearly define the research question, which must be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated should be identified, and statements should be made as to how the study contributes to filling that gap.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results (the concentration of WDL).
Additional comments: Introduction : should have the information of WDL concentrations that studied in cell or embryo
Line 32 &254 : in vivo, for this word is no need to italic letter
Line 64-65 : should change to Alpha-Ketoglutarate
Line 153 : move for 1 h to the end of sentence (please check other sentence too)
Line 174 : should change to Ten embryos
Line 208 : organic cation transporter 4 or octamer binding transcription factor 4
Line 334 : In conclusion should have the information of WDL concentration
For figure legends : in figure 1 : very confuse between superscripts A, B, C and a,b,c in day 6 and day 7 in figure 1B and figure 1A 1B and 1C. For the suggestion, should change the superscript symbols.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NUCLEAR ENERGY TRANSITION AND CO2 EMISSIONS NEXUS IN 28 NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have read the manuscript thoroughly and came to a conclusion that the study can be considered for publication after incorporating the following issues:
The abstract section can have space to improve adding short-run results and improving policy discussions.
The introduction needs to be improved by clearly presenting the contributions of the study after discussing the literature gap.
The reasons to use the cross-sectional dependence techniques should be mentioned in the method section.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The discussions of the findings can be extended.
Limitations of the study and future direction should be provided in the conclusion section.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NUCLEAR ENERGY TRANSITION AND CO2 EMISSIONS NEXUS IN 28 NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Good
Experimental design: Excellent
Validity of the findings: Very Good
Additional comments: The title “Nuclear energy transition and CO2 emissions nexus in 28 nuclear electricity-producing countries with different income levels: Evidence from cross-sectional dependence panel techniques” is an interesting topic and is a good contribution to energy and environment literature as nuclear energy transition would help reduce global warming. However, the manuscript needs a revision before the next round of the review process. The following points would helpfully help improve the current version of the paper:
The background in the abstract section needs more explanations to convey how nuclear energy would reduce pollution emissions. The method in the abstract section should provide the number of countries in subgroups of the whole sample and the criteria for such differentiation. The results in the abstract section should explain which results of the study validate the existence of the EKC. Moreover, I could see only long-run results in the abstract and the short-run results should also be provided in the abstract section, so the abstract section independently conveys the summary of the whole article.
The statement “Energy production and consumption count for two-thirds of GHG emissions” in the introduction section need supporting reference.
In the third paragraph, three hypotheses are named in the relationship between economic growth and nuclear energy consumption. However, the hypothesis of no-relationship is not explicitly named in lines 89-93, which needs to be provided.
Second last paragraph of the introduction section smartly explains the positive, negative, and statistically insignificant effects of nuclear energy on pollution emissions in literature. However, the results of the existence and non-existence of the EKC in lines 112-116 are missing. It will be very interesting to know how many studies could validate the EKC in nuclear energy-producing countries. Hence, the literature quoted on the testing of the EKC should be classified into existence and non-existence of the EKC in the nuclear energy-producing countries.
The theoretical background of the EKC hypothesis is well explained in the first paragraph of the method section with classical studies. However, some latest references on scale, composition, and technique effects should also be cited. Moreover, there is a need to add more latest references to comprehend the role of nuclear and renewable energy and energy efficiency in shaping the EKC in the second phase. For this purpose, the following articles may be helpful:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.138
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.065
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.121
In the second paragraph of the method section, the number of nuclear electricity-producing countries is not mentioned. Moreover, the model has also been replicated in the case of the subgroup of the whole sample, which needs to be discussed in this paragraph as well.
How is the turning point achieved from the calculation in the results section? The formula for this calculation should be mentioned in interpretations for more clarity. Moreover, the turning points of the EKC are provided for both the long and short run. However, the countries in the second stage are only mentioned as per long-run results and are missing in the case of short-run results. Therefore, the countries in the second phase of the EKC should also be mentioned in both sections of interpretation and conclusion. Moreover, it would help the reader and reviewer if tables are provided in the text instead of provided at the end of the manuscript.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NUCLEAR ENERGY TRANSITION AND CO2 EMISSIONS NEXUS IN 28 NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I have reviewed the paper titled “Nuclear energy transition and CO2 emissions nexus in 28 nuclear electricity-producing countries with different income levels: Evidence from cross-sectional dependence panel techniques”. It is a fine attempt and investigates a very interesting topic, which has been explored relatively lesser in the empirical literature in the context of nuclear producing countries. Therefore, it is a reasonable contribution to the energy and nuclear producing countries ‘environmental literature. Moreover, the methods of cross sectional dependence panel unit root test, cointegration test, and regression analyses, utilized in this study, are also advanced and appropriate as per the sample of the study and as per trends of recent research in this area. However, the following comments may add to the quality of the paper:
1. Title of the study is very long, which may limit to “Nuclear energy transition and CO2 emissions nexus in 28 nuclear electricity-producing countries with different income levels”.
2. The introduction section is well written in the context of nuclear energy, economic growth and pollutant emissions relationships. However, we cannot ignore the discussions of other renewable energy sources in determining pollution emissions. Therefore, the discussions on renewable energy use and pollution emissions nexus may be added and the following recent references may support the discussions on the renewable energy consumption and pollution emissions nexus:
-: Murshed, M., Rahman, M. A., Alam, M. S., Ahmad, P., & Dagar, V. (2021). The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 49967 - 49988.
-: Rehman, A., Ma, H., Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Păunescu, L. M., Alam, M. S., & Alvarado, R. (2021). The Energy Mix Dilemma and Environmental Sustainability: Interaction among Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Nuclear Energy, Urban Agglomeration, and Economic Growth. Energies.
-: Murshed, M., Haseeb, M., & Alam, M. S. (2021). The Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for carbon and ecological footprints in South Asia: the role of renewable energy. GeoJournal, 1-28.
-: Murshed, M., & Alam, M. S. (2021). Estimating the macroeconomic determinants of total, renewable, and non-renewable energy demands in Bangladesh: the role of technological innovations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 30176 - 30196.
-: Hamid, I., Alam, M. S., Kanwal, A., Jena, P. K., Murshed, M., & Alam, R. (2022). Decarbonization pathways: the roles of foreign direct investments, governance, democracy, economic growth, and renewable energy transition. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1 - 16.
-:  Alam, M. S., Alam, M. N., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Alam, R. (2022). Pathways to securing environmentally sustainable economic growth through efficient use of energy: a bootstrapped ARDL analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15.
-: Alam, Q., Alam, S., & Jamil, S. A. (2016). Oil demand and price elasticity of energy consumption in the GCC countries: A panel cointegration analysis. Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), 12(1232-2017-2390), 63-74.

