ß-Farnesene Exogenous Application as a Novel Damage Induction Model to Fast Explore the Effectiveness of Postharvest Strategies: The Case Study of the ‘Rocha’ Pear DOP

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “ß-farnesene exogenous application as a novel damage induction model for fast-exploring postharvest strategies effectiveness: the case study of ‘Rocha’ pear DOP” is relevant for publication in Horticulturae after minor revision.

The article presents the results of research on an interesting experiment with a large cognitive and practical load. A proper understanding of the content of this article requires changes to the subsection titles and other detailed changes listed below. In addition, it would be appropriate to standardize British or American English in the article.

The reviewer suggests not to use the italic font in the titles of subsections: 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 2.6 .; 2.7 .; 2.8 .; 2.9; 3.1. and 3.2. On the other hand, such a font would be appropriate for use in the titles of other subsections.

Proposed changes to the subsection titles:

2.6. Determination of pears physicochemical parameters

2.8. Determination of PPO enzyme activity of pears

3.1. Selection of natural-based extracts of antioxidant action

3.2.1. Visual pear-SC like symptoms evaluation

3.2.2. Physicochemical properties of pears

3.2.3. (instead of 3.2.2.5.) Antioxidant activity of pears

3.2.4. (instead of 3.2.2.6.) Oxidative enzyme activity of pears

3.3. β-. farnesene atmosphere model system validation in storage condition

3.3.1. Physicochemical properties of pears

3.3.2. (instead of 3.3.1.5.) Antioxidant activity of pears during storage

3.3.3. (instead of 3.3.1.6.) Oxidative enzyme activity of pears during storage

3.4. Principal component analysis of the experiment

There are errors in the following words:

Line 90: „ ininhibitor” – it should be “inhibitor”

Line 251: „otimization” – it should be „optimization” (AE) or „optimisation” (BE)  

In line 191 the citation was repeated [31].

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “ß-farnesene exogenous application as a novel damage induction model for fast-exploring postharvest strategies effectiveness: the case study of ‘Rocha’ pear DOP” is relevant for publication in Horticulturae after minor revision. The article presents the results of research on an interesting experiment with a large cognitive and practical load.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comment about the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: A proper understanding of the content of this article requires changes to the subsection titles and other detailed changes listed below. In addition, it would be appropriate to standardize British or American English in the article.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the relevant comments and suggestions given to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. A deep spell check was done in all manuscript to improve the reading and standardize the English style. Modifications were highlighted using the track changes.

Reviewer #1: The reviewer suggests not to use the italic font in the titles of subsections: 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.8; 2.9; 3.1. and 3.2. On the other hand, such a font would be appropriate for use in the titles of other subsections.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. In fact, the style of the titles was already defined by the template of the journal. So, the authors just followed the title as already defined by default on the template given.

Reviewer #1: Proposed changes to the subsection titles: 2.6. Determination of pears physicochemical parameters; 2.8. Determination of PPO enzyme activity of pears; 3.1. Selection of natural-based extracts of antioxidant action; 3.2.1. Visual pear-SC like symptoms evaluation; 3.2.2. Physicochemical properties of pears; 3.2.3. (instead of 3.2.2.5.) Antioxidant activity of pears; 3.2.4. (instead of 3.2.2.6.) Oxidative enzyme activity of pears; 3.3. β-. farnesene atmosphere model system validation in storage condition; 3.3.1. Physicochemical properties of pears; 3.3.2. (instead of 3.3.1.5.) Antioxidant activity of pears during storage; 3.3.3. (instead of 3.3.1.6.) Oxidative enzyme activity of pears during storage; 3.4. Principal component analysis of the experiment

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comment and suggestion and proceed with the subsection title modification, which are highlighted by the Track Changes tool.  

Reviewer #1: There are errors in the following words: Line 90: „ ininhibitor” – it should be “inhibitor”; Line 251: „otimization” – it should be „optimization” (AE) or „optimisation” (BE)  

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and proceed with the correction of the words.

