Physiology and Application of Gibberellins in Postharvest Horticultural Crops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Physiology and Application of Gibberellins in Postharvest fruits” by Zhang et al., required major revision before its acceptance in Horticulturae
Line 36 Shellacene is what???
Introduction is not clear consider abstract for the preparation of this section also write about GAs relations with cold damage index, accumulation of ROS, improved the antioxidant capacity of fruits, and maintained the integrity of cell membranes during low-temperature storage.
Table 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 5 name of plants should be botanical/scientific name, add the concentrations/doses of GAs in tables
In text provide only botanical name check line no. 55, 56 114,117, 125
Line 196 first define cold stress then describe the relation of GA with cold
References style is not uniform
Conclusions should be revised highlighting how your review expands scientific knowledge.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in red color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: Line 36 Shellacene is what???
Response 1: We are very sorry, this was a translation error on our part, shellacene is kaurene and we have corrected it in the revised manuscript (line 37).
Point 2: Introduction is not clear consider abstract for the preparation of this section also write about GAs relations with cold damage index, accumulation of ROS, improved the antioxidant capacity of fruits, and maintained the integrity of cell membranes during low-temperature storage.
Response 2: We have made refinements related to the cold damage section in the introduction (line55).
Point 3: Table 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 name of plants should be botanical/scientific name, add the concentrations/doses of GAs in tables.
Response 3: We added Latin names to the plant names in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and added a new column for the concentration of GAs used.
Point 4: In text provide only botanical name check line no. 55, 56 114,117, 125.
Response 4: We have removed the botanical/scientific names from the text and have kept only the botanical names (line70, 139, 142, 151, 164, 167, 194 198, 202 206, 208, 213, 218, and 243).
Point 5: Line 196 first define cold stress then describe the relation of GA with cold.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have reorganized the logic of the passage in the revised manuscript (line226).
Point 6: References style is not uniform
Response 6: We have adjusted the reference style accordingly.
Point 7: Conclusions should be revised highlighting how your review expands scientific knowledge.
Response 7: We have revised the conclusions by adding to the original ones about the practical significance and application prospects of this review (lines 298).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of this manuscript reviewed the role of gibberellins in the physiology of postharvest fruits.
The manuscript was well-designed and written and it summarizes the published work about GAs in the regulation the growth and quality of fruits during storage.
However, there are some points that might improve the manuscript.
Major points:
1. As the authors stated that the main point of this manuscript is to review the role of GAs in the postharvest physiology of fruits in recent years, I strongly recommend the deletion of old references (in the 1990s) from this manuscript, except for the history of GAs (reference no. 2).
2. I suggest adding a new paragraph concerning how to apply GAs on pre- or post-harvest fruits. It is very useful from the practical view that how, when, and for how long it needs for applying GAs to the fruits.
Minor points:
1. Line 9: Give the full name of GAs when mentioned for the first time.
2. In keywords, line 24: physiology not physiological.
3. Line 51: the ripening physiology by
4. In Table 1: Write either the common name or scientific name of each plant.
5. In Figure 1: Explain all abbreviations under the figure such as ETH, SA, JA, SAR, etc.
6. Line 134: anthocyanins.
7. Line 182: What does Vc stand for?
8. Table 4: Zhu et al., 2016 [46], Ding et al., 2016 [47], Ding et al., 2015 [48]
9. Line 231: Give the full name of AZX, and what it is.
10. Lines 240-241: Give the full name of A. alternate.
11. Line 255: What does BR stand for?
There are very few language corrections found in the above section.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in red color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: As the authors stated that the main point of this manuscript is to review the role of GAs in the postharvest physiology of fruits in recent years, I strongly recommend the deletion of old references (in the 1990s) from this manuscript, except for the history of GAs (reference no. 2).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have removed the 1990s reference and kept only the reference [2].
Point 2: I suggest adding a new paragraph concerning how to apply GAs on pre- or post-harvest fruits. It is very useful from the practical view that how, when, and for how long it needs for applying GAs to the fruits.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments, we have added and improved the table in the previous version by adding the types of GAs used and the doses accordingly.
Point 3: Line 9: Give the full name of GAs when mentioned for the first time.
Response 3: Thanks to your reminder, we have included the full name of GA in the revised manuscript (line9).
Point 4: In keywords, line 24: physiology not physiological.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your reminder, we have revised " physiological " to " physiology " in the revised manuscript (line25).
Point 5: Line 51: the ripening physiology by
Response 5: A5: We have replaced "the ripening physiological" with "the ripening of the fruit" (line65).
Point 6: In Table 1: Write either the common name or scientific name of each plant.
Response 6: We added Latin names to the plant names in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Point 7: In Figure 1: Explain all abbreviations under the figure such as ETH, SA, JA, SAR, etc.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have organized all the abbreviations in the manuscript after Figure 1, and in the process, we found and corrected the errors in the images (line113).