3. The discussions on the relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth relationship may be extended by debating the four hypotheses mentioned in the third paragraph of the introduction section.
4. In line with the above comment, in the introduction section, the discussion on the Environmental Kuznets Curve may be extended with rules of verification of the validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and with the empirical support in favor of the hypothesis and evidence in the opposing views in the context of the nuclear energy producing countries as per established literature in the context of nuclear energy producing countries.
5. The discussion on the Environmental Kuznets Curve may also be enhanced in the method section, particularly in the context of the scale effect, technique effect, and composition effect of the energy transition on pollution emissions.
6. Interpretation of the results should also be increased, particularly, in the context of the validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and implications of the long run and the short run results in the context of the investigated countries.
Experimental design: The methods of cross sectional dependence panel unit root test, cointegration test, and regression analyses, utilized in this study, are also advanced and appropriate as per the sample of the study and as per trends of recent research in this area.
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: Accepted with minor revision


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NUCLEAR ENERGY TRANSITION AND CO2 EMISSIONS NEXUS IN 28 NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: It has been improved.
Experimental design: I was fine before and even has been improved by incorporating my comments.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings is quite satisfactory with the applied and reported alternative robustness techniques.
Additional comments: All of my raised concerns in the first round of review have been resolved in this revised version. The paper has been improved and may be accepted in this current form.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NUCLEAR ENERGY TRANSITION AND CO2 EMISSIONS NEXUS IN 28 NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Author addressed all valid points.
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: Accepted without any changes


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: RARE EARTH ELEMENT GEOCHEMISTRY OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN REEFAL LIMESTONES OF THE DIANQIANGUI BASIN, SOUTH CHINA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUTRIENT SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE REEF ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors reported some trace elements and REY data from the Middle Devonian reef limestones in South China. The reefal rocks lack significant Ce anomaly and have high REE contents – that’s a strong signal of siliciclastic contamination and diagenesis. However, the authors interpret that these REY values record seawater signature and further they infer that the nutrient supply from rivers was the major driver for reef proliferation during the Givetian time. One of the problems is that the laboratory procedure is not clearly layered out – including the concentrations of acid, the purity of carbonates, the reaction time and data calibration process. The careless analytical procedure lead to the confusion about the diagenesis and siliciclastic contamination. Apparently, the lack of Ce anomaly and middle REE enrichment in reef limestones suggest that the REYs are not recording the ancient seawater signal. Instead, they record either siliciclastic contamination or diagenesis. The siliciclastic contamination is commonly avoided by using very weak acid and by leaching process (Zhang et al., 2015; see below). The diagenetic incorporation of siliciclastically-sourced REYs is difficult to identify but commonly involves very careful petrographic observation and screening. The authors used Th concentration for screening the siliciclastic contamination but at the same time they used Th concentration as a proxy for increased nutrient supply. The major question becomes: What’s the use of these REY data? One can measure a section and qualitatively derive a similar conclusion by looking at the overall lithology of the two sections.

For this paper to be published, the authors should provide a detailed analytical procedure for the trace element and REY analyses, clearly distinguish terrestrial vs. diagenetic (at least petrographic screening) effects on the data, and point out the uncertainties of using REYs in carbonates for paleoenvironmental interpretations (e.g., Ce anomalies are commonly used as a redox proxy for depositional environments; however, in this case they are not recording the redox condition of seawater).
Experimental design: One of the problems is that the laboratory procedure is not clearly layered out – including the concentrations of acid, the purity of carbonates, the reaction time and data calibration process. The careless analytical procedure lead to the confusion about the diagenesis and siliciclastic contamination. Apparently, the lack of Ce anomaly and middle REE enrichment in reef limestones suggest that the REYs are not recording the ancient seawater signal. Instead, they record either siliciclastic contamination or diagenesis. The siliciclastic contamination is commonly avoided by using very weak acid and by leaching process (Zhang et al., 2015; see below). The diagenetic incorporation of siliciclastically-sourced REYs is difficult to identify but commonly involves very careful petrographic observation and screening.
Validity of the findings: The REY data may not record seawater signature - this needs to be justified!
Additional comments: More specific comments are provided below:
Line 29: “the positive correlation of REY and Th contents”: Do not understand the meaning of this. Positive correlation of Th and total REE?
Line 30: “a terrestrial siliciclastic contribution”: Isn’t this a diagenetic feature? How was the Th incorporated into carbonates? Here it needs to be clarified if the terrestrial contribution is caused by the analytical procedure (strong acid) or diagenetic incorporation of Th and other elements into neomorphic carbonate minerals.
Line 35-36: Average Eu/Eu* = 1.35; how can this be negligible? Slightly influenced?
Line 37: again, “positive correlation of REY and Th”: Are you correlating total REE and Th? Remember Y is commonly not included in total REE;
Line 38: “riverine input”: So both sections have a positive REE-Th correlation. The Jiwozhai section is interpreted as terrestrial contribution; the Upper Buzhai reef section is interpreted a riverine input? Aren’t those the same? In addition, why does the marginal platform section have stronger signal for riverine input?
Line 40: “turbid water containing abundant terrestrial sediment”: Shouldn’t this result in deposition of siliciclastic sediments observable in the measured section?
Line 50: “distances of 400 km to 3100 km”: This is ambiguous. Isn’t latitude here more appropriate?
Line 71: REY3+? Not all the REYs have the same attributes, particularly for La and Ce;
Line 78-79: Northdurft et al. (2004) provided an example for the potential use of REEs, but it does not mean REYs from all carbonates can be used as seawater proxy! See reviews in Zhao et al. (2021) [Zhao et al., 2021, Rare earth element geochemistry of carbonates as a proxy for deep-time environmental reconstruction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 110443.] and Zhao et al. (2022) [Zhao et al., 2022, A review of retrieving pristine rare earth element signatures from carbonates. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 586, 110765.], in addition to Tostevin et al. (2016) that the authors have cited.
Line 132-139: This paragraph should be combined with the paragraph starting at line 108!
Line 152: The concentration of HNO3?
Line 140-159: Methods: Please be a little more specific about the acid concentration and calibration procedure. The acid used for REE analyses of carbonates is very important for the results. Most researchers would use the very weak acid such as 5% acetic acid or 2% HNO3 (see Zhang et al., 2015, A refined dissolution method for rare earth element studies of bulk carbonate rocks. Chemical Geology 412, 82-91.);
Line 168-169: Because La can easily be modified by source rocks and local processes other than marine, La is commonly not used for calculating the Ce anomaly. See: Lawrence et al., 2006, Rare earth element and yttrium variability in South East Queensland waterways. Aquatic Geochemistry 12, 39-72.
Line 216-232, section 5.1: Apparently the total REEs and other indicators suggested that these rocks are severely influenced by clastic contamination, either caused by the analytic method (strong acid that dissolves siliciclastic components) or by incorporation of REE signal of clastic components (e.g., clays) into carbonates during diagenesis. The authors cannot eliminate any of these possibilities in the paper – it makes the claim “studied sections were minimally affected by diagenesis” weak and the remaining interpretation problematic;
Line 256-258: What’s the difference between terrestrial contamination and freshwater contamination? Why does the Th contents of 0.024 (which is very low) imply freshwater contamination?
Line 306, section 5.5: In this section, the authors need to clarify that the high Eu/Eu* values were not caused by post-depositional hydrothermal fluids! In addition, Eu anomalies from high-temperature hydrothermal fluids cannot be carried to the shelf margin if seawater was oxic: Fe-Mn oxide/crust would sequester REYs before they reach the shelf margin!
Line 354-360: Sr isotopes suggest no enhanced weathering, but the authors suggest enhanced nutrient supply from runoff or riverine input. What specific implication the data suggest?
Fig. 1b: “Dianqiangui Basin” should not cross the line. Adjust the size and fit in the tan areas.
Fig. 2: The stratigraphic correlation violates the basic sedimentological concept. Unless there is unconformities or significant hiatus in the Upper Buzhai section near the top of the reef intervals, there is no accommodation space for the Jiwozhai section to deposit strata 20 times thicker than those of the shelf margin (see the uppermost correlation line).


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: RARE EARTH ELEMENT GEOCHEMISTRY OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN REEFAL LIMESTONES OF THE DIANQIANGUI BASIN, SOUTH CHINA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUTRIENT SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE REEF ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is easy enough to follow, with the proper format, and the figures are fine (I made a suggestion about the REE plots to the authors in the PDF copy of the review). I do think that the authors need to include additional information about the geologic setting (particularly in regards to the basalts) and update their ideas about Ce anomalies and hydrothermal fluids. There is a lot more nuance to those topics than the article provides, and they are oversimplying how these things work and making assumptions based on this oversimplification.
Experimental design: This is where the article falls short; the interpretations are a good first pass at making a hypothesis, but there just isn't enough analysis to support the conclusions. Everything is based on simple geochemistry analyses without any information provided about the non-carbonate fraction's mineralogy, trace element complexation, stable isotope signatures, or hydrothermal plume behavior.

