Characterization of Antagonist Potential of Selected Compost Bacterial Isolates (CBI) against Plant and Human Pathogens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study carried out by the author(s) is interesting and meaningful. This manuscript is well structured and written (Title, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion and References).

The title is clearly written. The abstract is well written and there clear idea as what the study is. There is design experiment defined. The general idea of research is well expressed, however, there is no future scope. The introduction is very well written, comprehensive and thorough and corresponds to the body of the manuscript. Materials and methods: This section is extremely orderly and coherent way, the materials and methods used in this section are well defined, there is a clear explanation of the experiment. Results and Discussion: Results are exposed and explained very well, there is accurate explanation the entire reading. The written discussion references the issue through many other scientific studies. The present study is interesting and relevant with high base on the magnitude of the work.  The manuscript so submitted could be accepted for publication in the journal in an Agronomy journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript.

As per your suggestions, we included some of our future scope in the conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of the article “Characterization of bacterial strains isolated from compost piles under Mediterranean climate”. The authors studied the to investigate to isolate indigenous bacterial isolates from compost piles, profile them by enzymatic, biochemical, and genetic characterization, and investigate the antagonistic potential of their secondary metabolites. The article, however, must be improved in terms of writing since some grammar and syntax errors are present in the manuscript. They should address the subject and critically review the information from the literature.

 

 

The paper is correct but, in my opinion, fails to adequately explain in which respect the enzymes is important by comparison with the multiple other enzymes already described?

 

 Minor suggestions:

1-     The authors need to revise the title of the paper in a more meaningful way.

2-     The abstract (introduction) is written in a way lacks logic. It should highlight the salient findings more critically.

3-     Introduction need more convincing rational for this article. 

4-     The results of this study are not fully explained therefore the interpretation of the relative expression results is very difficult. The author needs to provide the “x fold” increase or decrease rather than just writing ''significantly increased….''.

5-     Authors should discuss the results integrally. The discussion is based on individual results. I suggest that integrating the results will give more value to the work. The response of the plant to the drought and salinity is integrated. I suggest that you discuss by integrating all your results. You can use correlation tests (PCA or Pearson Correlation). 

6-     In figures do the bars in the columns mean standard error or standard deviation? Improve caption description.

7-     Re-write the conclusion! It needs to be much improved.

Author Response

The paper is correct but, in my opinion, fails to adequately explain in which respect the enzymes is important by comparison with the multiple other enzymes already described?

In our work, 11 Compost Bacterial Isolates (CBI) were selected and we intended to have a general overview of the inhibitory activity of the totality of their secondary metabolites. Enzymes represent a part of these secondary metabolites in addition to other type of substances. Since the inhibitory activities were validated, a complete metabolomics and proteomics studies will be fulfilled in our upcoming works detailing the exact profiling of these secondary metabolites, and showing their importance and differences to existing ones.

 Minor suggestions:

• The authors need to revise the title of the paper in a more meaningful way.

Done. Characterization of antagonistic potential of selected Compost Bacterial Isolates (CBI) against plant and human pathogens

• The abstract (introduction) is written in a way lacks logic. It should highlight the salient findings more critically.

Done. The abstract and the introduction were re-written

• Introduction need more convincing rational for this article. 

Done. The introduction was re-written to fit the suggestions of the reviewer.

• The results of this study are not fully explained therefore the interpretation of the relative expression results is very difficult. The author needs to provide the “x fold” increase or decrease rather than just writing ''significantly increased….''.

Because the interval of variation (increasing or decreasing) in the microbial population is very large (ex: figure 1a: increase by 400 or 4000 in the ISP2 media between soil/pile A and Pile C), we didn’t mention the ‘x-fold’ in the manuscript. In fact, in the Tukey’s test results, the formula indicates how large an observed difference must be for the multiple comparison procedure to call it significant.

• Authors should discuss the results integrally. The discussion is based on individual results. I suggest that integrating the results will give more value to the work. The response of the plant to the drought and salinity is integrated. I suggest that you discuss by integrating all your results. You can use correlation tests (PCA or Pearson Correlation). 

Thank you for your valuable comment. In fact, selected bacteria were done from a variety of compost piles containing different percentage of organic raw materials. These preserved bacteria were subjected to different bio-chemical-enzymatic and antagonistic tests in separate condition (there was no common in the methods of analyses between these tests). That’s why, only part of the data (enumeration of the bacteria from different piles) was evaluated according to Pearson correlation. As for the remaining tests, they were evaluated separately.

