Integrating Cytochrome P450-Mediated Herbicide Tolerance into Anthocyanin-Rich Maize Through Conventional Breeding
, Jose Manuel Oregel-Zamudio 1,†, José Andrés Barajas-Chávez 1,†, Ernesto Oregel-Zamudio 1,* and Jesús Rubén Torres-GarcÃa 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript contains interesting data on herbicide tolerance in maize hybrids. Introduction is valuable. The research hypothesis is robust. Materials are written with sufficient details, and Results are valuable. Figures and tables are relevant and of good quality. Conclusions are well correlated with the results. The literature corresponds well with the topic of research. A few comments below:
Ln 112 – How many maize seedlings per pot?
Ln 118 – Are those field doses of herbicides?
What were the names of commercial herbicides that were used?
How did you obtain the DW1 in the AGR?
Ln 128-131, explain what relative fluorescence is?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors conducted a study on Integrating Cytochrome P450–Mediated Herbicide Tolerance into Anthocyanin-Rich Maize through Conventional Breeding, which holds a certain degree of significance. However, several issues need to be addressed:
Lines 58–62: The authors should provide background information on the CYP450 gene family, which is a large and diverse group. Specifically, they need to indicate which subfamilies play prominent roles in herbicide resistance.
Lines 71–72: The text lacks a clear connection to herbicide tolerance.
Lines 96–109: The authors should include representative plant images to support the description.
Line 118: The sources of mesotrione and nicosulfuron should be clearly specified.
Line 160: The abbreviation “RDMI” should be defined in full upon its first appearance to avoid confusion.
Table 1: The symbol “±” should be followed by clarification as to whether it represents SD or SE.
Section 3.1: This section involves visually observable traits, and is best supported by images. Since foliar damage is a prominent and easily visible phenotype, image should be provided.
The current image resolution is poor, making it difficult to interpret the contents. In Figure 2, black borders and compressed elements obscure important information.
Lines 220–231: The authors are making overly speculative claims. CYP81A6 and CYP81A9 are mentioned repeatedly, but no actual expression data or RT-qPCR validation is provided. Without direct measurement, all statements about “high expression” or “rapid induction” remain hypothetical and should be presented more cautiously.
Several conclusions are overstated. The authors did not conduct RNA-seq, or any quantification of CYP-related genes. For example, the “anabolic rebound” interpretation must be supported by data on plant hormone metabolism or gene expression. Likewise, the “metabolic tolerance” mechanism requires molecular-level validation of CYP expression. The authors should either supplement the study with such data or revise the conclusions to ensure they are grounded in experimentally verified results.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have answered my questions, I have no other comments.