The data as they are make a good jumping off point, but they are just the beginning and you can't make a coherent explanation to fit the data without also analyzing (or considering) the other options. This feels like the beginning of a project... it's interesting preliminary data and the method to get it is fine, but these data do not tell the story that the authors are trying to tell. There is too much missing context.
Validity of the findings: I think the conclusions are based on too little data and too many assumptions. The data provided are reasonable but there is just not enough of it to say the things the authors are saying. This reads like a progress report for the first half of a project, or a thesis prospectus... there is promise in the data but you can't say much about it yet.
Additional comments: I am choosing major revisions rather than reject, because I think that what the authors have here is a good place to *start* a testable hypothesis. But as it stands there are too many assumptions in the paper to accept it as is right now. The study needs considerably more analyses (stable isotopes of oxygen, mineralogy analysis, microtextural analysis, EDS mapping if possible, clay identification for the siliciclastic-rich section, etc. in order to be robust in its assertions. Right now it's all hand-wavy and guess-laden.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: RARE EARTH ELEMENT GEOCHEMISTRY OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN REEFAL LIMESTONES OF THE DIANQIANGUI BASIN, SOUTH CHINA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUTRIENT SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE REEF ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Mao et al. provides trace element geochemical data to test local water quality parameters in onshore and offshore reefs in the Middle Devonian of South China. The use of trace element geochemistry in ancient carbonates has become a very important tool for understanding both local geography and broader seawater chemistry through time. It is a suitable topic for the journal and will find broad interest in Earth historians. Better understanding of the sources for nutrients to a major reef track is an interesting study.
The paper is well written  but needs a bit more English editing. I have provided comments on the PDF to help, but be sure the native English reader has a go at the grammar.
That said, the paper could have much better analysis of the trace element data to better understand how different the two settings were. As it stands, the paper does not add much knowledge to the two reef areas. Analogies to modern corals are also a problem, as they are not the same as the ancient ones. Finally, the paper does not really add much to why reefs expanded in the Givetian.
The data files open OK, but probably should be reduced to reliable digits.
Experimental design: I think we need a more complete description of the actual reefs, even if taken from previous papers. Terms like ‘bioclastic limestone’ are very broad and do not convey adequate environmental information for the settings of the reefs. What about local bathymetry? It is not mentioned how laterally extensive the reefs are or if they have lateral zonations/variability (as all reefs do). It would be good to get an idea of exactly what facies are present.
You need to clearly state exactly what part of the limestones was sampled!! The difference between particulate micrite and a radiaxial cement is huge and does not necessarily provide much information about the water itself. (see Della Porta et al 2015, which you cite) Interpreting the data is very difficult and misses some key possibilities when it is not know what was actually sampled. (Even the sandstone sample is just labelled sandstone!! – what kind of sandstone?)
It is very important to use the equations of Lawrence et al., 2006 (ref on PDF) for REY anomaly calculations as the equations being used use elements that themselves display anomalous behaviour in seawater to calculate the anomalies of other elements. La and to a lesser degree Gd have seawater anomalies.
Figs 5 and 7 really need to have the sample types shown with different patterns/colours. Make it possible to identify which are ‘reefal limestone’ and which are other sed types at a glance. It is not good to have to look back at the strat columns.  Then, you really need to plot the different sed types on X-Y plots showing LREE depletion, Y/Ho , and other anomalies to see how different they really are. Then you can see trend lines from the more pure limestone to the more contaminated limestone.  Some of the Jiwozhai samples (e.g., 6) have decent sea water like patterns. You cannot just say they are all flat. That would provide a means of really determining what was likely form the water and what was form direct siliciclastic contamination in the sample. You could then compare those data to the other trace elements and possibly even do mixing lines to determine how much contamination existed. However, as it is not clear what a reefal limestone sample really is (all Stromatoporoid, or coral or mud between allochems), it is still a problem.
The diagenetic vetting does not seem to have been done very well and at least needs to be acknowledged in the results.
Validity of the findings: Although the basic findings of the study that the Jiwozhai section is more affected by siliciclastic detritus than the upper Buzhai section is clearly supported, the evide3nce form REE has not been used very effectively, and does not seem to provide much advance on what is known form the petrography in the first place. The data may be able to be used with greater detail, but it is not clear what was actually analysed in each sample and the lack of cross plots makes it hard to compare them. I think there could be more here than has been presented, but as is, the paper does not make much of a contribution. The three basic conclusions are: one reef is more inshore compared to the other (which was already known), there was terrestrial runoff – (which was already known form the petrography), and the third conclusion that corals and stromatoporoids in turbid environments played an important role in the expansion – does not have any evidence – as it was also turbid before the Givetian!!
The interpretation of bathymetry based on thickness of limestone is not supportable. Thickness may be limited by bathymetry at a given time, but any thickness can accumulate in any bathymetry through time.
Additional comments: I have provided some English editing on the PDF, but it is mostly well written.
Fig. 1 – on figure ‘Inter-plaiform basin’ should be ‘Inter-platform basin’ As the palaeogeography is critical here, it would be nice to see more of a palaeogeography on part c as well – to show where the platform edge is and the coast line.
A new figure showing a palaeogeographic reconstruction of the two sections would be very useful, even if at a very schematic level. Paleogeography is a critical point of the study but is not shown very well or in any detail.
The paper needs additional figures to relate the geochemistry of the two regions better (as mentioned in the PDF and above.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: RARE EARTH ELEMENT GEOCHEMISTRY OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN REEFAL LIMESTONES OF THE DIANQIANGUI BASIN, SOUTH CHINA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUTRIENT SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE REEF ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have read through the responses to previous review comments and the manuscript. The authors have tried their best but I do have concerns if the data can tell a clear story. However, asking the authors for another revision is perhaps not going to make a difference. There are some specific comments made below:
Line 41-44: Turbid water provided refuge for reef builders: This is a very weird and irrational conclusion – Maybe ‘the nutrient-laden water helped expand reef-builder habitats…”
Line 88-90: This is weird – yes, pristine REE can be recovered but it has very strict criteria to recover. You need to compare with their criteria to your study, not just citing these two papers saying it’s recoverable. There are many papers earlier than these two that have made the same claim!
Line 172-175: Are not carbon and oxygen isotopes measured at the same time?
Line 199-202: Again, wasn’t carbon isotopes also measured?
Line 211-212: Linear scale: In Lawrence et al. (2006), they clearly stated that the geometric calculation (equation 7 in their paper) is the better choice. Why do the authors choose the linear calculation?
Line 203, section 4, results – why don’t you at least plot the data against the stratal columns of these two sections?
Line 337, section 5.3.: This section becomes a serious problem. Terrestrial components have REE concentrations orders of magnitudes higher than seawater and carbonates. If you consider that these REE data have already influenced by terrestrial contamination, then the meaning of the REY data for seawater interpretation is problematic. My major concern for this dataset is that it was produced using the HNO3-HF (1: 4) acid and it is difficult to distinguish which part was from the carbonate portion and which part represents the province of clastic input.
Line 407, 5.6: what aspects of the REE data (the major analyses of this ms) help to strength the argument in this section? Looks like the conclusion is mainly from the Th concentration or a hypothesis that does not the data from this manuscript.
Experimental design: The major concern is the whole-rock REE analyses - to what degree the REY data record seawater signature or a mixed signature of clastic contamination is not clear. Do the isotope analyses also include carbon isotopes? The authors only report the oxygen isotopes.
Validity of the findings: Can focus on the nutrient supply - the argument that turbid water promote proliferation of reef builder seems to be problematic.
Additional comments: I don't know what suggestions I can provide to the authors - my concern is that the whole rock analyses may not record the seawater signature and it is difficult to distinguish seawater vs. clastic contamination in the geochemical results.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: RARE EARTH ELEMENT GEOCHEMISTRY OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN REEFAL LIMESTONES OF THE DIANQIANGUI BASIN, SOUTH CHINA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUTRIENT SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE REEF ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I have a few minor edits for language (on the attached PDF), but overall this looks good. The lit review has been expanded. The figures are MUCH better.
Experimental design: This revision is a much better paper than its original submission. The oxygen isotope data and XRD/mineralogy discussion adds a lot of necessary background and support to their interpretations, as suggested by multiple reviewers.
Validity of the findings: These all looked fine.
Additional comments: I'm selecting minor revisions due to some typos, but these are really very minor (basically can be done in a few minutes). Overall, the authors should be commended for their revisions, and as a reviewer I thank them for taking the suggested changes seriously and following through with them.

