What Was the Reason for the Durable Effect of Sr31 against Wheat Stem Rust?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Colleagues, 

Congratulations on a very interesting paper. I made a few suggestions for your consideration. 

Wishing you the best of luck,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear colleague!

Thank you for your attentive and friendly analysis of our manuscript and useful comments.

 

Point 1. Technical errors

Response:

In preparation for the publication of the manuscript, technical errors (formatting errors,  typos, extra spaces, various transcriptions of the name "Azieva") were corrected. The term "variety" has been replaced by "cultivar".

 

Point 2. Writing “non-host”

Response:

The term “nonhost” is currently written together (see Ref. 39, 66, 68).

 

Point 3. Lines 30-31 – additional reference

Reference 1 refers to the first two sentences (lines 30-31).

 

Point 4.

In connection with the questions of the second reviewer, the scale for determining the infection type in seedling test was described in more detail in section 2.3. In section 2.4 the principles of calculating the indicators given in Tables 3 and 4 were described.

In Tables 1 and 2, the estimates of the infectious type on the Roelfs' scale were clarified.

 

Point 5. Term "standard" instead of "control" in the Tables 2, 3 and 4

Response:

We consider it more correct to use the term "control" rather than "standard" for cv. Pamyaty Azieva in the Tables 2, 3 and 4 describing the laboratory results.

 

Point 6. Checking the References

Response:

References have been checked and corrected.

 

Point 6.

After all corrections were made, the manuscript was edited by MDPI's English editing service

 

With respect and best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Stem rust is one of the most devastating wheat diseases worldwide. Therefore, studies to support resistance and to find new resistance sources against the stem rust pathogen are very valuable. I believe that this manuscript includes some valuable results and could be published in Agriculture, however, it contains many serious errors both structurally and in spelling. The level of English throughout the manuscript is very poor. There are many grammatical errors like subject-verb agreements. Additionally, there are also many typos in the manuscript. Both the sections methods and results are not clear. Therefore, it should be corrected in depth by a native speaker both in terms of scientific spelling rules and language. In its current form, it does not meet the journal's required standard, and I must therefore reject it.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1. Manuscript contains many serious errors both structurally and in spelling. The level of English throughout the manuscript is very poor. There are many grammatical errors like subject-verb agreements. Additionally, there are also many typos in the manuscript. Therefore, it should be corrected in depth by a native speaker both in terms of scientific spelling rules and language.

Response:

Technical errors (formatting errors,  typos, extra spaces) were corrected.

The scientific spelling is given according to the rules used in publications in leading scientific journals on assessing the resistance to stem rust and cytological studies.

The manuscript was edited by MDPI's English editing service.

 

Point 2. Both the sections methods and results are not clear. Therefore, it should be corrected in depth by a native speaker both in terms of scientific spelling rules and language.

Response:

Our field and laboratory studies were carried out in accordance with standard methods. References to the methods of stem rust assessment used in CIMMYT are given in the section "Methods". Cytological studies were carried out by a common method, references to them are given

in the text. For a better understanding of the results the scale for determining the infection type in seedling test was described in more detail in section 2.3. In section 2.4 the principles of calculating the indicators given in Tables 3 and 4 were described.

 

 

With best regards

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The content of this research seemed to be significant for wheat breeders, but how to improve the resistance of stem rust for wheat through this research? In addition, the sentence and grammar should be improved, and semicolon and comma in the results need to be checked. The references shoul be also revised. Details were seen in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Thank you for your attentive and friendly analysis of our manuscript and useful comments.

 

Point 1. The sentence and grammar should be improved,

Response:

In preparation for the publication of the manuscript, technical errors (formatting errors,  typos, extra spaces and etc.) were corrected.

After all corrections were made, the manuscript was edited by MDPI's English editing service.

 

Point 2. “…semicolon and comma in the results need to be checked”

Response:

In connection with your questions, the scale for determining the infection type in seedling test was described in more detail in section 2.3:

“Infection types (ITs) according modified Stackman scale [50]: 0 - without symptoms; ; - necrotic flecks without pustules; ;1 – necrotic flecks and small pustules surrounded by necrotic zones; 1-2 small pustules surrounded by necrotic zones of various sizes; 3+ - large  pustules surrounded by chlorotic zones; 4 - large pustules”.

In Tables 1 and 2, the estimates of the infectious type on the Roelfs' scale have been clarified, namely “;, ;1, 3+”.

In section 2.4 the principles of calculating the indicators given in Tables 3 and 4 were described.

 

Point 3. The content of this research seemed to be significant for wheat breeders, but how to improve the resistance of stem rust for wheat through this research?

We have tried to describe the significance of our results for wheat breeding in the discussion. Currently, wheat varieties are mainly defended by the genes of related cereals. During distant hybridization, a set of alien genes are transferred to wheat genome. For promising work, it is necessary to select effective introgressed genes. Sr31 is one of the most effective genes used in wheat breeding. The revealed features of the Sr31 action can be used for the selection

of promising alien genes.

 

Point 4. The references should be also revised.

Response:

References have been checked and corrected.

With respect and best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You have made many improvements to your manuscript that greatly enhances the readers understanding and clarifies your results. With a bit more revision (suggestions in the attached file), this manuscript can be acceptable for publication. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your help in preparing the manuscript for publication. All your comments have been accepted and corrected.

Best regards!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Conclusion should be improved. This content should present the conclusion of this research, not including the reference. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your help in preparing the manuscript for publication.

The conclusion has been corrected. The first phrase has been moved to the Discussion (lines 475-477).

Best regards!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx