Identification of Two Novel Loci Underlying Tolerance to Clavibacter michiganensis Originating from Solanum arcanum LA2157

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents a complement to previous research, and indicates that previously unknown additional loci contribute to tolerance of Clavibacter michiganensis in S. arcanum.

In general I find the study satisfactory, although I do feel that at many points the presentation could be more clear.

Otherwise, I only have minor edits:

Line 56 – I advise against referring to introduction as “chapter” – presumably this is from reuse of this text in the author’s thesis.

In what appears to be typesetting error, Table 2 is duplicated.

Line 285 – For the CYP90C1 protein (and the vsf-1 gene), I recommend providing locus-tags in the results section of the manuscript text and not only in the discussion.

Please double check figure/table references in-text as several appear to be referencing the wrong figure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript “Identification of two novel loci underlying tolerance to Clavibacter michiganensis originating from Solanum arcanum LA2157” (Ms. Nr. agronomy-2236288) at Agronomy. We appreciate the time you took to read and comment on our manuscript and providing us with feedback. We have edited the manuscript and incorporated changes suggested by you. Please find below the response to your comments.

• Line 56 – I advise against referring to introduction as “chapter” – presumably this is from reuse of this text in the author’s thesis.
  • We have changed the word “chapter” to “manuscript”.
• In what appears to be typesetting error, Table 2 is duplicated.
  • Thank you for noticing this error. We have made the change in the table legend and the text.
• Line 285 – For the CYP90C1 protein (and the vsf-1 gene), I recommend providing locus-tags in the results section of the manuscript text and not only in the discussion.
  • We agree and have added the SolycIDs of the gene names in the text.
• Please double check figure/table references in-text as several appear to be referencing the wrong figure.
  • We have gone through the text and have corrected the mistakes regarding the figure/table numbering.

We are looking forward to your response on our revised submission and to respond to any further comments and questions about our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eleni Koseoglou, PhD

Postdoctoral researcher, Plant Breeding

Wageningen University & Research

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript. This work brings new aspects to the explanation of the resistance/tolerance of Solanum to bacterial disease caused by Clavibacter michiganensis. The structure of this paper is generally good, but there are sections in Discussion that should be placed in Results. It is rare to find a paper in which in Discussion so many Tables or Figures were cited, this may suggest repetition of results. This manuscript should be published in Agronomy/MDPI, but minor changes should be made in various places as suggested.

Line 24 Key word should not contain words that are in the title. So words

  Clavibacter michiganensis; Solanum arcanum LA2157 should be replaced by others. Also, they should not contain abbreviations like QTLs, this must be removed or the full name must be given (Quantitative Trait Loci)

Line 52 plantspathogen ??

Line 72 the first time you use the abbreviation, its meaning should be explained, here it is about QTLs

Line 83, line 97, and then multiple times throughout the text  cv.MM - insert space

Line 88 writing "humifusum" in quotes is unreasonable, it should be humifusum. Consider making a change. Besides, the proper name varietas, like genus and species, should be written in italic

Table 1 - all abbreviations used should be explained

Line 114 (1999) - should be removed

Line 120 ‘bacterial’ - must be removed

Line 123, enter the number of plants and plant organ used for inoculation (some data are provided only in Results)

Line 236 ‘A and B’ – it is not clear, what do you mean, a and b?

Line 261 and 267 , 277 ‘(S. Table 2) (S. Table 3, S. Figure 1)’ (Table S4.), ‘ - not entirely clear what does this S. mean, See or Supplementary?

Line 262 ‘(Ccytochrome P450/CYP90C1)’ consider revising this sentence

Line 302 Figure 5 is missing  in the Results section (it is only in Discussion)

Line 346, line 349, line 351 Arabidopsis should be in italic

Line 460   bibliographic data need to be completed

Literature – should be unified and written in accordance with the MDPI guidelines

Literature – Latin names of fungi, bacteria and plants should be written in italic

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript “Identification of two novel loci underlying tolerance to Clavibacter michiganensis originating from Solanum arcanum LA2157” (Ms. Nr. agronomy-2236288) at Agronomy. We appreciate the time you took to read and comment on our manuscript and providing us with feedback. We have edited the manuscript and incorporated changes suggested by you. Please find below our response to your comments.

• Line 24 Key word should not contain words that are in the title. So wordsClavibacter michiganensis; Solanum arcanum LA2157 should be replaced by others. Also, they should not contain abbreviations like QTLs, this must be removed or the full name must be given (Quantitative Trait Loci)
  • Thank you for the comment. We have replaced the words present in the title with two other keywords.
• Line 52 plantspathogen ??
  • Thank you for noticing. We have rephrased the sentence.
• Line 72 the first time you use the abbreviation, its meaning should be explained, here it is about QTLs
  • We have given the full explanation of the abbreviation.
• Line 83, line 97, and then multiple times throughout the text  cv.MM - insert space
  • Thank you for noticing this typo. We have inserted gaps when needed in the text.
• Line 88 writing "humifusum" in quotes is unreasonable, it should be humifusum. Consider making a change. Besides, the proper name varietas, like genus and species, should be written in italic
  • We have made the change suggested.
• Table 1 - all abbreviations used should be explained
  • Thank you for the comment. We have tried to explain all abbreviations in the table. However, the QTLs referred to as Rcm in the table were named this way in the original paper without explanation of the abbreviation.
• Line 114 (1999) - should be removed
  • Thankk you for noticing, we have removed it.
• Line 120 ‘bacterial’ - must be removed
  • We have removed the word “bacterial” as suggested.
• Line 123, enter the number of plants and plant organ used for inoculation (some data are provided only in Results)
  • As suggested we have included the number of plants used per experiment and line in the materials and methods section.
• Line 236 ‘A and B’ – it is not clear, what do you mean, a and b?
  • Thank you for noticing, that was a typo that was changed to a and b.
• Line 261 and 267 , 277 ‘(S. Table 2) (S. Table 3, S. Figure 1)’ (Table S4.), ‘ - not entirely clear what does this S. mean, See or Supplementary?
  • We have changed “S. Table 2” etc to “Supplementary Table 2” and so on for clarity.
• Line 262 ‘(Ccytochrome P450/CYP90C1)’ consider revising this sentence.
  • Thank you for the suggestion, we have revised the sentence.
• Line 302 Figure 5 is missingin the Results section (it is only in Discussion)
  • Thank you for noticing, we now refer to the figure in the results as well.
• Line 346, line 349, line 351 Arabidopsis should be in italic
  • We have made the suggested changes.
• Line 460bibliographic dataneed to be completed
  • We have made the change.
• Literature – should be unified and written in accordance with the MDPI guidelines
  • We have revised the bibliography and used the style suggested by the MDPI guidelines.
• Literature – Latin names of fungi, bacteria and plants should be written in italic
  • We have gone through the literature and made the changes in latin names.

We are looking forward to your response on our revised submission and to respond to any further comments and questions about our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eleni Koseoglou, PhD

Postdoctoral researcher, Plant Breeding

Wageningen University & Research