This paper is MUCH better than the original submission, and tells a coherent story that is now backed up by sufficient data.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF MICRORNA EXPRESSION PROFILES IN EXOSOMES DERIVED FROM ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA BY P62 KNOCKDOWN AND EFFECT ON ANGIOGENESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Paper titled “Analysis of microRNA expression profiles in exosomes derived from acute myeloid leukemia by p62 knockdown and effect on angiogenesis” by Li et al is a research paper that investigates how the microRNA profiles change in exosomes upon p92 knockdown and the effect of these exosomes in angiogenesis.

I suggest that the paper needs to be revised to be considered for publication.

The positive aspect of the paper is that it contains microarray analysis that surveys the expression profiles of thousands of exosome microRNAs and uses pathway databases to predict networks and miRNA function. In this aspect the paper can be valuable to literature.

1)	The language of the paper is not clear and often times confusing to the reader. There are also grammar errors especially in results and methods section. I suggest the authors to have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter to review their manuscript or contact a professional editing service. For example, I think lines 41 and 42 sound contradicting. In line 86 using “triplicate” is redundant.
Experimental design: 8)	In methods section, how proteins were extracted from U937 cells for Western Blot (WB) analysis needs to be described. The specific identity of the antibodies used in WB analysis and where they were obtained from needs to me mentioned. In the text, there are no references for the Trizol method, kits, softwares and databases that were used in this study. These references should be added. In section 7 of methods, it is not clear how the normalization was done, please clarify.
12)	In figure legends please include how many replicates were used to achieve the error bars.
13)	Include dates in your references so that the readers can easily see how recent is the knowledge that you are referring to.
14)	In 5th section of the results, please explain, what is targetscan7.1 and mirdbV5 are and how do these databases differ from each other.
15)	Introduction requires more detail, with appropriate references, on the importance of P62. The specific aims and research questions should be stated in the introduction.
16)	I would like authors to give more information on U937 cells and why they chose these cells for this study.
Validity of the findings: 2)	BCA does not seem to be the appropriate method for exosome quantification. I suggest repeating these experiments using more appropriate technique(s). One suggestion for these techniques might be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039048/
3)	As part of figure 4, some of the miRNAs that were found to be upregulated or downregulated should be tested with experimentation such as RT-qPCR and WB and these results should be included in the paper.
4)	Figure 6 needs quantitation of angiogenesis. The scale bar in figure 6 is unreadable and it looks like the scale bars might not be consistent amongst the images. Please address this issue. I don’t agree with lines 204-205 and lines 275-277 in the discussion. I think in 6B, HUVECs+Exo(U937), HUVECs+Exo(p62-con) and HUVECs+Exo(p62-) all look very similar to each other.
5)	The experimental evidence is not shown for the lines 257-266 of discussion. Please label figures 4 and 5 as suggested below for clarification.
6)	I suggest the section 4 of results to be re-written as it was hard for me to follow the text. Labels in figure 4 are not seen at all and needs to be fixed.
7)	Figure 5 needs better resolution. C and d are unreadable and there are no labels in e and f which prevents the reader from understanding the elements of the network and their relation to each other.
9)	Figure 1C, needs quantitation of WB for p62 expression. Figures 1 d,e and f are not explained in the text, please include them in the text. For example, what does the cell percentages mean in 1f and what does the differences in these percentages amongst the three different samples mean?
10)	Figure 2B also needs quantitation of WB. It is not clear to me as to what is the difference between concertation of exosomes and quantities of exosomes, please elaborate.
11)	In figure 3, please include a legend for the heat map so that the readers can understand where miRNA-3064-3p and miR-339-5p are.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF MICRORNA EXPRESSION PROFILES IN EXOSOMES DERIVED FROM ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA BY P62 KNOCKDOWN AND EFFECT ON ANGIOGENESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have miRNA in exosomes derived from AML cells after p62 knockdown. The manuscript is very well organized and easy to understand. I have few minor comments.
1. Is it possible to include a little more literature survey on the miRNAs? The biological role of miRNA has been well described. But some information about current pharmaceutical research targeting miRNA (if at all there is anything) would be helpful.
2. The figure legends for figures 4,5,6 are too small. Is it possible to increase the size so that it can be easily read.
3. In line 214, 'is' is missing between "p62" and "involved"
If authors can take care of these minor comments, I recommend accepting it for publication.
Experimental design: To the point.
Validity of the findings: properly described and interesting.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF MICRORNA EXPRESSION PROFILES IN EXOSOMES DERIVED FROM ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA BY P62 KNOCKDOWN AND EFFECT ON ANGIOGENESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Language of the paper has improved.
Experimental design: The usage of BCA has been justified by the authors in their rebuttal.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid, prior concerns were addressed by the authors.
Additional comments: I thank the authors for the changes thy made in their manuscript and their responses in the rebuttal. Overall, I think the paper has significantly improved and t I can still not see the labels in figures 4, 5 and 6 even when I zoom in. I think the representation of these figures still have room for improvement.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF MICRORNA EXPRESSION PROFILES IN EXOSOMES DERIVED FROM ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA BY P62 KNOCKDOWN AND EFFECT ON ANGIOGENESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Up to the mark
Experimental design: Up to the mark
Validity of the findings: Up to the mark
Additional comments: The authors took care of my previous comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC DISSECTION OF GRAIN IRON CONCENTRATION IN HEXAPLOID WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) USING A GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS METHOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A sufficient field background was provided. However, Some of the sentences need to be revised (mentioned in the article).
Figures are relevant, however, Figures 2, 3, 4 could be merged into a single one. Similarly, Figures of Manhattan plots (Figures 5, 6, 7) and QQ plots (Figures 8, 9, 10) could be merged into a single one. It would be better to have LD and population structure figures
In Tables, some of the missing information must be included (mentioned in the article)
Experimental design: The research was well designed, relevant information was provided and the research was conducted in the prevailing ethical standards
Validity of the findings: The results were well written, however, some of the sections could be revised (mentioned in the article).
Some of the sentences are repeated and the flow of the information is lacking in the discussion section.
The conclusion needs to be revised
Additional comments: NA


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC DISSECTION OF GRAIN IRON CONCENTRATION IN HEXAPLOID WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) USING A GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS METHOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article was well described, and the results will be available for improving the wheat Fe content by MAS in future. But it needs major revision. Detail revisions were as follows:

Introduction
(1) In this part, the advantages of GWAS and SNP marker were introduced too much, but there is no introduction on previous researches on mapping of minerals using linkage map and GWAS. So recommend the author to add this content.
(2) Line 85: “of” should be deleted.