• In figures do the bars in the columns mean standard error or standard deviation? Improve caption description.

The bars in the column represent the standard deviation as the analyses were conducted in three triplicates as mentioned in the Materials and Methods (line 257-258).

• Re-write the conclusion! It needs to be much improved.

Done. We re-wrote the conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study entitled “Characterization of bacterial strains isolated from compost piles under Mediterranean climate” is good. For a better understanding in-depth, it is a need for time to work on this topic. Furthermore, achieving potential benefits by using current technology depends on extensive research work for more exploration. Although the experiment is well organized, I suggest a rejection due to the following deficiencies.

 

Major Concerns

Title

• The title doesn't indicate anything new about the present study. To grab the reader's attention, the title must accurately reflect the value addition that the writers created in their prior work. If the authors discovered any new findings in the present study that were not previously disclosed, please update them accordingly.

Abstract

• There is no systematic abstract. i.e., Please incorporate a subject introduction, issue description, justification for choosing the technology employed in the study at hand, knowledge gap to be filled, methodology in a few sentences, standout findings, and a conclusion.
• Please provide the need of study in the abstract in 1-2 lines.
• Please give a clear-cut point problem.
• Give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy, i.e., The aim of this work is to isolate indigenous bacterial isolates from compost piles, profile them by enzymatic, biochemical, and genetic characterization, and investigate the antagonistic potential of their secondary metabolites. Has nobody done this before? What is the novelty of this type of work?
• Where is quantitative data to justify the results and conclusions?
• I am unable to find any conclusive conclusion in the current study. Please elaborate on what the authors have concluded.
• In the statement that follows, please highlight the knowledge gap that was filled, the prospective beneficiaries, and the suggestions. This statement These findings require additional field investigations to validate their industrial potential for organic waste treatment under Mediterranean conditions. is very general. It is not a conclusion but a future perspective.
• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

Introduction

• Where is a hypothesis which is tested in the current study? I did not find any hypothesis in the current study introduction.
• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-specific) hypothesis statement?
• No aims of the study are provided at the end of the study. Please provide that.

Material and methods

• It is fine.

Results

 

• Can not check without a hypothesis statement.

Conclusion

 

• The conclusion is absent. Please provide a conclusive conclusion.
• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefit from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations
• Give future perspective regarding this research.

Author Response

Title

The title doesn't indicate anything new about the present study. To grab the reader's attention, the title must accurately reflect the value addition that the writers created in their prior work. If the authors discovered any new findings in the present study that were not previously disclosed, please update them accordingly.

Done. The title was changed. Characterization of antagonistic potential of selected Compost Bacterial Isolates (CBI) against plant and human pathogens

Abstract

There is no systematic abstract. i.e., Please incorporate a subject introduction, issue description, justification for choosing the technology employed in the study at hand, knowledge gap to be filled, methodology in a few sentences, standout findings, and a conclusion.

Please provide the need of study in the abstract in 1-2 lines.

Please give a clear-cut point problem.

Give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy, i.e., The aim of this work is to isolate indigenous bacterial isolates from compost piles, profile them by enzymatic, biochemical, and genetic characterization, and investigate the antagonistic potential of their secondary metabolites. Has nobody done this before? What is the novelty of this type of work?

Where is quantitative data to justify the results and conclusions?

I am unable to find any conclusive conclusion in the current study. Please elaborate on what the authors have concluded.

In the statement that follows, please highlight the knowledge gap that was filled, the prospective beneficiaries, and the suggestions. This statement These findings require additional field investigations to validate their industrial potential for organic waste treatment under Mediterranean conditions. is very general. It is not a conclusion but a future perspective.

As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

Done. The abstract was re-written

Introduction

Where is a hypothesis which is tested in the current study? I did not find any hypothesis in the current study introduction.

Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-specific) hypothesis statement?

No aims of the study are provided at the end of the study. Please provide that.

Done. The introduction was reformulated and re-written mentioning a hypothesis as per your suggestion.

Material and methods

It is fine.

Results

Can not check without a hypothesis statement.

Conclusion

The conclusion is absent. Please provide a conclusive conclusion.

Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefit from this research.

Also, give clear-cut recommendations

Give future perspective regarding this research.

Done. The conclusion was re-written.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I am very happy to see significant improvements in the manuscript. After a long time, I received a good revision. I am satisfied with all the changes.

Regards