Reviewer #: This is a generally clearly written manuscript that is of some interest. However, the discussion section is rather difficult to follow, and needs quite extensive revision. The fact that only one wild type strain of ......was tested is a weakness, because it gives the reader little assurance that the mutant strains truly had different characteristics.Reviewer #2: -The paper has several spelling and grammatical mistakes. some are summarized below接下来就是审稿专家给出具体的错误以及他给改的正确写法。在文章中做了相应修改，应该如何回复？
我的社区
签到
赛默飞实验室产品焕新计划有奖调研！
【七月征文】不一YOUNG实验“猿”
报名开启：ICS2024第十三届光谱网络会议！
推荐收藏！盘点中药材及饮片检测解决方案