Materials and methods

Line134: “ Heinongjiang” changed to "Heilongjiang"
Line140-143 and Line 145-146: the wheat grains were physiologically mature or completely mature for Fe content analysis? It seemed to be inconsistent.
Line166 and Line169:  the number of SNP markers “244,508” or “1.25 million SNPs” in GWAS analysis was inconsistent.
Line187-188, this sentence is not clear.

In addition, because the Fe content of grain is affected by soil minerals, so the minerals content of soil at three experiment locations should be introduced.

Results
Line191-194: The sentences from “Grain Fe concentration” to “depicted in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.” Should be deleted.
Line213 "." should be deleted
Line272 “Detailed descriptions of the 10 candidate genes are summarized in Table 3.” Should be deleted.
Line301 “and” should be added before “Pu”.

The references in latest three years should be added and compared analysis, for example, the reference “Identification of novel genomic regions associated with nine mineral elements in Chinese winter wheat grain” has been published on BMC Plant Biol (2021) 21:311”.

Discussion needs further revision.
Experimental design: Because the Fe content of grain is affected by soil minerals, so the minerals content of soil at three experiment locations should be introduced.
Validity of the findings: The results will be available for improving the wheat Fe content by MAS in future.
Additional comments: Major revision


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC DISSECTION OF GRAIN IRON CONCENTRATION IN HEXAPLOID WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) USING A GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS METHOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A sufficient field background was provided. The authors have changed the article however, some of the sentences need to be revised (mentioned in the article).
Experimental design: The research was well designed, relevant information was provided and the research was conducted in the prevailing ethical standards
Validity of the findings: The authors have changed the article however,  Some of the sections could be revised (mentioned in the article).
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC DISSECTION OF GRAIN IRON CONCENTRATION IN HEXAPLOID WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) USING A GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS METHOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: After revision, it has improved, but still needs to be revised in tables and figures. Details are as follows:
         In table1, there were no explaination for the three letters,"h,j,j" , please deleted or explaination.
        In Figure2, the 21 chromosomes should be added at the Horizontal axis.
        In table2, in the coloum P value, the numbers should be superscripted, please check the number.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COMPARISON OF SAGITTAL PLANE GAIT CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN THE OVERGROUND AND TREADMILL APPROACH FOR GAIT ANALYSIS IN TYPICALLY DEVELOPING CHILDREN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is sufficient although the use of subjective words like 'small' should be avoided.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well-justified and the methods are described in sufficient detail. Suggest adding an analysis of the difference in variation between the two modalities.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid and well described. However, the interpretation is problematic. Please see additional comments for more information.
Additional comments: This study used a repeated-measures design to examine differences between overground and treadmill walking. The authors examined differences at the system level – different underlying models were also used in addition to walking overground vs. a treadmill.
The rationale for looking at system-wide differences rather than changing one parameter is well justified and the analyses of both peak values and waveforms using SPM are appropriate. My primary concern is sending a mixed signal to the readers regarding whether the systems can be interchangeable. On the one hand, the authors say that the differences are small and clinically insignificant. While the authors were careful on how clinical significance was defined, a 5-degree difference may be important in certain circumstances, especially given that this is a repeated measures design. The field is not far enough to make a context-independent claim on clinical significance even if this is within measurement error. On the other hand, the authors state that there are systematic differences and recommend generating different databases of typically developing children. While it is not possible to tease out whether the observed differences result from methodological choice or changes in the neuromechanics of gait with this paradigm, it is suggested that the authors emphasize the differences and let readers decide whether they can interchange modalities for their application and research question. I am concerned that, as written, this manuscript will allow researchers to interchange the results from modalities using this manuscript citation as the rationale. In reality, there are important differences suggestive of important changes in neuromechanics (e.g. increases in step width imply changes in stability control). Additionally, the authors did not examine out-of-plane measurements, and this should be emphasized in the title.
Line by Line Comments
Title: Add ‘sagittal’
Abstract
Line 32-33: This sentence is unclear.
Line 34: ‘…two methodological approaches…’ Just state the approaches.
Line 35: suggest avoiding subjective phrases like ‘comparable’.
Abstract – Methods
Using SPM is a strength of this study. Suggest including it in the methods of the abstract.
Line 43-45: Suggest replacing vague and/or subjective words like ‘differ’, ‘small’, and ‘very similar’ with actual values and let the reader decide.
Line 46-47: Is there a way to specify what is meant by overground and treadmill approach given that is general and the authors tested a very specific instantiation of both modalities?
Introduction
Line 59: ‘…, mostly in combination with the Plug-in-Gait model,…’ Please check the accuracy of this statement. To my knowledge, there are many labs that use different models (e.g. 6dof cluster tracking) for clinical gait analysis.
Line 60: Plug in gait is not a gold standard.
Line 69: ‘…as regards..’ is somewhat awkward phrasing.
Line 72-75: Please delete ‘only’ from ‘only 5 degrees’. Depending on the research question, this can be a large change in motion.
Line 77: ‘…various ways’ is vague.
Line 80: Please check grammar.
Line 82-83: ‘certain mechanical effects’ and ‘affect gait outcomes’ is vague. Please be more specific.
Methods
Suggest stating the number of subjects in the subjects section of the methods. Repeated measures is a strength of the study, suggest emphasizing it in the methods. Does using different numbers of cycles between modalities affect the statistics. Suggest using the lowest number of cycles for everything. It looks like the variation is different between the modalities. Suggest quantifying and reporting this.
Results
Suggest including the range of ages instead of the CI.
Please avoid words like ‘small’.
Lines 173: Please write out ‘OC-RMSD’. Avoid the word ‘only’. If the study set out trying to show an effect, this would be phrased differently.
Lines 191-192: The knowledge is not interchangeable.
Line 213: As mentioned, clinically irrelevant is too strong a claim.
Line 217: Delete ‘highly similar’.
Line 230: Mentioning the differences are within the normal variability of gait is important. Suggest moving this up earlier and using it as an outcome measure. That said, it is a repeated-measures study so this interpretation is somewhat limited.
Line 246: Duplicate sentences.
Line 248-249: Please provide more details on what the additional analysis was.
Line 255: change ‘transversal’ to ‘transverse’.
Conclusions: Please use more careful wording. It also does not make sense to first say you can use them interchangeably and then recommend separate normal databases. Suggest emphasizing the latter.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COMPARISON OF SAGITTAL PLANE GAIT CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN THE OVERGROUND AND TREADMILL APPROACH FOR GAIT ANALYSIS IN TYPICALLY DEVELOPING CHILDREN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is clear and reads very well. Figures are good.

The authors might consider using % of the stance phase (0-100) as x-axis in their figures, instead of % of the gait cycle (0-60), but I leave it up to their appreciation.
Experimental design: The authors provide little insights into why small differences exist between both approaches. They acknowledge their existence, report about their clinical implication, and suggest contributing factors, but they do not probe further. Although I am not suggesting that they should try to quantify the effect of each single element, some sensitivity analyses seem accessible (eg, processing overground and treadmill data with the same system, use more similar biomechanical models, etc.) and would nicely complement those results.

