Wheat Breeding, Fertilizers, and Pesticides: Do They Contribute to the Increasing Immunogenic Properties of Modern Wheat?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review manuscript entitled “Wheat breeding, fertilizers, and pesticides: Do they contribute to the increasing immunogenic properties of modern wheat?” by Sayanti Mandal and Anil K. Verma provides well-structured answers to the question that makes the title.
Overall, they address an important question, pertaining to the role of multiple factors that contribute to our daily life. The major drawback in this field is the heterogenicity of the populations and the use of many different processing techniques, preservatives, additives, cooking/baking/frying parameters that modify the product for each and every consumer. This point is especially critical when evaluating the simplified Celiac Disease triangle described in Figure one.
I would like to state that the usage of the English language in some parts of the manuscript is problematic (sections 1 to 3 and partially the conclusion). On the contrary, sections 4 to 6 are very well written. I had the impression that the authors have not reviewed/corrected each other’s contributions effectively. Otherwise, the manuscript is nicely addressing key points in a well-organized approach. I believe that the following concerns deserve additional attention to improve the enthusiasm of readers.
Line 10: CD is a gluten-induced, T-cell mediated intestinal condition (disease). It is not an immune response, it develops as a consequence of immune response. The inflammatory condition definitely damages the mucosa, but the main problem is the compromised epithelial barrier/tight junction integrity and function. As we know this brings additional inflammatory problems than Gluten itself.
Context and provided information are well formulated. The use of very long and short sentences renders the text rather difficult to follow sometimes. There are many repetitions, for example, 22 “CD” between lines 28-56 and 4 “However” between lines 60-69.
Line 67: However, due to this quality of the wheat… the phrase should be addressed.
Line 65-71: Authors mention “recent years, multiple studies…” but there is no reference for this part.
Line 82-84: When it is written “historically”, as a reader I tend to think far more into the past than one century, considering the selective breeding that was going on mostly unintentionally for thousands of years.
Line 92: Furthermore, although…
Line 109: It would make sense to state a few health advantages of dietary fiber here, considering that the authors discuss gut flora, dysbiosis, various bacterial strains, etc. in coming sections.
Line 131: However, even though… genetic diversity within the genetics… This sentence needs to be re-written.
Line 134: Please elaborate on “various requirements”
Line 164: “even” is not necessary.
Line 195: “Due to” is not necessary
Line 198: …as a result of the higher N dosage, which resulted in…
Line 223: “improved” repetition.
Line 238: please use kilogram or ton.
Line 251: “on the other hand” there is no other product!
Line 250-257: No reference.
Line 260: Good bacteria do not help the body fight off infections. It makes life difficult for invading pathogens. It helps for the development/maturation of specific immune cells and plays a role in the regulation of the immune response. The term “dysbiosis” and “metabolites” would be good additions to this paragraph.
Line 273-275: Reference needed. Safeer
Line 316: RNA interference DOES NOT suppress the expression, RNAi is the definition of the molecular mechanism that leads to suppression/silencing of target molecules by miRNA or siRNA.
Line 330: These transgenic lines have improved the functional characteristics and rheological properties of the dough.
Line 350: Third strategy?
Line 353: than that compared to
Line 375: respectively to what?
Line 450: we use an enzyme called ribonucleoprotein is used.
Line 460-470
“However” is used 4 times and the last one is the start of a controversial sentence: “However, further studies are needed to validate this fact.” If it is a fact, it must have been already validated.
Author Response
Reviewer#1
The review manuscript entitled “Wheat breeding, fertilizers, and pesticides: Do they contribute to the increasing immunogenic properties of modern wheat?” by Sayanti Mandal and Anil K. Verma provides well-structured answers to the question that makes the title.
Overall, they address an important question, pertaining to the role of multiple factors that contribute to our daily life. The major drawback in this field is the heterogenicity of the populations and the use of many different processing techniques, preservatives, additives, cooking/baking/frying parameters that modify the product for each and every consumer. This point is especially critical when evaluating the simplified Celiac Disease triangle described in Figure one.
Comment#1: I would like to state that the usage of the English language in some parts of the manuscript is problematic (sections 1 to 3 and partially the conclusion). On the contrary, sections 4 to 6 are very well written. I had the impression that the authors have not reviewed/corrected each other’s contributions effectively. Otherwise, the manuscript is nicely addressing key points in a well-organized approach. I believe that the following concerns deserve additional attention to improve the enthusiasm of readers.
