Influence of the Position of Mango Fruit on the Tree (Mangifera indica L. CV. ‘Zibda’) on Chilling Sensitivity and Antioxidant Enzyme Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of mango fruit's location on the tree on its chilling injury during cold storage. The researcher stated that mango fruit grown inside the tree canopy (INS) had lower CI than SUN and SHA fruit during 35-days of cold storage at 4 oC by analyzing antioxidant enzyme activity, free radical metabolism and respiration. However, based on the existing experimental data, I doubt the research results. The degree of chilling injury of fruit is closely related to maturity. However, the author did not compare the maturity indexes of INS, sun and Sha fruits, such as hardness, sugar content and acidity. Maybe the difference of chilling injury is caused by different maturity.

‘Furthermore, the increases in the degree of CI are independently due 506 to the fruit maturity stages’.

‘Since the developing fruits on trees are subjected to heat and ultra-violet radiation stress (UV) to varying degrees during the day hours, which will decrease the activity of antioxidants throughout cold storage’ need reference.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of mango fruit's location on the tree on its chilling injury during cold storage. The researcher stated that mango fruit grown inside the tree canopy (INS) had lower CI than SUN and SHA fruit during 35-days of cold storage at 4 oC by analyzing antioxidant enzyme activity, free radical metabolism and respiration. However, based on the existing experimental data, I doubt the research results. The degree of chilling injury of fruit is closely related to maturity. However, the author did not compare the maturity indexes of INS, sun and Sha fruits, such as hardness, sugar content and acidity. Maybe the difference of chilling injury is caused by different maturity.

Authors respond: All Fruits were used in this experiment at half ripe fruit stage (fruits at the shoulder are at the same level as the stem end). We pointd out that in Line 110

‘Furthermore, the increases in the degree of CI are independently due 506 to the fruit maturity stages’. Changed and added

‘Since the developing fruits on trees are subjected to heat and ultra-violet radiation stress (UV) to varying degrees during the day hours, which will decrease the activity of antioxidants throughout cold storage’ need a reference. Added in line 95 [20]

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, Lo’ay et al. reported the chilling tolerance of mongo fruits which located in different position in the tree. The results are novel and interesting, and helpful for understanding the formation of fruits chilling tolerance. Nevertheless, there are still some mistakes in the manuscript, as listed below.

1. The language need to be improved. Several sentences are not understandable, e.g. line 22 to 26, line 29 to 30, the structure of the sentences are inadequate. Line 40, “mongos are a” should be “mongo is a”. Similar errors happened many times in the draft.
2. Line 49-61, the authors reviewed the effect of high temperature on fruits physiology. To my opinion, it has nothing to do with the result in this manuscript. The authors should pay more attention on chilling response of plant cells and review the progress on chilling tolerance, rather than heat stress.
3. Line 221, “O2-” should be revised to “O2•-”, and ”O” in “H2O2” should not use subscript format. Line 232, “Ti(SO4)2”, “2” and “4” should use subscript format.
4. Line 229, “The assay for H2O2 was performed[29]” is inadequate.
5. Line 234, “The range has been calculated to be 415 nm”, range of what? How to calculate a range? 415 nm or 415 nM?
6. Figure 7, figure A and B are partially overlapped. In the figure legend, “presents” should be deleted.
7. Line 458-459, “We observed ….. on trees.”, the sentence is not understandable.
8. In several paragraphs, the authors mentioned ethylene and showed the molecular formula of ethylene. However, it is showed as “C2H4” somewhere and “C2H5” somewhere else. Is it a writing mistake, Or “C2H5” represent another molecule?
9. In the discussion, the reason why fruits in different position have different chilling tolerance was not clearly addressed. The authors mentioned the light, heat may harmful to the formation of chilling tolerance. It is mostly speculated. The authors should provide more evidence, either from their lab or from other groups, to prove such a hypothesis. 

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

In this manuscript, Lo’ay et al. reported the chilling tolerance of mongo fruits which located in different position in the tree. The results are novel and interesting, and helpful for understanding the formation of fruits chilling tolerance. Nevertheless, there are still some mistakes in the manuscript, as listed below. Thank you for your comments

1. The language needs to be improved. The whole manuscript was checked

Several sentences are not understandable, e.g.

1. line 22 to 26, Re-formatted
2. line 29 to 30, the structure of the sentences are inadequate. Re-formatted
3. Line 40, “mongos are a” should be “mongo is a”. Similar errors happened many times in the draft. Corrected
4. Line 49-61, the authors reviewed the effect of high temperature on fruits physiology. To my opinion, it has nothing to do with the result in this manuscript. The authors should pay more attention on chilling response of plant cells and review the progress on chilling tolerance, rather than heat stress.

 

Those lines give a clue about the effect of temperature surrounds fruit during the production stage and its relationship with their response to low storage temperature.  Therefore, we added three-figures (1, 2, and 3) that are very important to serve our manuscript's aim. Accordingly, we added the third paragraph to explain the effect of low storage temperature on mango fruit.