Since gait abnormalities can manifest in other planes than the sagittal plane. It would be valuable to consider studying kinematics and kinetics in other planes too. The authors mention that sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics are more reliable, but it would still be valuable to know whether the two approaches differ for out of the sagittal plane degrees of freedom. If they do, this would suggest users should be cautious about over-interpretation of those results. This would be a valuable contribution. The authors mention that studying the sagittal plane only is a limitation of the study, but it seems like a low-hanging fruit that they should consider going for as they should have the data already.
Validity of the findings: I am deeply confused about the averages and ranges provided on lines 159-162. Why aren’t all strides used for calculating the different variables? Why are the numbers varying so much in between variables (eg, GRF vs kinematics vs kinetics)? In some cases, only 3 strides are used (for some joint moments). That seems very few to bring confidence in the results, and not enough to enable statistical analysis.
Additional comments: Minor comments:

Line 72: Since Flux et al. likely did not compare across all models, please consider making this statement less general. This is only one available comparison.
Line 100: Please provide some quantitative information about the studied population (number of subjects, demographics, etc) in the methods rather than in the results.
Line 130-131: Can you specify how/if that is different from the plug-in-gait model (for non-experts)? Differences in joint definitions might lead to different outcomes. The authors should consider adding differences in biomechanical models in their list lines 230-233.
Line 133: Why did you include both legs for the GRFs and not for the kinematics/kinetics?
Line 246: twice the same sentence.
Line 267: missing bit of sentence.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COMPARISON OF SAGITTAL PLANE GAIT CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN THE OVERGROUND AND TREADMILL APPROACH FOR GAIT ANALYSIS IN TYPICALLY DEVELOPING CHILDREN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thanks for answering my questions. I have one more.

The authors support some of their methodological choices by citing other papers, which is of course a good practice. However, it does not sound right in certain cases. For instance, they justify that their number of strides is large enough because someone did a study with fewer strides. This is not a good justification. It is not because someone did it that it is good to do it. I would encourage the authors to review those statements. For example: "Specifically, the lowest amount of strides used for analyses was three, which was observed in one child for the calculation of joint moments.  Three gait cycles were also used in the study of Flux et. al reporting on 3D gait analysis using different biomechanical models (6)."
Experimental design: Thanks for answering my questions. I have one more.

I previously asked: "Line 133: Why did you include both legs for the GRFs and not for the kinematics/kinetics?"
And you answered: " To increase the number of valid strides and subsequently consistency, we included the left and right leg for GRF data.  Since no differences between left and right leg were found (supplementary data), we only included data of the right leg for spatiotemporal, joint angles and joint moments."

This does not seem very consistent to me. Since you found no difference between both legs, you should consider only including right leg data for all measures of interest. As it is, it is not very rigorous. This is minimal change as it only concerns the GRF.
Validity of the findings: No further questions. Thanks.
Additional comments: Thanks for answering my questions. I would have liked to see some of my suggestions implemented (eg, reporting on frontal plane measures, performing some sensitivity analysis), since it would have only required further data processing and no additional data collection and generation. However, I understand if you consider it is out of the scope of the paper. Thank you for addressing my comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY FROM UNTARGETED URINE METABOLOMICS OF SOLDIERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was developed in the way weak readable (descriptions, tables, figures). The manuscript contains methodological errors.  There is lack of  the aim of the study (Introduction, line 76-79, it is very difficult to consider as the aim of the study). There is no relations between: a title – aims – conclusions.
Experimental design: General description of the research. There is no information, e.g. when (time of day) the tests were performed. The protocol of data acquisition, procedures, investigated parameters, methods of measurements and apparatus should be described in sufficient detail to allow other scientists to reproduce the results. It wasn't written about application value of research. What is this method better than the currently used methods of assessing overweight and obesity? Why this research were conducted among soldiers?
Validity of the findings: It was not substantiated why the search for a diagnostic model for overweight and obesity from unterpeted urine metabolics of soldiers was undertaken.  Why this research were conducted among soldiers?
The sentences written in the Conclusions section cannot be considered as conclusions in the context of the conducted research. Conclusions should be linked with the goals of the study. Unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the obtained data should be avoided.
Additional comments: Taking into account methodological errors, I do not recommend the manuscript for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY FROM UNTARGETED URINE METABOLOMICS OF SOLDIERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The current manuscript is well written and after some minor modifications it will be published.
Experimental design: Experimental design is looking fine.
Validity of the findings: Results are fine in current form but need some extra parameters related to subject.
Additional comments: In the current study “A diagnostic model for overweight and obesity from untargeted urine metabolomics of soldiers. Definitely it is good study which highlighted main concern related to obesity in soldiers. But there are some major points to be added to improve the quality of manuscript in result and discussion section. As authors discussed regarding BMI in the current manuscript, waist hip ratio should be included with lipid profile which will provide the strength of future Science community and soldiers.
There is some typo and grammatical mistake should be rectifying in the revised version of the manuscript.
Overall, manuscript is well written and certainly provides strength to Scientist in coming research and boost up soldiers.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY FROM UNTARGETED URINE METABOLOMICS OF SOLDIERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The researcher used untargeted metabolomics for 146 individuals stratified by BMI levels. The main objective analysis was to analyze metabolic expression in urine by BMI groups. In general, at this stage of the knowledge, we know a lot about amino acid serum abnormalities, but less about urinary metabolomics.
Experimental design: Strengths of the study. The researchers assembled a metabolomic study in urine, with an acceptable sample size of individuals. The results of the study confirm other studies reporting aminoacid as an early abnormal trait associated with obesity. The researchers used contemporary analysis for connecting metabolic pathways and made statistical analysis with the MetaboAnalyst software.
Weakness of the study. The researchers did not attempt to correct the confounders (at least is not clear how they approached decreasing the effect of age and sex).
Validity of the findings: Specific suggestions.
1. The BMI formula is incorrect (formula 1 on page 4/29), it should be weight in kilograms divided in height squared.
2. The MetaboAnalyst report (described in the methods section) can be included in the supplemental section, but the way how it is presented does not give useful information.
3. Please, justify the reason researchers used normalization by median values and after this, they re-transformed with square roots (double steps transformation). A better efficient approach is to use other well-known methods easier to interpret and with only one step transformation (i.e.: inverse normalization with ranks, a common way to normalize –omics).
4. How do they deal with extreme values once transformed with median and IQR?
5. To avoid confusion with the sample used and avoid contradictions in the number of individuals, they should describe the flux of the sample. For example, table 1 described 153 individuals but they analyzed 146.
6. They have to deal with confounders. Some mean values by BMI classification had very different distributions, for example, significant differences by age (normal weight has a mean value 10 years younger than people with obesity) and gender (normal weight was represented 1.9 times larger by women, meanwhile obesity 3.2 times larger frequency by men). How do the researchers analyze these confounders?
7. The volcano plot and adaptive boots analysis maintained the effect of the same confounders.
8. Figures 4 and 5, and table 3 should have names of metabolites in order of predictive importance, instead of the label of mz.
9. The effect of 1.3 fold change is very small. Is clinically worth it?
10. The called biomarker SAM is expressing/representing what clinical trait? In other words, what represents the amino acid metabolism differences in these groups. It is already known obesity can be measured by anthropometry, therefore, do the findings on urine metabolic differences are related to insulin resistance, inflammation, and early stages of insulin derangements, among others?
Additional comments: The study is original, engaging, and worth to be improved.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY FROM UNTARGETED URINE METABOLOMICS OF SOLDIERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is in publishable form now.
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Meaningful
Additional comments: No need for additional comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SELF-SELECTED VERSUS MOTIVATIONAL MUSIC ON LOWER LIMB MUSCLE STRENGTH AND AFFECTIVE STATE IN MIDDLE-AGED ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic Reporting

Overall, the article is well-written, with clear and unambiguous language. The research objective is clear: the authors wished to test the effect of self-selected music versus motivational music on isometric leg strength and endurance as well as affective state in middle-aged adults.