Response: First of all, we are thankful for your insightful review of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate your feedback on “The major drawback……………...Celiac Disease (CD) triangle described in Figure 1.” I agree with you that there are other factors along with agronomical practices (that we have reviewed in the manuscript) that together contribute to the prevalence of CD. We have mainly focused on different agronomical practices that play an important role in the increased immunogenic properties of modern wheat. These agronomical practices are shown in a simplified ‘Celiac Disease triangle’ that is just a visual depiction. Apart from that, we've changed the legend of ‘Figure 1’ to help the reader comprehend it better.
We have checked the whole manuscript and along with the mentioned errors, we also tried our best to resolve other mistakes as well.
Comment#2: Line 10: CD is a gluten-induced, T-cell mediated intestinal condition (disease). It is not an immune response, it develops as a consequence of immune response. The inflammatory condition definitely damages the mucosa, but the main problem is the compromised epithelial barrier/tight junction integrity and function. As we know this brings additional inflammatory problems than Gluten itself.
Response: We are grateful to you for mentioning this very important point. We have corrected the line.
Comment#3: Context and provided information are well formulated. The use of very long and short sentences renders the text rather difficult to follow sometimes. There are many repetitions, for example, 22 “CD” between lines 28-56 and 4 “However” between lines 60-69.
Response: We are fully agreed with your observation. We have shortened the sentences and corrected the repetition of CD in the revised version of the manuscript.
Comment#4: Line 67: However, due to this quality of the wheat… the phrase should be addressed.
Response: Agreed, the correction has been made.
Comment5: Line 65-71: Authors mention “recent years, multiple studies…” but there is no reference for this part.
Respond: Thank you for pointing this out. We have cited the corresponding references in the revised manuscript (Line no.70).
Comment#6: Line 82-84: When it is written “historically”, as a reader I tend to think far more into the past than one century, considering the selective breeding that was going on mostly unintentionally for thousands of years.
Response: We agree with your suggestion. We have corrected the line (Line no. 86).
Comment#7: Line 92: Furthermore, although…
Response: We fully agree, the correction has been made.
Comment#8: Line 109: It would make sense to state a few health advantages of dietary fiber here, considering that the authors discuss gut flora, dysbiosis, various bacterial strains, etc. in coming sections.
Response: We have added the suggested content in the revised of manuscript (Line no.122-123).
Comment#9: Line 131: However, even though… genetic diversity within the genetics… This sentence needs to be re-written.
Response: We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised the line accordingly (line. No.146-149).
Comment#10: Line 134: Please elaborate on “various requirements”
Response: We have corrected the line (Line no. 149).
Comment#11: Line 164: “even” is not necessary.
Response: Agreed, the correction has been made.
Comment#12: Line 195: “Due to” is not necessary
Response: Agreed, the correction has been made.
Comment#13: Line 198: …as a result of the higher N dosage, which resulted in…
Response: We agree, the correction has been made (Line no. 222).
Comment#14: Line 223: “improved” repetition.
Response: We have corrected the repetition.
Comment#15: Line 238: please use kilogram or ton.
Response: Thanks for noticing the wrong use of the ‘units’. We have corrected the unit in the tons.
Comment#16: Line 251: “on the other hand” there is no other product!
Response: We agree, the line has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.
Comment#17: Line 250-257: No reference.
Response: We agree with your suggestion. We have cited the reference (Ref. no. 50, and 51, Line no.276).
Comment#18: Line 260: Good bacteria do not help the body fight off infections. It makes life difficult for invading pathogens. It helps for the development/maturation of specific immune cells and plays a role in the regulation of the immune response. The term “dysbiosis” and “metabolites” would be good additions to this paragraph.
Response: We agree with your assessment. Accordingly, we have corrected and added the term “dysbiosis” and “metabolites” (Line no. 291-294).
Comment#19: Line 273-275: Reference needed. Safeer
Response: We agree, the references have been added (Ref. no. 59, and 60, Line no.308).
Comment#20: Line 316: RNA interference DOES NOT suppress the expression, RNAi is the definition of the molecular mechanism that leads to suppression/silencing of target molecules by miRNA or siRNA.
