Micropropagation of Plum (Prunus domestica L.) in Bioreactors Using Photomixotrophic and Photoautotrophic Conditions
, Anxela Aldrey 1, Colin Bruce Christie 3, María Ángeles Bernal 2 and Nieves Vidal 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Author Response
We acknowledge the positive evaluation of Reviewer 1, we did not find any question from this reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: Authors should provide quantitative results of their study. For examples, the results of the influence of investigated environmental variables in relation to in vitro proliferation, physiological status, and ex vitro performance are missing.
Line 43: replace subject by subjected
Linee 49: we focus in should be replace by we focus on
Line 68: The main goal of this study should be presented and the novelty of the current study.
Is there any available reference(s) for the procedure employed in section 2.1 (Establishment of shoot multiplication culture) such as the choices of the reagents used and their respective concentrations and conditions of us. Author should provide if there are any.
Line 416: The implication of the results obtained in the study and recommendation for further study, if there is any, should be presented. Something like a take home message.
The experimental methodology was properly conducted and well presented.
Author Response
We acknowledge the comments and suggestions of reviewer 2 to improve the manuscript.
Abstract: Authors should provide quantitative results of their study. For examples, the results of the influence of investigated environmental variables in relation to in vitro proliferation, physiological status, and ex vitro performance are missing.
We added quantitative data regarding the differences between semisolid media and bioreactors and the PAM and ST conditions, maintaining the length of the abstract within the mandatory 200 words.
Line 43: replace subject by subjected
Done
Linee 49: we focus in should be replace by we focus on
Done
Line 68: The main goal of this study should be presented and the novelty of the current study.
Done (Lines 82-85)
Is there any available reference(s) for the procedure employed in section 2.1 (Establishment of shoot multiplication culture) such as the choices of the reagents used and their respective concentrations and conditions of us. Author should provide if there are any.
Done
Line 416: The implication of the results obtained in the study and recommendation for further study, if there is any, should be presented. Something like a take home message.
We have made changes in the text to clarify the conclusions as suggested by Reviewer 2.
The experimental methodology was properly conducted and well presented.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is suitable for submitting in this journal. The authors first report the photoautotrophic micropropagation of plum. But I found some comments, as following:
- Because the abstract is the first impression and it unsatisfactory, it has to be rephrased, almost all paragraph (Line13-Line26).
- Compared with BA 0.2 IBA 0.2, BA 0.2 IBA 0.5 also caused the size of leaves decreased. Therefore, IBA may be also one of the reasons for the size of leaves decreased (Line212-Line213).
- Figure 6a. X-axis and Y-axis descriptions are missing, and in Figure 10ab PAM is missing.
- .The date of length of the rooted shoots needs to be supplemented (Line282-Line283).
- Figure 14 was not described in the manuscript.
- The discussion lacks the following information:1). Significance and future scope of the findings;2).Limitations of the study.
In general, the manuscript is interesting but unsuitable for publishing in this version. My suggestion is major correction this manuscript. My recommendation is: Authors have to rewrite the manuscript and resubmit it.
Author Response
We acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Reviewer 3 to improve the manuscript.
This manuscript is suitable for submitting in this journal. The authors first report the photoautotrophic micropropagation of plum. But I found some comments, as following:
Because the abstract is the first impression and it unsatisfactory, it has to be rephrased, almost all paragraph (Line13-Line26).
The abstract has been rewritten.
Compared with BA 0.2 IBA 0.2, BA 0.2 IBA 0.5 also caused the size of leaves decreased. Therefore, IBA may be also one of the reasons for the size of leaves decreased (Line212-Line213).
We have rephrased the sentence to include the IBA effect.
Figure 6a. X-axis and Y-axis descriptions are missing, and in Figure 10ab PAM is missing.
We have converted Figure 6 into a table to solve the problems reported by the Reviewer 3.
The date of length of the rooted shoots needs to be supplemented (Line282-Line283).
Done
Figure 14 was not described in the manuscript.
We have included a brief description of the former Figure 14 (now Figure 13, Lines 325, 326)
The discussion lacks the following information: 1). Significance and future scope of the findings; 2).Limitations of the study.
We have changed the discussion to include the suggested information.
In general, the manuscript is interesting but unsuitable for publishing in this version. My suggestion is major correction this manuscript. My recommendation is: Authors have to rewrite the manuscript and resubmit it.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript with the title: Micropropagation of Plum (Prunus domestica L.) in Bioreactors using Photomixotrophic and Photoautotrophic Conditions, provides evidence that plum shoot micropropagation using bioreactor was highly beneficial compared to the classic approach. The results are interesting. Below are found some suggestions and comments for authors.
Material and Method
Biologic material - A brief description (pomological or anything available) of each of the two plum varieties used in the study would be helpful for other researchers working on micropropagation of various plum varieties.
Discussion
The discussion is comprehensive (and rich in cited papers) but focused mainly on comparing the results and parameters obtained with results of other studies that had similar approaches/methods but on different plant species.
Considering the applied nature of this research, I suggest authors to also include a small paragraph at Discussion section addressing previous results from literature on micropropagation of plums or other species from genus Prunus if they exist. This with the purpose to highlight the novelty of your study and more clearly put in evidence what brings new. It might be the case that your study demonstrates that the methods you tested could manage to overcome some previous challenges existing in plum micropropagation, and therefore fill a gap of knowledge in literature - but the key points are difficult to extract at this point. This is important considering that probably a proportion of potential readers will access the article based on title and interested in details on successful plum micropropagation.
Therefore, I kindly advise the authors to better highlight in a short paragraph what this research brings new in terms of existing body of literature, specifically on plum micropropagation – advantages, optimization prospects in the future etc. Also, targeted recommendations for plum micropropagation would be also welcome.
Conclusions are well written.
Best regards.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the kindness of Reviewer 4, together with the comments for improving the manuscript.
The manuscript with the title: Micropropagation of Plum (Prunus domestica L.) in Bioreactors using Photomixotrophic and Photoautotrophic Conditions, provides evidence that plum shoot micropropagation using bioreactor was highly beneficial compared to the classic approach. The results are interesting. Below are found some suggestions and comments for authors.
Material and Method
Biologic material - A brief description (pomological or anything available) of each of the two plum varieties used in the study would be helpful for other researchers working on micropropagation of various plum varieties.
Done
Discussion
The discussion is comprehensive (and rich in cited papers) but focused mainly on comparing the results and parameters obtained with results of other studies that had similar approaches/methods but on different plant species.
Considering the applied nature of this research, I suggest authors to also include a small paragraph at Discussion section addressing previous results from literature on micropropagation of plums or other species from genus Prunus if they exist. This with the purpose to highlight the novelty of your study and more clearly put in evidence what brings new. It might be the case that your study demonstrates that the methods you tested could manage to overcome some previous challenges existing in plum micropropagation, and therefore fill a gap of knowledge in literature - but the key points are difficult to extract at this point. This is important considering that probably a proportion of potential readers will access the article based on title and interested in details on successful plum micropropagation.
Therefore, I kindly advise the authors to better highlight in a short paragraph what this research brings new in terms of existing body of literature, specifically on plum micropropagation – advantages, optimization prospects in the future etc. Also, targeted recommendations for plum micropropagation would be also welcome.
We have added some sentences in the introduction (Lines 64-75), and discussion (Lines 357-358; 437-438) to clarify the novelty of the study. A paragraph was added to the last section of the discussion more focus in plum propagation (Lines 439-456)
Conclusions are well written.
Thank you
Best regards.
