大修修回后的结果无法预测，大修，小修。接收，拒稿都有可能，拒稿的可能性比较小。

既然只Under Review一周，那么直接接受的可能性大很多

谢谢回复！大修没让补试验，但有些问题需要解释，一些细节需要修改，我担心我的讨论不知道修改的是不是到位

祝福

这种情况收到minor或者直接accept的可能性非常高，参见：https://muchong.com/t-11747914-1

这种情况下感觉应该是好消息，不会有太大问题的，楼主放心

决定出来了，又是大修！修改意见如下，大家给些意见，谢谢！
From the handing Editor. If the authors are not able to present the work in a clear and undrestable language, with errors in the terminology, how can the science behind bu trusted? This is even worst considering the previous review. I have decided to give you one more oportunity to present a proper manuscript. We are not talking about doing new experiments but just to correct the previous versión.

Reviewer #1: The revised form of the manuscripts is substantially improved; however, there are still some major flows left. Another thorough revision is necessary.
The abstract is even more confusing than in the previous variant. "Differential abundance protein-coding genes (DAPS)" is a nonsense, the abbreviation DAPS is for differentially abundant protein species (gene products), not genes. This mistake is throughout the entire manuscript. Transcript changes is another level of regulation, do not confuse protein species, transcripts and genes. Again there are common unnecessary words and lack of substantial details. The abstract should be rewritten, the key biological processes and and the most prominent changing protein species should be clearly explained. In the present form the Abstract is unacceptable for me，