PPDP: A Data Portal of Paris polyphylla for Polyphyllin Biosynthesis and Germplasm Resource Exploration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a data portal to facilitate the analysis of transcriptomic data and utilize Paris polyphylla's polyphyllin biosynthesis as a proof of concept.
The PPDP appears to have useful workflow options to assist scientists in studying transcriptomic data.
More information is needed in the materials and methods section, specifically about the tissue collected and sequencing library creation. More specifics are included in the attached file.
Many small grammatical errors occur throughout the manuscript, such as inconsistent capitalization. Please see the attached PDF for edits and fix them.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript includes very relevant and diverse information on related molecular data resources, functional genomics analysis, among other aspects of the plant Paris polyphylla var. yuannensis. This information is provided on a platform (Paris polyphylla Data Portal) which, as far as I have verified, is active and fully operational.
My main concern is focused on the positive identity of the plants of the genus Paris studied. The authors, most likely following the criteria of "Flora of China", accepted a broad and variable species (Paris polyphylla) with several varieties, but there are detailed studies and very recent databases that do not follow this criteria. The recent monograph of the Parisn genus is very important [Ji, Y. (2021). A monograph of Paris (Melanthiaceae): 1-203. Science press Beijing.]. This monograph is not cited in the Bibliography and recognizes the plant studied by the authors as an independent species (Paris yuannensis).
This relevant taxonomic issue should be dealt with by the authors. They can follow the taxonomic criteria that seems most adequate, but if these varieties of Paris Polyphylla are (apparently) well characterized morphologically and genetically, they should be assigned to different species. Thus they are also accepted in the prestigious POWO database, see: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:539734-1
In the attached pdf I have included minor corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