Point 8: Line 134: anthocyanins.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your reminder, and we have made the corrections in the revised manuscript (line160).
Point 9: Line 182: What does Vc stand for?
Response 9: Vc is vitamin C and we have added the full name of Vc in the revised manuscript (line209).
Point 10: Table 4: Zhu et al., 2016 [46], Ding et al., 2016 [47], Ding et al., 2015 [48]
Response 10: Thank you very much for the reminder, we have changed the “References” column in Table 4.
Point 11: Line 231: Give the full name of AZX, and what it is.
Response 11: We have added the full name of AZX – Azoxystrobin (line259).
Point 12: Lines 240-241: Give the full name of A. alternate.
Response 12: We have added the full name of A. alternate - Alternaria alternata (line243).
Point 13: Line 255: What does BR stand for?
Response 13: We are very sorry that BR is an abbreviation for brassinolide and that in checking this paragraph we added the full name of the other abbreviations in the paragraph in the revised manuscript (line 269).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a potentially exciting paper about the role of gibberellins in fruit harvesting and storage,
However, in the present form paper can not be accepted because of many not precise points.
Generally, there are more than 200 times Word GA in the text, which makes it challenging for the reader.
Moreover, as the authors mentioned, there are many different GAs with different effects. Authors encourage specifying GA name when it is possible.
In addition, there are also many not correct citations (see below).
Please, re-write the text, and check all citations to see how it correspond to the message in the review.
Below are some comments, but authors need to come through the whole text by own and check carefully other points I did not mention here.
Some initial points:
Line 17: “promoting sugar accumulation, and delaying vitamin los” ¿? Please, explain what do you mean as sugar accumulation. Conversion from starch hydrolysis? Starch is more stable as sucrose, so, it is not a good option. Do you mean vitamins, not only one vitamin?
Line 19: do you mean superoxide? “reduced the production and accumulation of O2
-“ ¿?
Line 22: physiological regulation of what???
Line 28: functions can not be involved.
Line44-45: GAs can effectively control postharvest cold damage and improve the cold resistance of fruit. ¿? Please, re-formulate.
Linr 51: “ GAs could influence the ripening physiological by affecting fruits in size,..”?? What is ” the ripening physiological”? Table 1 also describe potato bulb, not fruits.
Lines 28-31: citation [1] is about moss, how can you mention seeds germination here?
Table 1: “Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients. Xie et al., 2018 [7) “ ¿ Please, read the original paper very carefully. GA promoting sprouting.
There are a lot of other points that need to be carefully read and revised.
significant corrections
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in red color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: It is a potentially exciting paper about the role of gibberellins in fruit harvesting and storage,
However, in the present form paper can not be accepted because of many not precise points.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have made changes to some details in the previous version of the manuscript, such as adding full names of abbreviations in the articles, enriching the tables, making adjustments to the references, etc.
Point 2: Generally, there are more than 200 times Word GA in the text, which makes it challenging for the reader.
Moreover, as the authors mentioned, there are many different GAs with different effects. Authors encourage specifying GA name when it is possible.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have changed the GAs in the manuscript to the specific type of GA. We have made a corresponding addition to the introduction, classifying the multiple categories included in GAs and presenting their respective effects separately (line39).
Point 3: In addition, there are also many not correct citations (see below).
Please, re-write the text, and check all citations to see how it correspond to the message in the review.
Response 3: We have made corresponding changes and improvements to the questions you raised afterwards and corrected as many inaccuracies as possible based on the previous version.
Point 4: Line 17: “promoting sugar accumulation, and delaying vitamin los” ¿? Please, explain what do you mean as sugar accumulation. Conversion from starch hydrolysis? Starch is more stable as sucrose, so, it is not a good option. Do you mean vitamins, not only one vitamin?
Response 4: Here, sugar accumulation refers to the significant increase in sucrose content within the treated subjects compared to those without gibberellin treatment. The vitamin refers to vitamin C. We have corrected this in the original article.
Point 5: Line 19: do you mean superoxide? “reduced the production and accumulation of O2
-“ ¿?
Response 5: This refers to the superoxide anion O2-, which we have changed to superoxide anion (O2-) (line19).
Point 6: Line 22: physiological regulation of what???
Response 6: We have reformulated "the physiological regulation" to "the physiological regulation of postharvest fruits" (line22).
Point 7: Line 28: functions can not be involved.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. Since the object of this review is mainly on postharvest development and quality formation of horticultural crops, in this article we also focus on the postharvest maturation and senescence process, postharvest quality and postharvest stress resistance of horticultural crops. However, since the functions of GAs are multifaceted and some recent discoveries have been made, here we mainly focus on the functions of GAs as an object for a comprehensive and systematic overview.