Response: As suggested, we have made specific changes (Line no. 353-356).
Comment#21: Line 330: These transgenic lines have improved the functional characteristics and rheological properties of the dough.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The suggested correction has been made.
Comment#22: Line 350: Third strategy?
Response: The suggested correction has been made.
Comment#23: Line 353: than that compared to
Response: The suggested correction has been made.
Comment#24: Line 375: respectively to what?
Response: That’s for finding this incomplete sentence. we have corrected the line (Line. No. 398).
Comment#25: Line 450: we use an enzyme called ribonucleoprotein is used.
Response: Agreed, the correction has been made. (Line 492-493)
Comment#26: “However” is used 4 times and the last one is the start of a controversial sentence: “However, further studies are needed to validate this fact.” If it is a fact, it must have been already validated.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have tried our best to reduce the repetitive words throughout the manuscript.
Thanks once again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the article entitled “Wheat breeding, fertilizers, and pesticides: do they contribute to the increasing immunogenic properties of modern wheat?” have reviewed the connection between the immunogenicity of gluten and the different agricultural practices. For last, they talk about the CRISPR technique and its application.
Comments:
Line 37-38. The sentences were repeated.
Lines 204; 208-209. HMW and LMW were already defined.
Line 232. ‘to gluten sensetive individual’. Where must this sentence go?
Table 1. In the footnotes, add the definition of the abbreviations of “LMW-GS”, “HMW-GS”, “N”, “CD”
Line 271. ‘Clostridium difficile’. Please, write it in italic.
Line 278, 280. ‘Prevotella spp. and Actinomyces spp.’. Please, write them in italic.
Line 288, 292. ‘Rothia’. Please, write it in italic.
Table 2. Please, add in the footnotes the definition of all abbreviations that appear in the table.
Lines 314 and 342. ‘Flavobacterium meningosepticum’ and ‘Pyrococcus furiosus’. Please, write them in italic.
Line 398. Define here de GMO abbreviation, not in line 451.
Lines 423, 427. ‘Agrobacterium’. Please, write it in italic.
Line 444. ‘in vitro’. Please, write it in italic.
Author Response
Reviewer#2
The authors of the article entitled “Wheat breeding, fertilizers, and pesticides: do they contribute to the increasing immunogenic properties of modern wheat?” have reviewed the connection between the immunogenicity of gluten and the different agricultural practices. For last, they talk about the CRISPR technique and its application.
We are thankful to you for reviewing our manuscript. Your raised comments were remained quite useful and constructive, which helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find our responses.
Comments:
Comment#1: Line 37-38. The sentences were repeated.
Response: The suggested correction has been made.
Comment#2: Lines 204; 208-209. HMW and LMW were already defined.
Response: Thanks for noticing this error. We have deleted the already defined line.
Comment#3: Line 232. ‘to gluten sensetive individual’. Where must this sentence go?
Table 1. In the footnotes, add the definition of the abbreviations of “LMW-GS”, “HMW-GS”, “N”, “CD”
Response: As suggested, we have changed the heading and added the footnotes of all abbreviations that appear in Table 1
Comment#4: Line 271. ‘Clostridium difficile’. Please, write it in italic.
Response: We have written the name in italic.
Comment#5: Line 278, 280. ‘Prevotella spp. and Actinomyces spp.’. Please, write them in italic.
Response: We agree with your suggestion. We have written the names in italic.
Comment#6: Line 288, 292. ‘Rothia’. Please, write it in italic.
Response: We agree with your suggestion. We have written the names in italic.
Comment#7: Table 2. Please, add in the footnotes the definition of all abbreviations that appear in the table.
Response: As suggested, we have added the footnotes of all abbreviations that appear in Table 2
Comment#8: Lines 314 and 342. ‘Flavobacterium meningosepticum’ and ‘Pyrococcus furiosus’. Please, write them in italic.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have written the names in italic.
Comment#9: Line 398. Define here de GMO abbreviation, not in line 451.
Response: We have defined the GMO. (Line no. 494)
Comment#10: Lines 423, 427. ‘Agrobacterium’. Please, write it in italic.
Response: We have written the name in italic.
Comment#10: Line 444. ‘in vitro’. Please, write it in italic.
Response: We have written the word in italic.
Thanks once again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
