Identification of Upland Rice Genotypes Resistant to Neck Blast Disease: A Systematic Review of Field and Greenhouse Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a systematic review of upland rice genotypes resistant to neck (panicle) blast caused by Magnaporthe oryzae, synthesising evidence from field and greenhouse studies published between 1980 and 2025. The topic is relevant to plant pathology, crop genetics, and breeding for stress resilience, and it fits well within the scope of Genes. The authors adopt a structured review framework inspired by PRISMA principles and attempt to integrate phenotypic resistance data with genetic and QTL-based evidence.

Overall, the manuscript demonstrates substantial effort, a clear research question, and a commendable level of methodological transparency. However, several conceptual, methodological, and presentation issues limit its current impact and clarity. Addressing the points below would significantly strengthen the manuscript.

The review addresses an important but relatively narrow subset of rice blast resistance, namely neck blast in upland systems. While this focus is justified, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer positioning within the broader blast-resistance literature. At present, the Introduction provides extensive background but does not sufficiently articulate: why neck blast resistance should be considered separately from leaf blast in breeding programmes, and how the present review advances understanding beyond existing narrative or gene-centred reviews. A concise paragraph explicitly stating the added value of this review (e.g. integration of field durability, upland specificity, and resistance consistency) is recommended.

The authors adopt many elements of systematic review methodology, including eligibility criteria, database searches, dual screening, and risk-of-bias assessment. This is a strength. However:

• The review is described as “systematic”, yet protocol registration (e.g. PROSPERO or an equivalent for agricultural sciences) is not mentioned. If no registration was performed, this should be explicitly stated and justified.

• The customised risk-of-bias tool, adapted from ROBINS-I, is appropriate in principle, but its validation and limitations are not sufficiently discussed. Readers would benefit from a short justification of why ROBINS-I was chosen over other agronomy-specific frameworks and how subjectivity was minimised.

• The PRISMA flow diagram is useful, but the high attrition rate (only six studies retained from over 400 records) warrants more explicit discussion, as it strongly conditions the strength of the conclusions.

 

Only six primary studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning diverse geographies, screening methods, and genetic approaches. While the authors appropriately avoid meta-analysis, some conclusions appear over-generalised given the limited dataset. In particular:

• Statements regarding the “potential” of QTL-based breeding should be more cautiously phrased, clearly distinguishing empirical evidence from forward-looking inference.

• The review would benefit from a summary table explicitly separating phenotypic resistance evidence from molecular/QTL evidence, as these differ substantially in robustness and reproducibility.

• The discussion should more clearly acknowledge that upland rice resistance evidence remains fragmented, geographically biased, and methodologically heterogeneous.

 

The manuscript repeatedly highlights the importance of QTLs such as qBFR4-1, qBl1, and qBl2. However, the review would be strengthened by a more explicit discussion of:

• the stability of these loci across environments and pathogen populations,

• their relationship to known Pi genes or NBS-LRR frameworks, and

• the extent to which they represent durable quantitative resistance versus context-dependent effects.

At present, the genetics and phenotyping sections are informative but somewhat parallel rather than integrative.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable, but some sections are overly verbose and repetitive, particularly in the Introduction and Methods. Streamlining would improve readability and align better with Genes stylistic expectations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment as compliance to the reviewers comments. Protocol registration is in progress on this link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/register. login details: 

joanathanojuka@uem.ac.mz

Password: Jonajenny111@

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review aimed to determine resistant genotypes, screening methods, and genetic factors affecting resistance to neck blast disease in rice

The following revisions are suggested:

• In the ‘Introduction’ section,
  • The Introduction is informative but currently overextended, with several historical and market-demand details that are not essential to the review question. I recommend condensing these sections and reallocating space to aspects directly supporting the systematic review aims
• In the ‘Material and Methods’ section,
  • The Methods state that the review followed a predefined protocol, but no accessible document is provided. Please indicate where the protocol can be consulted (link or ID).
• In the ‘Results’ section,
  • I noted an inconsistency in how studies are classified as field-based vs greenhouse-based across Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5. Please revise these sections to use a single, consistent classification scheme.
  • Several statements are too assertive without clear quantitative support; adding a consolidated evidence table
• In the ‘Discussion’ section,
  • repeatedly external evidences are introduced (e.g., Ethiopian 2025 field trials, recent meta-analyses) that does not appear among the included studies. Please clearly distinguish contextual/background literature from the evidence base discussed in this review
• Overall, I recommend carefully rereading the entire manuscript, as there are several oversights and internal numerical inconsistencies that should be harmonized across sections.

 

Some minor issues:

Please check the reference format, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genes/instructions

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment as compliance to the reviewer's comments. the parts are highlighted in yellow color. Protocol registration is in progress on this link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/register.

login details: 

joanathanojuka@uem.ac.mz

Password: Jonajenny111@

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the authors did not disclose what changes they made to the manuscript in response to my review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please review the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have addressed my questions and suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be improved.