Enhancing Horticultural Crops through Genome Editing: Applications, Benefits, and Considerations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have completed the evaluation of the article titled "Enhancing Horticultural Crops through Genome Editing: Applications, Benefits, and Considerations." The article is a comprehensive review that discusses genome editing applications in horticultural crop species. I find that the article is aligned with the scope of the journal, and its language is fluent and grammatically sound.

The article provides a thorough examination of genome editing studies conducted on various horticultural crop species, adequately addressing the subject matter. However, I have identified a few areas that require attention:

It is recommended to include visual aids illustrating the workings of all genome editing techniques discussed in the article. The addition of such visuals would enhance the readers' understanding of the technical aspects, providing more efficient and comprehensive information within the article.

Further discussion on how the techniques have addressed and overcome disadvantages encountered during their development over time would be beneficial. Exploring the historical progress and highlighting the improvements made in each technique would provide a more comprehensive overview for the readers.

The topic of obtaining transgene-free plants through genome editing should be elaborated, specifically addressing how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered in this context. Given the varying legal regulations concerning genome editing and GMOs between regions such as Europe and the United States, it is important to provide a detailed explanation of how these aspects are taken into account. Presenting the current global status and regulations would clarify the existing landscape.

Overall, the article presents valuable insights into enhancing horticultural crops through genome editing. Addressing the aforementioned points and incorporating the suggested improvements will significantly strengthen the article. I recommend the authors to consider these suggestions and make the necessary revisions. I wish you the best of luck with your revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have completed the evaluation of the article titled "Enhancing Horticultural Crops through Genome Editing: Applications, Benefits, and Considerations." The article is a comprehensive review that discusses genome editing applications in horticultural crop species. I find that the article is aligned with the scope of the journal, and its language is fluent and grammatically sound.

The article provides a thorough examination of genome editing studies conducted on various horticultural crop species, adequately addressing the subject matter. However, I have identified a few areas that require attention:

It is recommended to include visual aids illustrating the workings of all genome editing techniques discussed in the article. The addition of such visuals would enhance the readers' understanding of the technical aspects, providing more efficient and comprehensive information within the article.

Response: Illustration is given on Genome Editing in Horticulture Crops as Figure 1 in page no. 2.

Further discussion on how the techniques have addressed and overcome disadvantages encountered during their development over time would be beneficial. Exploring the historical progress and highlighting the improvements made in each technique would provide a more comprehensive overview for the readers.

Response: Subsections 2.4., 3.3., and 4.3. have been included on CRISPR-Cas9, TALENs and ZFNs in line number 387-410, 484-498 and 551-569 respectively, for how the techniques have addressed and overcome disadvantages encountered during their development.

The topic of obtaining transgene-free plants through genome editing should be elaborated, specifically addressing how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered in this context. Given the varying legal regulations concerning genome editing and GMOs between regions such as Europe and the United States, it is important to provide a detailed explanation of how these aspects are taken into account. Presenting the current global status and regulations would clarify the existing landscape.

Response: We have included Section 5 (line No. 570-620) for addressing the GMOs and their legal regulations under ‘Regulatory and Ethical Considerations’.

Overall, the article presents valuable insights into enhancing horticultural crops through genome editing. Addressing the aforementioned points and incorporating the suggested improvements will significantly strengthen the article. I recommend the authors to consider these suggestions and make the necessary revisions. I wish you the best of luck with your revisions.

Response: We have addressed and incorporated the suggested contents in the revised version to strengthen the article as per your suggestions and we would like to thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In their review Daniel et al. focused on genome editing approaches and their application in the field of horticulture.

They provide an extensive review of state-of-the-art genome editing approaches with the main focus on CRISPR/Cas9 system. Basic principles of methods are explained and pros and cons are discussed.

Review is easy to read and contains information useful to a potential broad area of researches working in horticulture area.

However, there are available a  plenty of reviews focusing on the same topic (genome editing) – personally, I was reviewing couple of them just this year – so, I would recommend to somehow increase the “attractiveness” of the review to make it distinct from the ones already available.

I would recommend to include an illustration/scheme dealing with CRISPR/Cas9 principles of action, sgRNA design (or something similar) that could serve for a broader audience or students as a “resource”.

I would also edit the Table 1: as only CRISPR/Cas9 examples are shown, it is possible to delete the “Techniques” column. Also, I would either make the table “informative” and put 1 example for each species or “comprehensive” and list as many examples for each species as possible.

Minot points:

-In Table 1, RNA interference and Base editing are mentioned, but not in the main text. I would recommend either to omit them in the Table 1 (not to increase the redundancy) or to discuss them in the main text.

