Antimicrobial Activity of Fungal Endophytes Associated with Peperomia argyreia (Piperaceae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments:

The manuscript by Barolo et al. uncovered a rich diversity of endophytic fungi with antimicrobial properties, notably identifying citrinin from Penicillium westlingii P4 as a potent inhibitor against Ascochyta rabiei AR2. This study highlighted the potential of Peperomia argyreia's fungal community in producing bioactive compounds, emphasizing the antimicrobial capabilities of these endophytes. Overall, the manuscript describes some important findings that are of interest to a broad audience.

1. Could the authors elaborate on the choice of ITS and NL primers for the molecular identification of fungal isolates? How do these primers ensure the accurate identification of the diverse fungal species within Peperomia argyreia?
2. Regarding the microdilution and bioautographic assays used to assess the antimicrobial properties of the fungal extracts, how specific are these methods for detecting antimicrobial activity? Are there any limitations to these techniques that could affect the interpretation of results? 

3. Can the authors provide more details on the bioactivity-guided fractionation process that led to the identification of citrinin as the main inhibitory compound? How was citrinin specifically identified and quantified among other compounds present in the extract? 

4. What control measures were in place during the study to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the findings? Specifically, how were potential biases minimized in the isolation, identification, and antimicrobial testing of the fungal species?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor comments: 

1. Abstract does not align with the journal format.
2. Reference format is not consistent. 
3. Orientations of Figures S2-S6 look not correct. 
4. Figure legends could be more detailed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job of presenting the results and re-organazing of the figures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments and made significant improvements to the manuscript. It can now be accepted pending a final check of grammar and English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgment that we have addressed the comments and improved the manuscript. In this revised version, we have done a review of grammar and English. We wish that this manuscript would be now ready for acceptance.