Introduction
The introduction is well-written, though one key change that would help strengthen it is a greater focus on previous work evaluating the effects of music on exercise performance and potentially adherence. Much of this work is referenced in the paper’s discussion, without a great amount of detail in the introduction. Given the study purpose, the introduction could benefit from more discussion of how self-selected music, per se, may confer greater/different performance benefits than motivational music. For example, the authors may expand on the statement and references in lines 95-97 to help lend support the idea that self-selected music may confer some different effect on performance than motivational music. The reviewer acknowledges that the cited references do not directly compare motivational (>120 bpm) and self-selected music, however, findings of improved performance with preferred music over other music from Silva et al. (2021) and van de Elzen et al., (2019) would still be beneficial to highlight and might help reinforce the rationale for comparing self-selected and motivational music as defined in the current study.
Moreover, some discussion of conceptual frameworks of how music may affect exercise performance (Terry et al., 2020) might be warranted. Within this meta-analytic review by Terry et al. that the authors have referenced, Terry et al. describe that there have been several previously published conceptual models (including their own) that propose mechanisms for music’s effects on exercise performance. The authors of the current study state that mechanisms are still being elucidated, (line 98) and it would be helpful to the reader to understand current ideas about such mechanisms. Discussing these ideas may provoke thought about how a difference in performance might result from listening to self-selected music versus motivational music. For example, could self-selecting music differentially enhance affective responses through something like cultural impact (Terry et. al 2020) which motivational music may not? If space or page limitations are currently a concern, some of the discussion of the benefits of incorporating resistance exercise throughout the lifespan might be reduced considering that it is not central to the research question being tested. Perhaps readers could be referred to some comprehensive outside sources for this content.
Please include some discussion of how self-selected music per se might be hypothesized to provide an additional benefit over motivational music to strengthen the rationale for the research question.
Experimental design: Experimental Design

The authors have clearly stated their research question, which is relevant and meaningful considering improved affective state and performance may be beneficial for exercise adherence in the long-term.

The experimental design is adequate to answer the question of whether self-selected music and motivational music may confer different benefits for performance and affective state. There are some clarifications to the Materials & Methods section that would improve reproducibility of the study, and there are also some potential limitations that may be important to acknowledge.

Line 124 – The authors outline “inclusion” criteria, although for example, contraindications to physical activity (PAR-Q+) seem like they would be used to exclude participants. Please clarify whether these are inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Line 127 – It is stated that “music as an annoyance factor” is a criteria for exclusion. How is this assessed? Does this mean that people who do not wish to listen to music while they exercise are excluded? If this is the case, this should be considered a limitation and it should be discussed that this could considerably bias results.

Lines 145-150 – MM music was selected by choosing songs from “Top Hits Italia” that had a tempo above 120 bpm. Is it possible that there could have been considerable overlap between SSM and MM, where some of the tracks were the same? If so, how was this handled?

Line 159 – Were lab visits time-matched within this 10:00 am to 6:00 pm window such that participants returned at the same time of day each visit (e.g. 12:00 pm)? Or were participants free to choose any time to report to the lab for each visit, given it was between 10:00 and 6:00? Please clarify.
Validity of the findings: 3)	Validity of the Findings
Overall, the authors have clearly reported their statistical analyses and findings, though some minor clarifications would be helpful for improving this.

Line 189 – RFD was calculated using the 0-50ms window. More information is needed to determine how this window was detected. There are many possible ways of doing this (Maffiuletti et al., 2016). Was visual detection of contraction onset used? A statistical method to see when force deviated beyond baseline noise? Please clarify.

Line 200 – One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare normally distributed physiological variables across conditions. Was the assumption of sphericity met for each ANOVA model? If not, was any correction (e.g., Greenhouse-Geisser or Huynh – Feldt) used to account for positive bias in Type I error rate? It doesn’t seem like it would change any outcomes of statistical inference for these variables when looking at the p-values, but transparency would strengthen the reporting.

Line 260 – A reference would be helpful to strengthen this statement. There is a thorough discussion about this in the aforementioned paper by Maffiuletti et al. (2016).

Lines 291-295 – Some discussion of a few other limitations that affect generalizability of the findings is warranted. First, there are distinct sex differences in fatigability during isometric and dynamic exercise (for thorough review, see Hunter 2014, 2016, 2018). Considering that the authors presumably wished to generalize these findings to all middle-aged adults based on the title as well as discussion (e.g. lines 226-227 & 298-299), the limitation to a sample consisting of only middle-aged males must be acknowledged. Please provide a statement about this limitation to generalizability.
Second, there is also the possibility that there were “Hawthorne” effects that may have confounded the self-selected music choices. Terry et al. (2020) provide some discussion of this in their review. For example, participants may have selected music other that what their true self-selected motivational music would be because they knew researchers would have access to and evaluate their choices. Perhaps participants would have chosen differently if researchers did not ask for the 10 songs, but instead participants selected the songs themselves knowing the researchers would be blinded to their choices. Please provide some discussion about this as a possible limitation, or perhaps delimit in some way if this was somehow accounted for in the study design.

References

Hunter, S. K. (2014). Sex differences in human fatigability: mechanisms and insight to physiological responses. Acta Physiol (Oxf), 210(4), 768-789. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12234
Hunter, S. K. (2016). The Relevance of Sex Differences in Performance Fatigability. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 48(11), 2247-2256. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000928
Hunter, S. K. (2018). Performance Fatigability: Mechanisms and Task Specificity. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029728
Maffiuletti, N. A., Aagaard, P., Blazevich, A. J., Folland, J., Tillin, N., & Duchateau, J. (2016). Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol, 116(6), 1091-1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6
Additional comments: This manuscript titled “Effects of self-selected versus motivational music on lower limb muscle strength and affective state in middle-aged adults” is well-written, and the authors have clearly stated their research question and outlined their methodology for answering the question. Overall, the manuscript is clear and informative, and it can be strengthened with some changes and additions.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SELF-SELECTED VERSUS MOTIVATIONAL MUSIC ON LOWER LIMB MUSCLE STRENGTH AND AFFECTIVE STATE IN MIDDLE-AGED ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, I found the article well written. The theme is interesting. However, I think that the introduction could be more directed to the research problem to be investigated.
- The first paragraph is too broad and beyond the scope of the article (e.g., lines 52 to 57).
- Lines 66 to 70 focus on older adults, but the paper is not on this population.
- Lines 73 to 77 describe adherence to strength training, a problem that was also not investigated by the present study.
- It was also unclear what was the main gap to be investigated and the reasons for studying it. If it was the effect of music on middle-aged adults (line 103), is there any theoretical reason why the authors suspect that the impact of music on this age group might be different from young adults, or is it simply because it has not been studied in this age group yet? The same applies to the lower limbs. Is there any theoretical reason that justifies analyzing the effect of music on the lower limbs, or is it simply because it has not been studied yet?
- Would self-selected music also be motivational? What is the difference between SSM and MM? Please, clarify in the introduction.
Experimental design: I think some criticisms and suggestions need to be addressed before the article is approved for publication. My major concern is about the characteristics of the songs in the SSM condition. There is no information about the Tempo of the songs used in this condition. Therefore, it is not possible to discriminate whether the better mean force performance observed in the SSM was due to Tempo or some other characteristic of the self-selected songs. By chance, all participants could have selected very stimulating songs, which could be a bias in the results. Did any participant choose a calm and relaxing song? I think that this information is essential for the reader of this article to understand the music influence on the performance of this type of exercise.
- Were the participants previously aware of the study's purpose? If so, consider including in the discussion/limitation how this may have interfered with the results.
- If my interpretation of the experimental design is correct, it could be that some self-selected music was also on the motivational playlist. Had this happened to any participant? If yes, how did the authors deal with this bias? If you present individual results (e.g., separated lines for each participant) in Figure 2, it would be possible to visualize individual interactions between MM and SSM songs.
- (line 149) – How was the MM tempo determined?
 - Was there any control over the tempo (bpm) of the auto-selected songs?
- It would be interesting if the description of the test times were more precise. The same participant may have performed one test at 10 am and the other at 5 pm. If so, consider discussing this possible interference with the outcome. (DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003758; DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1751032.)
- (line 165) – Considering that you used a modified equipment to acquire strength data, it would be interesting to include a real photo of the force data acquisition setup.
- I recommend you include more information about force acquisition and analysis (e.g., load cell acquisition frequency, signal filtering parameters, software used for data processing, etc.)
Validity of the findings: - I found the RPE very low for 12 maximal isometric reps. Perhaps the intensity of perceived exertion may explain some differences between your results and previous studies.
- Figure 3 C – suggestion to plot the values of the 12 repetitions. It would allow visualizing the effect of the music throughout the series of repetitions, including in relation to fatigue.