Reviewer #1: In line 191 the citation was repeated [31]

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and have deleted the citation repetition on line 191.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “ß-farnesene exogenous application as a novel damage induction model for fast-exploring postharvest strategies effectiveness: the case study of ‘Rocha’ pear DOP by by Dias et al. ‘However, there are many concerns of this MS which need a ‘minor revision’ before its acceptance for publication in  Horticulturae

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the relevant comments and suggestions given to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “ß-farnesene exogenous application as a novel damage induction model for fast-exploring postharvest strategies effectiveness: the case study of ‘Rocha’ pear DOP by by Dias et al. ‘However, there are many concerns of this MS which need a ‘minor revision’ before its acceptance for publication in  Horticulturae

Comments

Line 90 check the spelling of inhibito

Line 106 Correct the spelling of merk as merck

Line 232 check the spelling of extract

Line 260 correct the spelling of difused as diffused

Line 257…….otimization please correct it

In table 1 add sentence case,  -1 of  AEAC and PPO should be in upper case

Figure 1 is mentioned double in this paper line 269 and line 433 please corrects it accordingly.

Please add recent references in the text.

Discussion required improvement

Reference style is not uniform format reference no. 11, 18, 24, 33

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Line 90 check the spelling of inhibitor; Line 106 Correct the spelling of merk as merck

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and proceed with the correction of the words on line 90 and 106, respectively.

Reviewer #2: Line 232 check the spelling of extract; Line 260 correct the spelling of difused as diffused. Line 257…….otimization please correct it

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and proceed with the correction of the words on line 237, 270 and 267, respectively.

Reviewer #2: In table 1 add sentence case,  -1 of  AEAC and PPO should be in upper case.

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and proceed with the correction.

Reviewer #2: Figure 1 is mentioned double in this paper line 269 and line 433 please corrects it accordingly.

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and proceed with the correction replacing Figure 1 to Figure 3.

Reviewer #2: Please add recent references in the text.

1. Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments. In fact, most of the references used are between 2010-2020, which are the one that the authors considered the more recent to support and discuss this manuscript. But some references before 2010 were replaced by earlier publications. Reference n 10 was replaced to: Li, Q.; Cheng, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Yang, S. Preharvets bagging and postharvest calcium treatment affects superficial sclad incidence and calcium nutrition during storage of 'Chili' pear (Pyrus bretschneideri) fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 163, 111149. The reference 16 was replaced by Panahirad, S.; Dadpour, M.; Peighambardoust, S.H.; Soltanzadeh, M.; Gullón, B.; Alirezalu, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. Applications of carboxymethyl cellulose- and pectin-based active edible coatings in preservation of fruits and vegetables: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 663-673. Reference 26 was replaced by Kumar, D.; Suryavanshi, P.; Padalia, R.C.; Chauhan, A.; Venkatesha, K.T.; Tiwari, A.K.; Singh, V.R.; Singh, S.; Upadhyay, R.K. Evaluation of harvesting time and standardization of distillation duration for higher essential oil content and quality in German chamomile (Chamomilla recutita L.). J. Spices and Arom. Crops. 2020, 29, 140-147.Reference 35 was replaced by Tenuta, M.C.; Deguin, B.; Loizzo, M.R.; Dugay, A.; Acquaviva, R.; Malfa, G.A.; Bonesi, M.; Bouzidi, C.; Tundis, R. Contribution of Flavonoids and Iridoids to the Hypoglycaemic, Antioxidant, and Nitric Oxide (NO) Inhibitory Activities ofArbutus unedo  Antioxidants 2020, 9, 184. Reference 39 was replaced by Wang, Q.; Liu, H.; Zhang, M.; Liu, S.; Hao, Y.; Zhang Y. MdMYC2 and MdERF3 Positively Co-Regulate α-Farnesene Biosynthesis in Apple. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 512844. Reference 45 was replaced by Matabura, V.V. Modelling of firmness variability of Jonagold apple during postharvest storage. J Food Sci Technol. 2021, 89. Reference 49 was replace by Torres, C.A.; Sepulveda, G.; Mejía, N., Defilippi, B.G.; Larrigaudière, C. Understanding the key preharvest factors determining 'Packham´s Triumph' pear heterogeneity and impact in superficial scald development and control. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 172,1111399.

The older references are in general related to other studies with b-farnesene, which were done many years ago. There are not many recent publications with b-farnesene, which highlight the novelty of this work.

Reviewer #2: Discussion required improvement

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comments and suggestion to improve the discussion section. This section was updated and complemented with more recent publications and some sentences were better explained.

Line 307: This sentence “Also, it is clear from Figure 2 that β-farnesene atmosphere accelerated the ripening of the fruit since coated pears showed a greener surface compared to coated pears exposed to the β-farnesene atmosphere” was replaced by “It is clear from Figure 2 that β-farnesene atmosphere accelerated the senescence of the fruit since pears exposed to the β-farnesene atmosphere showed a more damaged surface. In contrast coated pears showed a greener and healthier surface compared to the control pears, which suggest the protection given by the coatings”

Line 343-345: This sentence “In fact, at application time, the color of pears with AL.C was not different from the controls showing that the optimized concentration of A. unedo L. tree leaf extract in the coating had no effect on pears’ color.” Was replaced by “In fact, at application time, the color of pears with AL.C was not different from the controls showing that the optimized concentration of A. unedo L. tree leaf extract in the coating had a seamless effect on pears’ color (Figure 2)”

Line 367-369: This sentence “Despite not statistically different from the uncoated pear, coated pears only with pectin showed a lower firmness loss, which can be due to coating effect itself (i.e. limited gas diffusion (low O₂)...” was replaced by “Despite not statistically different from the uncoated pear, coated pears only with pectin showed a lower firmness loss, which can be due to coating effect itself (i.e. limited gas diffusion (low O₂), which limit the degradation of pectins present int the peel).”

Line 369-371: This sentence “Pear with AL.C better maintained firmness regarding uncoated pears and pears coated with pectin (Table 1), which indicates its potential use on delaying fruit senescence.” Was replaced by “Pear with AL.C better maintained firmness regarding uncoated and pectin-coated pears (Table 1), which indicates AL.C potential use on delaying fruit senescence.”

Line 571-573: This sentence: “Both principal component analyses clearly separated the different conditions, mainly dependent on the presence of antioxidants.” Was replace by “Both principal component analyses clearly separated the different conditions, mainly dependent on the presence of higher antioxidants content, i.e., AL.C coating is separated from the other conditions”

Reviewer #2: Reference style is not uniform format reference no. 11, 18, 24, 33

Response: The authors would like to thank for the relevant comment and have correct the reference style of the references no.11, 18, 24, 33.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors. The text of your manuscript has been well-written, and the study presents novelty and relevance to the field. Here are some comments to improve your document.
Table 1) Please reduce table captions by transposing the indications of acronyms and other supporting information to the footnote. Table captions must be self-explaining but in a shorter way. Also, correct and choose one pattern to present "A.L.C." or "AL.C," but not a mix of it; this should be corrected throughout the manuscript. 
The quality of the figures seems to be very low. For instance, the axis in Figure 3 charts is quite challenging to interpret due to bad resolution. Please double-check.
Figure 4 - Please correct commas to dots in the axis of PCA and improve its quality.

Author Response

Answers to Reviewers Comments

Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1526617

ß-farnesene exogenous application as a novel damage induction model for fast-exploring postharvest strategies effectiveness: the case study of ‘Rocha’ pear DOP

Please find attached a word file of the revised version of the manuscript. We would like to thank the suggestion and comments given by the reviewers, which were very important, and greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

The answers are given just after the transcription of the reviewer’s comments and the new information added to the manuscript was highlighted with turn on the Tracked Changes.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors. The text of your manuscript has been well-written, and the study presents novelty and relevance to the field.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comment about the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Table 1) Please reduce table captions by transposing the indications of acronyms and other supporting information to the footnote. Table captions must be self-explaining but in a shorter way.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have remove the acronyms from table 1 since they were already defined across the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Also, correct and choose one pattern to present "A.L.C." or "AL.C," but not a mix of it; this should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have change A.L.C to AL.C throughout all manuscript.

 
Reviewer #3: The quality of the figures seems to be very low. For instance, the axis in Figure 3 charts is quite challenging to interpret due to bad resolution. Please double-check. Figure 4 - Please correct commas to dots in the axis of PCA and improve its quality.

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have uploaded all the original figures separated from the original manuscript. The figures have a lower resolution because they were compressed otherwise the word file would have too much MB and becomes very slow when working on it.