Screening and Regulatory Mechanisms of Inter-Root Soil Nematicidal Bacteria of Pinus massoniana
and Junang Liu 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report of the manuscript:
Screening and regulatory mechanisms of actinobacteria in the rhizosphere of Pinus massoniana
Authors: Yating Wang , Manman Liu , Jiacheng Zhu, Guoying Zhou, and Junang Liu
Summary
The study investigated the bioprotective potential and underlying mechanisms of action exhibited by rhizosphere bacteria associated with Masson pine in the context of controlling the pine wilt nematode. After applying the bacterial suspensions and fermentation extracts of three strains of Lysinibacillus, Bacillus, and Delftia spp., distinct defense responses were observed in the Masson pine, such as an increase in the activities of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) and peroxidase (POD) leading to a substantial reduction in the incidence of pine wilt disease.
General comment
The manuscript is clear and more comprehensive for readers. However, there are some specific points that need to be clarified.
Specific comments
Since line numbers are not provided, the specific comments refer to the following:
1. The title should be changed because Lysinibacillus capsici, Bacillus paramycoides, and Delftia tsuruhatensis are not actinobacteria e.g., Screening and regulatory mechanisms of nematocidal bacteria found in the rhizosphere of Pinus massoniana
2. Abstract: Please, check and correct- Lysinibacillus capsici, Bacillus pParamycoides… and six lines below
3. Introduction: Only genus and species names should be italic
4. 2.4.2 text: Genus and species names should be italic
5. 2.6 Genus and species names should be italic (Pinus massoniana)
6. 3.1.2 Only genus and species names should be italic. The Family, Order, Class, etc., names should not be italicized.
7. Table 2. Molecular identification of 13 bacterial strains- it is not molecular identification it is a list of isolated rhizosphere bacteria with their strain numbers
8. 3.3. Subtitle original: Determination of linecidal activity of fermentation filtrate and bacterial suspension of 4 strains., it should be e.g., Determination of nematocidal (nematicidal) activity of fermentation filtrate and bacterial suspension of 3 bacterial strains
9. 3.4. According to GenBank data and your phylogenetic tree, Delftia sp. is more appropriate identification, because 86% homology is not sufficient for species designation.
10. 3.4. „…forming a distinct branch“ should be forming a distinct cluster (subclade) or similar
11. 3.4. (Figure 4B), (Figure 4C), (Figure 4D) should be (Figure 4A), (Figure 4B), (Figure 4C) respectively
12. 3.4. Bacillus parycoides should be corrected and italicized
13. Figure 4 caption is not corrected, e.g., Neighbor-joining or NJ phylogenetic trees of isolated bacterial strains, (A), strain13-4 (B), strain W45 (C) strain W49
14. 3.5. subtitle should be corrected (pinus massonianas)
15. Figure 5 caption should be corrected:
The study examined the variations in PAL activity within Pinus massoniana under different treatments with four strains of Streptomyces. (A) involved the application of fermentation filtrate for the initial four days; (B)employed fermentation filtrate after nematode inoculation; (C)utilized bacterial suspension for the first four days; (D)applied bacterial suspension after nematode inoculation. CK (sterile water) ; CK2 (sterile water with pine wood nematodes). Error bars represent standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
e.g., Variations in PAL activity within Pinus massoniana under different treatments with three bacterial strains. (A) application of fermentation filtrate for the initial four days; (B) application of fermentation filtrate after nematode inoculation; (C) application of bacterial suspension for the first four days; (D) application of bacterial suspension after nematode inoculation. CK (sterile water); CK2 (sterile water with pine wood nematodes). Error bars represent standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
16. Figure 6 caption should be corrected, see comment no. 15
17. Conclusion: instead of ponytail pines should be Masson pine
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you very much for your comments, we have collated the responses to your comments into a word file, uploaded to the system, please check.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript submitted for review concerns the screening and identification of bacteria with nematicidal potential. Bacteria from the rhizosphere of Pinus massoniana were studied. The toxicity of bacteria/culture extracts of selected bacterial isolates against Bursaphelenchus xylophilus was tested. Considering the threats and damage caused by this nematode species, such studies should be considered as interesting and may have important practical implications. The authors addressed most of the previous objections and significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. Unfortunately, authors will have to find the relevant passages (no line numbering).
Minor comments:
Please check the spelling of Latin names (upper/lower case, italics) - throughout the manuscript.
Remove spaces before the degree sign throughout the manuscript.
“Nematodes that exhibited…” - in my opinion, the lack of movement in nematodes does not necessarily mean that the nematodes were dead.
“… for conducting significance analysis” – rather: to detect significant differences between groups.
Figure 1: increase the fonts of captions, legends, etc. In its current form, the chart is unreadable.
Figure 2: increase the fonts of captions, legends, etc. In its current form, the chart is unreadable.
Table 3, column 5: complete the data, no standard deviation.
Figure 5: slightly increase the fonts of captions, legends, etc. In its current form, the chart is unreadable.
Figure 6: slightly increase the fonts of captions, legends, etc. In its current form, the chart is unreadable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you very much for your comments, we have collated the responses to your comments into a word file, uploaded to the system, please check.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease, see an attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Extensive editing required.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript submitted for review concerns the screening and identification of bacteria with nematicidal potential. Bacteria from the rhizosphere of Pinus massoniana were studied. The toxicity of bacteria/culture extracts of selected bacterial isolates against Bursaphelenchus xylophilus was tested. Considering the threats and damage caused by this nematode species, such studies should be considered as interesting and may have important practical implications. Unfortunately, given the quality of the manuscript submitted for review, it can hardly be considered suitable for publication in its current form.
Major concerns:
- ambiguously defined research objectives,
- very laconically described materials and methods,
- no description of methods / no statistical analysis of research results,
- conclusions based on results that have not been statistically analysed,
- vague, imprecise, sometimes completely incomprehensible language (e.g. stability detection of nematicidal bacteria), terms used incorrectly,
- no supplementary data referred to in the text,
- incorrect citation.