Discussion
- (line 276) – What was the Tempo (bpm) of SSM? In my opinion, it is not possible to make this statement without this information.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SELF-SELECTED VERSUS MOTIVATIONAL MUSIC ON LOWER LIMB MUSCLE STRENGTH AND AFFECTIVE STATE IN MIDDLE-AGED ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all of the comments made for "Basic Reporting" during the intial review.
Experimental design: The authors have sufficiently addressed all of the comments made for "Experimental Design" during the intial review.

One lingering thought is that the revision added in line 142 regarding prevention of Hawthorne effects does not fully address the issue, but revision may not be necessary unless the authors wish to add more discussion in the limitations section of the paper. Hawthorne effects essentially refer to research participants behaving differently because they know that someone (i.e., a researcher), is observing them. They may choose songs differently solely on this basis. One way to try and account for this in experimental design would be to make the subjects aware that researchers would be absolutely blinded to the subjects' song choices, where maybe all playlist submissions were anonymous.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed all of the comments that I had regarding "Validity of the Findings".
Additional comments: With the revisions made to the current version of the manuscript, the authors have sufficiently addressed all of the concerns that I had during the first round of review of the original version. I believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SELF-SELECTED VERSUS MOTIVATIONAL MUSIC ON LOWER LIMB MUSCLE STRENGTH AND AFFECTIVE STATE IN MIDDLE-AGED ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors revised the manuscript by taking into consideration the reviewers' comments.
Most of the previously presented criticisms have been solved. For this reason, I consider that the article meets the requirements to be accepted for publication.
Below are minor comments about the manuscript.
Experimental design: - (line 200) – It seems that the knee angle described does not match that one in Figure 1. Please check it.
– How was the MM tempo determined? I suggest inserting the author´s response to this question in the paper.
Validity of the findings: - After seeing your new Figure 4 I have a suggestion to you think and see if it's worth it. If you run a two-way ANOVA [condition (SSM x MM x CC) and repetition (1 up12)] maybe, you could see an interesting interaction. Perhaps the effect of SSM on mean force disappears as fatigue develops (e.g., after the 10th repetition). If this result is confirmed it would bring a relevant finding to the discussion.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR (ARF) FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN FIG (FICUS CARICA L.) FRUIT DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The MS by Haomiao Wang focuses on identification of ARF gene family in fig followed by the study of phylogeny, gene structures analysis, conserved motif analysis etc. This study provides comprehensive information for the fig ARF gene family.
Experimental design: These are superficial in silico analyses, although the author also analyzed the expression analysis of these genes by QRT-PCR. If necessary, functional verification through genetic modification is required.
Validity of the findings: More comments were listed below:
1.	The Latin names of some species are not italicized. Eg. L128, L141.
2.	The writing of this manuscript needs improvement: tiny errors, eg. L320 (missing space); L146 (extra space). Language needs to be promoted by fluent English speakers.
3.	The legends of figures and tables are not written in detail. Ensure that the reader can get all the information (eg. Softwares, parameters, abbreviation…) displayed by the figure without the main text.
4.	Some software require references to be cited (eg. L171, STRING; L146, gsds; L123, PFAM; L127, SMART).
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR (ARF) FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN FIG (FICUS CARICA L.) FRUIT DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. There are so many ambiguous word in this manuscript, such as “some FcARFs”(Line 289).
2. In the Table 2, authors wrote “Table 1” (Page 35).
3. The written English should be improved.
Experimental design: 1. The abbreviation and full name of tissues must be clearly stated. (Line 288).
2. In the “Expression analysis of FcARFs“part, authors failed to state the accurate methods. We can’t know which data was acquired and calculated by qRT-PCR. And which part was analyzed using database data. (Line 176).
Validity of the findings: 1. The molecular weight differ greatly in the Table 2 (from 52.72 kDa to 127.056kDa), why?
2. The FcARF4 (768 aa) coding only 52.73 kDa protein, why the smaller protein, such as FcARF10 (588 aa), coding bigger protein (65.32 kDa)? The information of this table must be verified once again.
3. In the Figure 1, I suggest that “Ia, Ib, Ic, III, III” should be replaced by “class-Ia, class-Ib, class-Ic, class-III, class-III”.
4. I can’t get any gene structures in the Figure 2(A). This part only give us a phylogenetic tree information, and this tree should be done by amino acid sequences. Furthermore, the data in Figure 2(A) and Figure 2(B) is repeated.
5. The phylogenetic tree has been shown in the Figure 2, it should not be stated in the Figure 3.
6. I suggest the “conserved motif” should be replaced by “Introns and exons” or some other words. Because we can’t find the conserved motif easily in this picture, I think.
7. Authors should label the number of base pair in the figure Figure 2(B), such as -2000, -1000  ------0.
8. Why you analyzed the relationship of bHLH in the Figure 4(B)?
9. The ARF should be revised to FcARF in the Figure 5. Moreover, authors should be state which protein interact with each other first. Then authors could tell us how these interacted proteins regulated. And the Figure 5 should be redesigned.
10. The “Relative expression level” should be labeled in the Figure 6.
11. Authors show us the expression data by the Classes (Line300), but the data was shown by the gene family number. I suggest authors replacerep the data by Classes in the Figure 6.
Additional comments: No additional comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR (ARF) FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN FIG (FICUS CARICA L.) FRUIT DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 16-32-33- -112-151-152-153 -164-165-166-167-168 -172- 317.
The current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript or contact a professional editing service.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Lines 167-168: This sentence needs improvement.
Line 173: Which database?
Line 177-178: This part is not clear.
Line 284: What is IAA1 ? You mentioned it for the first time so it should be spelled out.
Line 284: What are AUX1 and IAA8? You mentioned it for the first time so it should be spelled out
Line 290: These results indicated that these five genes: Which genes?
Line 313: What’s: It is not academic.
Line 341: can’t: Not academic
Line 349: the meaning not clear.
Line 359: so: Not academic.
380: the meaning not clear.
398: The structure of the sentence is not right.
Line 414: AtARF2 plays
Figure 2 B: first line: are FcARF 10, 13, 16 contain CTD or not? Revise.
Figure 4: in the caption you mentioned (bHLH) why? Revise.
Figure 5: which boxes represent IAA transcription factors, green or red? Revise.
Protein interaction network of FcARFs
In this part, there is a new information to the reader that needs more clarification. For example: what is IAA1? why you mentioned it? Does it have role in Auxin response or signaling? Provide more details here, please.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR (ARF) FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN FIG (FICUS CARICA L.) FRUIT DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has improved greatly after revisions.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: line 108: (has been) was written twice, please revise
line 191: genepairs change to gene pairs


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR (ARF) FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN FIG (FICUS CARICA L.) FRUIT DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment