Establishment of Direct Organogenesis Protocol for Arachis hypogaea cv. Virginia in Liquid Medium by Temporary Immersion System (TIS)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, “Establishment of Direct Organogenesis Protocol for Arachis hypogaea cv. Virginia in Liquid Medium by Temporary Immersion System (TIS)”, the authors showed an efficient de novo regeneration protocol for peanut cv. Virginia by using a Temporary Immersion Bioreactor System, and this method also can be applied to other peanut varieties. The TIS bioreactor system might be useful for large-scale de novo regeneration in peanut.
I have some comments.
1. Why some data presented as means without standard deviations in the Tables.
2. In the Table 4, what does the N.R. mean? Please add a description below the table.
3. It seems to be better to add the immersion regimes into a new column in the Table 4 and Table5.
4. ‘De novo’ in line 19, 28, 65, 141, 224, 253, 262, 322, 339, 389, 434, 448 and 464, and ‘Musa’ in line 72 should be in italics.
5. ‘hours’ and ‘h’ in the manuscript should be written in a uniform format, for examples in line 116, 117, 143 et al.
Author Response
- Why some data presented as means without standard deviations in the Tables.
Standard errors (more informative than standard deviations) have been correctly applied to all the discrete data from the study, i.e., in "N° of Shoots for Regenerating Explant", in "Average Shoot Length" and in "Average root number", and reported in the Tables from 3 to 6. As for the percentage values, we always calculated a unique general percentage for each thesis. For this reason, we applied a Non-Parametric Test, the Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Test (see reference in the text) which is based on a multiple chi-square and allows the comparison among percentages with a high narrowness and, therefore, reliability of the percentage sparation. Standard errors and standard deviations cannot be applied in such cases. As for the SFC (Shoot Forming Capacity), this is an index (calculated as the average shoot number per regenerating explant x % of regenerating explants / 100) and, as every indexes, it cannot be treated statistically.
- In the Table 4, what does the N.R. mean? Please add a description below the table.
N.R. corresponds to ‘Not Reported’, but unfortunately we forgot to put that indication to the table. It’s included now. Thank you for reminding.
- It seems to be better to add the immersion regimes into a new column in the Table 4 and Table5.
Table 4 and 5 are revised accordingly; now the medium immersion regimes are presented in a column.
- ‘De novo’ in line 19, 28, 65, 141, 224, 253, 262, 322, 339, 389, 434, 448 and 464, and ‘Musa’ in line 72 should be in italics.
Corrections are done. Thank you for noticing.
- ‘hours’ and ‘h’ in the manuscript should be written in a uniform format, for examples in line 116, 117, 143 et al.
They are all uniform now; all are written as ‘h’.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper describes an in vitro regeneration process of the important legume oil crop peanut. The authors conducted experiment using the recently developed innovative bioreactor temporary Immersion System for peanut varieties and several combinations of dry and medium immersion periods were tested. The authors demonstrated the advantages of bioreactor in relation to shoot regeneration from de-embryonated cotyledons of peanut compared to cultivation on semi-solid media. The obtained results are statistically confirmed. The most of photos are of good quality and excellently showed the regeneration processes in peanut cotyledons.
There are few unessential comments to the paper:
1) In the Introduction section the authors use phrase “in vitro production of peanut”, but really it means in vitro propagation
2) The Figure 1(B) is not professional, it should be changed or deleted
3) The authors used the recently developed equipment, it would be interesting to see a photo of peanut culture in bioreactor, if the authors have it
4) It would be desirable to explain what type of semi solid medium was used (gelling agent and its concentration)
Author Response
- In the Introduction section the authors use phrase “in vitro production of peanut”, but really it means in vitro propagation
It is corected accordingly; as ‘in vitro propagation’.
- The Figure 1(B) is not professional, it should be changed or deleted.
Unfortunately, we have been a little unlucky with the photos of this work, and lost some of them, when one of our computers collapsed and its hard disc and all of its content were lost. For this reason, we could not find a similar photo of a better quality for Fig. 1B and thus deleted it. We therefore also deleted the indications of Fig. 1B in the text.
- The authors used the recently developed equipment, it would be interesting to see a photo of peanut culture in bioreactor, if the authors have it.
Unfortunately, also here our responce would be negative, due to the loss of some photos, as explained above.
- It would be desirable to explain what type of semi solid medium was used (gelling agent and its concentration)
Information regarding the type and concentration of the gelling agent of the semi-solid media is included in the text. Thank you for reminding that.