Point 8: Line44-45: GAs can effectively control postharvest cold damage and improve the cold resistance of fruit. ¿? Please, re-formulate.
Response 8: We have corrected the original text to read "GAs improve fruit chilling resistance through effective control of postharvest chilling damage." (line55).
Point 9: Linr 51: “ GAs could influence the ripening physiological by affecting fruits in size,..”?? What is ” the ripening physiological”? Table 1 also describe potato bulb, not fruits.
Response 9: We have replaced "the ripening physiological" with "the ripening of the fruit" (line65).
Point 10: Lines 28-31: citation [1] is about moss, how can you mention seeds germination here?
Response 10: Sorry, this was a mistake in inserting the reference, and we have corrected the reference [1] in the revised manuscript (line 317).
Point 11: Table 1: “Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients. Xie et al., 2018 [7) “ ¿ Please, read the original paper very carefully. GA promoting sprouting.
Response 11: “3.5. Bulb nutritional traits” in citation [8] refers to “Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients. ”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Table 5 correct the spelling of inhibits…….remove “e” from the word References style is still not uniform journal name check carefully
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in blue color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: Table 5 correct the spelling of inhibits…….remove “e” from the word
Response 1: Thank you very much for your affirmation of our manuscript and for your previous suggestions on our manuscript, with which we have been enriched and made more complete by the manuscript. We apologize for the spelling errors, which we have corrected in the manuscript (table 5).
Point 2: References style is still not uniform journal name check carefully
Response 2: Thank you very much for your reminder, we have revised the format of the literature again, for example [9], [14], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [32] and [41].
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors followed all comments suggested by the reviewers, and the manuscript was improved.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in blue color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: The authors followed all comments suggested by the reviewers, and the manuscript was improved.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your affirmation of our manuscript and for your previous suggestions on our manuscript, with which we have been enriched and made more complete by the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you, text is better after corrections, BUT authors need to read text very carefully once more time. There ate very obvious mistakes here:
Line 28: function itself can not be involved! GA play a role or GA involved in the regulations etc…
“Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients” – please, read carefully this sentence. It does not have any biological sense, even it was published. GA treatment (not GA itself) can unduce strach conversión to sugar and further sugar accumulation. Not in fruit: potato fruit formed aboveground after flowering, BUT bulb is storage root.
Table 1: potato friut was not studied. Omit this or write potato bulb. Bulb is not a fruit!
Potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.) is not a potato (Arachis hypogea L.), Xie et al., 2018!
Please, be very carefully, check all names/citations very precisely.
minor corrections/polishing
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments of reviewers concerning our manuscript. We have studied the valuable comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Since the number of lines will be changed after the manuscript is revised in modify mode of word, long revised parts are marked in blue color in the revising manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: Thank you, text is better after corrections, BUT authors need to read text very carefully once more time. There ate very obvious mistakes here:
Response 1: Thank you very much for your affirmation of our manuscript and for your previous suggestions on our manuscript, with which we have been enriched and made We will further improve our manuscript and make it more complete by the manuscript, based on the issues you raised this time.
Point 2: Line 28: function itself can not be involved! GA play a role or GA involved in the regulations etc…
Response 2: We apologize for not understanding the meaning of your question last time, and we have revised the logic of the sentence this time (line 28).
Point 3: “Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients” – please, read carefully this sentence. It does not have any biological sense, even it was published. GA treatment (not GA itself) can unduce strach conversión to sugar and further sugar accumulation. Not in fruit: potato fruit formed aboveground after flowering, BUT bulb is storage root.
Response 3: We are very sorry that we did not understand the structure of the potato in depth and made a comprehension error here, when we write the manuscript again in the future, we will understand every detail in depth, we really appreciate your suggestion this time. We apologize for the incorrect expression "Potato GAs accumulated fruit sugar nutrients" and we have corrected it. We have been more specific about the statement that GAs treatment promotes sugar accumulation in potato tubers and briefly describe the mechanism involved. And we have read the full text carefully for this issue of GA processing rather than GA itself and modified it (line49, 67, 68, 78 and 105).
Point 4: Table 1: potato friut was not studied. Omit this or write potato bulb. Bulb is not a fruit!
Potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.) is not a potato (Arachis hypogea L.), Xie et al., 2018!
Response 4: We are deeply sorry that we changed "fruit" to "tuber" and we changed the Latin name of potato in the manuscript (table 1).
Point 5: Please, be very carefully, check all names/citations very precisely.
Response 5: Thank you again for your suggestions on our manuscript, we have carefully checked all citations and corrected them, for example [9], [14], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [32] and [41].
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
thank you! Next time plesae, be very carefully, try to find biological sense in each sentence you write. My best regards!
OK
