| ²é¿´: 2764 | »Ø¸´: 25 | ||||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | ||||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | ||||
ljl1205ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
|
[½»Á÷]
´ó¼Ò°ÑÊÕµ½µÄÉó¸åÒâ¼û¶¼·¢ÉÏÀ´°É
|
|||
´ó¼Ò°ÑÊÕµ½µÄÉó¸åÒâ¼û¶¼·¢ÉÏÀ´°É£¬É¹É¹¿´¿´Éó¸åÈËµÄÆÀ¼Û£¬ÓÐûÓÐ×îºÃµÄÆÀÓÈð³µÈÕ°ÑöÒ»ÏÂ![]() ![]() |
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
ÂÛÎÄͶ¸å |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
366Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì085601£¬270Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ37È˻ظ´
279ѧ˶ʳƷרҵÇóµ÷¼ÁԺУ
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
290µ÷¼ÁÉúÎï0860
ÒѾÓÐ31È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸085802 323·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
277Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
322Çóµ÷¼Á£¬08¹¤¿Æ
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì281»¹Óе÷¼Á»ú»áÂð
ÒѾÓÐ30È˻ظ´
»¯Ñ§070300 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶294·Ö£¬Çóµ¼Ê¦ÊÕÁô
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
wangwei2008
ľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
Сľ³æÖ®ÒÆ»¨¹¬Ö÷
- Ó¦Öú: 6 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 4264.6
- É¢½ð: 1
- ºì»¨: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 4265
- ÔÚÏß: 152.7Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 495631
- ×¢²á: 2008-01-15
- רҵ: Ö²ÎïÉúÀíÓëÉú»¯
¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï
ljl1205(½ð±Ò+5,VIP+0): 9-9 22:31
ljl1205(½ð±Ò+5,VIP+0): 9-9 22:31
|
Reviewer #2: This paper reported the isolation and preliminary characterization of a *****that showed ******************.While the**are of value both as *********for improvement of ***************and as potential new *, there are some major concerns about the completeness and quality of the experiment, as well as the organization and English of the paper. 1. The introduction is very detailed on somaclonal variation, some of them are not necessary. For example,Paragraph 3 and 4 can be replaced by citing two or three relevant review papers 2. There are a number of publications documenting the genetic basis of ***************and more recently, the cloning of these genes, they should be part of the introduction and discussed against the result of this study in the Discussion. The lack of any genetic characterization of the induced resistance is the major shortfall of this research. If there is any data, it would be very helpful. 3. The yield performance of Tables 1, 2, 3 might be presented in a single figure, while other data, for example, *****might be given in the context (since more comprehensive data are given in table 4). *******with stdev would be sufficient for the Table 3. 4. For table 4, the presentation of data for************ is different from mutants, the actual meaning should be explained. 5. In the Discussion, the last sentence of Paragraph 1 seems to be contradictory to the numerious successful examples given in Paragraph 2. 6. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 4, it stated that "************************************** . This is indeed not true; the frequency is already extremely high to have*********from *considering no screening was done during**********. Therefore, the reasons for such a high ******** frequency should be discussed. Additionally, the possible underlining mechanism of the non-segregation**and ***** such as maturity and plant ******** which is extremely unusual, should be discussed. 7. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 5 seems not very relevant and can be deleted. 8. Overall, the English needs a thorough revsion. |
6Â¥2009-09-09 22:23:26
ljl1205
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 12 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.118
- ½ð±Ò: 3602.5
- É¢½ð: 2948
- ºì»¨: 22
- Ìû×Ó: 1305
- ÔÚÏß: 1822.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 353140
- ×¢²á: 2007-04-23
- רҵ: ¿ØÖÆÀíÂÛÓë·½·¨
2Â¥2009-09-09 21:47:42
goodtimega
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 1 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 8138.7
- É¢½ð: 570
- ºì»¨: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 1489
- ÔÚÏß: 527.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 820248
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-02
- רҵ: ¸ß·Ö×Ó²ÄÁϽṹÓëÐÔÄÜ
3Â¥2009-09-09 21:58:28
bjlumang
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 25 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 9225.9
- É¢½ð: 56
- ºì»¨: 14
- Ìû×Ó: 7788
- ÔÚÏß: 640.1Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 149938
- ×¢²á: 2005-12-29
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: »¯¹¤ÈÈÁ¦Ñ§ºÍ»ù´¡Êý¾Ý
|
COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS Reviewer #1: It is a well written paper with a clear objective and well designed experiments. The findings are a relevant contribution in the field of engineered bioremediation. However, a few minor issues should be addressed: Reviewer #2: This is a good work to combine the bioslurry and two-liquid-phase systems in order to biological degrade persistant contaminants. It contains a variety of chemical and biochemical analysis in order to evaluate the performance of system. However, as I read the manuscript, I theink it need a minor revision about following comments: |
4Â¥2009-09-09 22:18:43














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