 

1. Line 221, “O2-” should be revised to “O2•-”, and ”O” in “H2O2” should not use subscript

Reversed

1. format. Line 232, “Ti(SO4)2”, “2” and “4” should use subscript format.

Formatted

 

1. Line 229, “The assay for H2O2 was performed [29]” is inadequate.

We corrected

 

1. Line 234, “The range has been calculated to be 415 nm”, range of what? How to calculate a range? 415 nm or 415 nM?

Formatted

 

1. Figure 7, figure A and B are partially overlapped. In the figure legend, “presents” should be deleted.

Re-organized

 

1. Line 458-459, “We observed ….. on trees.”, the sentence is not understandable.

Rephrased

 

1. In several paragraphs, the authors mentioned ethylene and showed the molecular formula of ethylene. However, it is showed as “C2H4” somewhere and “C2H5” somewhere else. Is it a writing mistake, Or “C2H5” represent another molecule?

It is writing mistake corrected

1. In the discussion, the reason why fruits in different position have different chilling tolerance was not clearly addressed. The authors mentioned the light, heat may harmful to the formation of chilling tolerance. It is mostly speculated. The authors should provide more evidence, either from their lab or from other groups, to prove such a hypothesis. 

Provided

Reviewer 3 Report

The title of a manuscript should be concise, specific, and relevant. Therefore, I suggest changing it to "Influence of the position of mango fruit on the tree (Mangifera indica L. 'Zibda') on chilling sensitivity and antioxidant enzyme activity" or something similar.
There are some minor spelling errors that should be corrected, e.g. "mongo" is spelled instead of "mango" in the keywords.
The conditions of cold storage should be described in more detail. The paper states that the fruits were stored for 35 days at 4 ± 1 ⁰C and a relative humidity of 96 ± 2%. But nowhere is it stated what the atmosphere was like during storage, whether the fruits were stored in normal atmosphere, controlled atmosphere, ULO, ULE atmosphere .... I think it is very important that this information is given and ask that this be corrected in the text.
The hypothesis of this paper is very interesting, the manuscript is relatively well structured, interesting to read and with enough cited references.
The methods are well chosen.
The presentation of materials and methods is appropriate and clearly understood.
The results are clearly presented. The figures and tables are understandable. The discussion of the results is successfully interpreted and the conclusions are justified by the data.
Generally, the sections of the manuscript are well written and I have nothing significant to add to them.

As far as I can see, the manuscript is solid and a lot of work was put into the study.
Overall, I feel that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to this field of science.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

 The title of a manuscript should be concise, specific, and relevant. Therefore, I suggest changing it to "Influence of the position of mango fruit on the tree (Mangifera indica L. 'Zibda') on chilling sensitivity and antioxidant enzyme activity" or something similar.

Agreed and changed

There are some minor spelling errors that should be corrected, e.g. "mongo" is spelled instead of "mango" in the keywords.

spelling errors corrected

Added

The conditions of cold storage should be described in more detail.

The paper states that the fruits were stored for 35 days at 4 ± 1 ⁰C and a relative humidity of 96 ± 2%. But nowhere is it stated what the atmosphere was like during storage, whether the fruits were stored in normal atmosphere, controlled atmosphere, ULO, ULE atmosphere .... I think it is very important that this information is given and ask that this be corrected in the text.

We use the normal cold storage room without any modification in in oxygen or nitrogen. We pointed out the material and methods. The cold storage system is a vapor compression (V-C) refrigeration system in cold room at 4 ± 1^oC with a relative humidity of 96 ± 2%. This system was applied with the huge amount of mango part 2.1 Lines 231.233

The hypothesis of this paper is very interesting, the manuscript is relatively well structured, interesting to read, and with enough cited references. Thank you for your comments
The methods are well chosen. Thank you for your comments
The presentation of materials and methods is appropriate and clearly understood. Thank you for your comments
The results are clearly presented. Thank you for your comments

The figures and tables are understandable. Thank you for your comments

 The discussion of the results is successfully interpreted and the conclusions are justified by the data. Thank you for your comments
Generally, the sections of the manuscript are well written and I have nothing significant to add to them.

As far as I can see, the manuscript is solid and a lot of work was put into the study.
Overall, I feel that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to this field of science.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript looks much better than the original one.  Nevertheless, the authors need to check the sentences more carefully and revise some spelling mistakes, which had been pointed out in my original comments. 

For example, in line 646 and 649, "C2H5" is still there.  

Author Response

The revised manuscript looks much better than the original one.  Nevertheless, the authors need to check the sentences more carefully and revise some spelling mistakes, which had been pointed out in my original comments.

Thank you very much for your comments and effort with our manuscript 

For example, in lines 646 and 649, "C2H5" is still there.  

Corrected and other mistakes in English were corrected to