Identification and Genomic Characterization of Pathogenic Bacillus altitudinis from Common Pear Trees in Morocco
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current study entitled “Identification and genomic characterization of pathogenic Bacillus altitudinis from common pear trees in Morocco” is a good study. Although the study is well conducted, I suggest a rejection due to the following deficiencies. Major Abstract 1- Please provide a statement regarding globally importance of research scope (avoid specifying the research only on indigenous areas) in a single line. 2- Any reader needs to know the identified problem. Please elaborate the selection of solution recommended and studied in the article. 3- Provide some quantitative data (percentage increase or decrease) of studied parameters. Without that conclusive conclusion cannot be proposed. 4- No future prospective and potential benefits of this research are provided at the end of the abstract. Please provide that in a single line. Introduction 5- Give hypothesis of study at the end of the introduction. Without that, how authors can decide null hypothesis. Also, give the target audience who will benefit from this research and the aim of the study. Material and Methodology 6- Give composition of KB media with reference. 7- How 109 CFU/ml concentration was adjusted. Please elaborate with suitable reference. Discussion 8- Give mechanistic discussion rather than comparing your results with other studies. There are many vague statements. Discuss your results in connection with the mechanistic approach. Decrease the length of discussion. Rather than descriptive, adopt mechanistic approach for discussion. Conclusion 9- No conclusion is provided. Give a conclusive conclusion. It must include a comparison of treatments in 1-2 line. Potential benefits of a selection of best amendment. Conclusion statement with the recommendation and future prospective in 1-2 line. Minor The English language needs extensive editing.Author Response
Replies to the Reviewer 1 of the paper entitled “Identification and genomic characterization of pathogenic Bacillus altitudinis from common pear trees in Morocco” by Lemjiber et al. submitted to Agronomy, Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops, Research topic Resilience to Biotic and Environmental Stresses in Horticultural Crops.
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and comments to help us improve the manuscript.
All the line numbers cited in our replies refer to the revised version of the manuscript. An annotated (underlined in yellow) version of the revised manuscript is provided.
All the modifications are provided on a separate document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is very interesting and shows very interesting results. however, it requires some minor corrections:
Research goal 1 - the authors indicate what the research goal is, but at the same time indicate one of the most important conclusions from the conducted research - which patigan has been identified. In my opinion, this information should be transferred to conclusions and the purpose should be shortened or written in some other way.
2. Conclusions - one of the conclusions drawn from these studies is the identified perpetrator of the disease, not just a report on its ganomic sequence. Conclusions should be expanded.
3. material and materials - line 139 - what does normal greenhouse conditions mean? conditions should be described in more detail.
4. Results - why only one heater has the bootstrap values shown?
moreover, fonts of different sizes appear in the manuscript - it should be standardized.
Author Response
Replies to the Reviewer 2 of the paper entitled “Identification and genomic characterization of pathogenic Bacillus altitudinis from common pear trees in Morocco” by Lemjiber et al. submitted to Agronomy, Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops, Research topic Resilience to Biotic and Environmental Stresses in Horticultural Crops.
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and comments to help us improve the manuscript.
All the line numbers cited in our replies refer to the revised version of the manuscript. An annotated (underlined in yellow) version of the revised manuscript is provided.
All the modifications are provided on a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript gives a good contribution of Bacillus altitudinis characterization in common pear trees. However, I have concerns about the methods and results of the paper that I believe need to be addressed in order to improve its clarity. In particular, statistical data about infection (%) and severity (%) are missing. Their approach is interesting but it has some flaws that make this version unacceptable for publication. Provided they conduct changes to the manuscript, I believe this paper could be of interest to the interested reader on plant disease.
A few points:
L.19: …cv. Louise Bonne? I think you should explain beforehand that it is a variety of common pear.
L.21: In “gene sequencing”, font style seems different from the other text parts. Please, check in all manuscript.
Ls.30-32: Keywords should be in alphabetic order. Also, keywords serve to widen the opportunity to be retrieved from a database. To put words that already are into title and abstracts makes KW not useful. Please choose terms that are neither in the title nor in abstract.
L.40: Change “[5; 6; 7]” by “[5-7]”.
L.42: I am not sure of the format, but please check if semicolon [11; 12] should be comma [11,12] here. Please, check the order in all manuscript.
Ls.94-99: In addition to the objective, a hypothesis for this study is needed.
L.95: Previously, a brief details about learn burns symptoms observed on pear common trees is needed.
L.107: Define “sterile physiological water”
Ls.118-120: How many isolates?
Ls.120, 126, and 128: Change “ml” by “mL”
L.142: Again, define “sterile physiological water”
Ls.160-162: Kruskal-Wallis (or one-way ANOVA on ranks) is an extended non-parametric test used to compare treatment means. Rewrite. Also, How many treatments? How many repetitions? Explain.
Ls.218-220: This information should be in material and methods.
Ls.220-233: Where are the statistical results of the percentage of infection?
Ls.220-223: According to the statistical analysis, Were statistically significant the results?
L.225:…negative control? In material and methods section, authors should provide the conditions of the control group plants.
L.226: Include statistical results of inoculated isolates for cv. Williams. Also, Were statistically significant the results?
Figure 2: According to the statistical analysis, change this boxplot (interquartile range) by figure (with columns) showing severity (%) mean of each bacterial isolates.
L.246: Also, place * to column significant treatment.
Ls.262-263: Repetitive. Delete this sentence.
L.383: Delete “In summary”
Author Response
Replies to the Reviewer 3 of the paper entitled “Identification and genomic characterization of pathogenic Bacillus altitudinis from common pear trees in Morocco” by Lemjiber et al. submitted to Agronomy, Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops, Research topic Resilience to Biotic and Environmental Stresses in Horticultural Crops.
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and comments to help us improve the manuscript.
All the line numbers cited in our replies refer to the revised version of the manuscript. An annotated (underlined in yellow) version of the revised manuscript is provided.
All the modifications are provided on a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
I am satisfied with the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Please add the heading of the conclusion paragraph. Minor English language changes are requested.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you again for your time and relevant comments That improved our manuscript.
A heading of the conclusion section and English language editing will be made for the next version of the manuscript.
Kind regards.