-I do not like much the word “comprehensive”, which is used several times (lines 15, 16, 85, 536) – I would recommend to remove it (or at least rephrase it)

-lines 104-105 and 109-113: it is not clear whether these are Tables’ legends or parts of the main text.

-Table 1 is not cited in the main text

-some sentences are repeatedly used or are very similar (lines 94-96 and 97-98, lies 139/140 and 140/141, lines 327-329 and 340-341, lines 425-427 and 428-429) or overabundant (lines 124-125, 131-132). Please check the text in-depth and remove the repeating or unnecessary statements.

-also the word “researchers” is used too many times throughout the text (especially in section 2.2.2.) – try to rephrase the sentences. Especially section 2.2.2. should be changed – I would suggest to put as much as possible information into the Table 2 and in the paragraph 2.2.2. discuss only the most significant (the first, most innovative, etc…) papers. Also “conclusions” is not necessary to write for each paper as the resulting test is quite repetitive.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their review Daniel et al. focused on genome editing approaches and their application in the field of horticulture.

They provide an extensive review of state-of-the-art genome editing approaches with the main focus on CRISPR/Cas9 system. Basic principles of methods are explained and pros and cons are discussed.

Review is easy to read and contains information useful to a potential broad area of researches working in horticulture area.

However, there are available a  plenty of reviews focusing on the same topic (genome editing) – personally, I was reviewing couple of them just this year – so, I would recommend to somehow increase the “attractiveness” of the review to make it distinct from the ones already available.

I would recommend to include an illustration/scheme dealing with CRISPR/Cas9 principles of action, sgRNA design (or something similar) that could serve for a broader audience or students as a “resource”.

Response: Illustration is given on Genome Editing in Horticulture Crops as Figure 1 in page no. 2.

I would also edit the Table 1: as only CRISPR/Cas9 examples are shown, it is possible to delete the “Techniques” column. Also, I would either make the table “informative” and put 1 example for each species or “comprehensive” and list as many examples for each species as possible.

Response: As per your suggestion, the “Techniques” column has been removed and changes were made in the Table 2

Minot points:

-In Table 1, RNA interference and Base editing are mentioned, but not in the main text. I would recommend either to omit them in the Table 1 (not to increase the redundancy) or to discuss them in the main text.

Response:  As per your suggestion, we have removed RNA interference and Base editing information from the Table 1.

-I do not like much the word “comprehensive”, which is used several times (lines 15, 16, 85, 536) – I would recommend to remove it (or at least rephrase it)

Response: As per your suggestion, we have removed the word “comprehensive” in line 16, 90, and 647, and rephrased the sentences throughout the manuscript.  

-lines 104-105 and 109-113: it is not clear whether these are Tables’ legends or parts of the main text.

Response: Sentences were used to explain the table contents as part of legends.

-Table 1 is not cited in the main text

Response: As per your suggestion, we have cited Table 1 within the main text in line no 92.

-some sentences are repeatedly used or are very similar (lines 94-96 and 97-98, lies 139/140 and 140/141, lines 327-329 and 340-341, lines 425-427 and 428-429) or overabundant (lines 124-125, 131-132). Please check the text in-depth and remove the repeating or unnecessary statements.

Response: As per your suggestion, we have rephrased the sentences throughout the manuscript including in lines, 100-103, 140-142, 330-333, and 455.

-also the word “researchers” is used too many times throughout the text (especially in section 2.2.2.) – try to rephrase the sentences. Especially section 2.2.2. should be changed – I would suggest to put as much as possible information into the Table 2 and in the paragraph 2.2.2. discuss only the most significant (the first, most innovative, etc…) papers. Also “conclusions” is not necessary to write for each paper as the resulting test is quite repetitive.

Response: As per your suggestion, we have minimized the word “researchers” especially in section 2.2.2. and rephrased the sentences throughout the manuscript. As we listed CRISPR-Cas9 related studies in Table 2, discussed only important studies under gene knockout in section 2.2.2. As per journal policy we have included section “conclusion”, and we would like to thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I read your submitted article/review  titled "Enhancing horticultural crops through genome editing: applications ,benefits and considerations" by Melvin Daniel et al., and I was well impressed by the mns . I think that it is a quite good contribution in reviewing the state of art of the genome editing tools and their powerful impacts to improve the horticultural crops. Reading the  exhaustive text, I have no comment to add  in order to implement any paragraph. So that, I consider the manuscript as acceptable for publication  in the present form.

Sincerely  

Comments for author File: Comments.docx