Molecular Regulation of Cotton Fiber Development: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper «Molecular and phytohormones regulation of cotton fiber development. A Review” is a well written review which focus on the role and mechanisms of phytohormones in cotton fiber development. Firstly, is presented in a very comprehensive figure (figure 1) the transcription factors in different stages of fiber development and the genes involved. Then are presented all the phytohormones that take part in the cotton fiber growth.
Abstract was well written and the introduction was written with enough background information. The references (older and current) are adequate for a review paper but according to my opinion the only missing paragraph is about the use of exogenously applied compounds to regulate cotton growth because in cotton cultivation the PGRs used as crop terminators, boll openers, defoliants and desiccants. Although the aim of the study is of course the fiber development, a lot of research include strategies for using PGRs in cotton production to improve yield and crop management and the review paper will be more completed with a session presenting the applied PGR.
Furthermore, all the titles of the figures are unnecessary long. More specific
- Figure 1 lines 144-149 can be included in the text and not here
- Figure 2 lines 280-283 the same as above
- Figure 3 lines 358-362 the same as above. The texts about L,A,C and E has no relation with the figure
- Figure 4 lines 365-367, the same as above. Only the figure captions for GA, BR etc has to remain
- Figure 5 lines 411-414 has to be included in the text
The titles of the sessions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6 has not to be in abbreviations.
Finally, the following minor issues has to be taken under consideration
Line 68 is “form” and not “from”
Line 173. Why the figure is not numbered 2?
Generally, the paper is accepted for publishing after some major considerations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
cotton is one of the most important agricultural crops. Obtaining high-quality long-fiber cotton is the most important task. The authors considered in detail the effect of phytohormones and some other factors on fiber elongation. Interesting data were discussed on the influence of both endogenous and exogenous factors. The manuscript is well-formed, but there are some minor remarks.
122 and table - expansin
362 - in vivo italic
fig 4 - it is not visible where are black and where are green lines
524 -remove space
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the review is ambitious: to review the whole of the molecular and phytohormone regulation of cotton fibre development. In the end, I feel that it is perhaps too ambitious. Instead of reaching these lofty goals, the authors have focussed on and drawn information from (too) few studies and it is certainly not the comprehensive review that the authors intended. The sections on fatty acid metabolism, and actin cytoskeleton seem to have been omitted.
the strongest section is the discussion of phytohormones and perhaps the authors should have focussed on and expanded just on this aspect of cell elongation. However, according to the paper, it seems that there are many many holes to fill in the research before a review of this aspect is warranted
As it stands, the paper is a collation of a relatively small number of papers. whilst I understand that in any review it is impossible to reference every research paper in this field, I do not feel that sufficient searches for relevant papers has been undertaken. Instead broad-based conclusions have been drawn from studies of specific transcriptional studies.
I have tabluated my corrections of the English as a document together with a Word copy of the manscript in which the corrections are highlighted
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is acepted after the corrections made
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are to be thanked for the substantial re write of the manuscript. It is so much more readable. I was particularly pleased to see that it has now been wholly directed at the subject matter and the agronomy sections removed. Whilst I remain skeptical as to whether a review of this kind represents a substantial contribution to the field, it now, nevertheless, provides a reasonable introductory overview of its stated aims: the role of molecular and phytohormone regulation of cotton and as the authors state in the revised conclusions, there remains much to be done. I look forward to reading the authors own original future contributions to this field.
