Next Article in Journal
Full-Length Transcriptome Sequencing of the Scleractinian Coral Montipora foliosa Reveals the Gene Expression Profile of Coral–Zooxanthellae Holobiont
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of High Intensity Exercise on Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Status in Untrained Humans: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/biology10121273
Review Report
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Biological Efficacy of Cochlioquinone-9, a Natural Plant Defense Compound for White-Backed Planthopper Control in Rice

Biology 2021, 10(12), 1273; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121273
by Yoon-Hee Jang 1,†, Sopheap Yun 2,†, Jae-Ryoung Park 1, Eun-Gyeong Kim 1, Byoung-Ju Yun 3,* and Kyung-Min Kim 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Biology 2021, 10(12), 1273; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121273
Submission received: 18 November 2021 / Revised: 27 November 2021 / Accepted: 3 December 2021 / Published: 4 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Science)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the structure of the ms should be improved. The abstract needs to be improved as well.

I consider that conclusions should be referenced. 

See comments attached in the ms.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Submitted MS “Biological Efficacy of Cochlioquinone-9, a Natural Plant Defense Compound for White-backed Planthopper Control in 3 Rice” by Jang et al., reports the improved plant ability to resist WBPH after the treatment with cochlioquinone-9 (cq-9), a compound from quinone family and attempted to demonstrate mechanism behind this phenomenon. The specific comments:

  1. The introduction part needs substantial improvements. Authors should incorporate the research developments and available measures to control planthoppers.
  2. L 90-185: Authors have described several numerical values with standard deviation throughout these sections. I would suggest to provide data in table form and describing the conclusive results from the experiments.
  3. The table legends can be described with more clarity. The statistical parameters are mostly unclear.
  4. Fig 5: Figure legend tells about the cochlioquinone-9 but why do we see the grasshoppers? No mention of rice and grasshopper image.
  5. Authors need to provide the number of technical and biological replicates for each experiment and mention the number of times, each experiment was repeated with similar results. They need to provide the statistical method employed to calculate p-values.
  6. The authors have used the term “resistant” against WBPH. Please make sure to use the correct term. Apparently, data display “tolerant” against WBPH.
  7. Fig. 3B, C, G: On the first day of treatment/inoculation, the plant shows significant differences in height but not at day 3. It suggests the plants used for the study were not uniform. This could be the reason for variable tolerant response against WBPH.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider acceptable the changes performed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of my concerns appropriately.

Back to TopTop