Physiological and Molecular Responses of Pyrus pyraster Seedlings to Salt Treatment Analyzed by miRNA and Cytochrome P450 Gene-Based Markers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) This manuscript is not very readable, language polishing of the whole manuscript is needed.

(2) The quality of figures needs to be improved.

(3) The conclusion of this manuscript is not well summarized.

(4) There are some typos and format errors. 

(5) Plant latin names should be in italic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General evaluation: The content of the manuscript is interesting and important for a wide range of readership in this research field. The article is well organized. The abstract of the paper is compressed, realistic, and understandable.

The manuscript contains original data. The innovation of the paper is strongly connected to the journal. The introduction and discussion sections look good, summarize the current state of the problem with the elaboration of the theme, and provide scientific key information about the work. The introduction should briefly show what is already known and then focus more on what is not known and why it is worth studying. The philosophy of this work is good, and applicable in the next research.

Please include the missing information (research gaps and the significance of your research). Why is it required to run such an investigation?

Title: It is realistic and attractive.

Abstract: Abstract is integral and can serve as a stand-alone document that succinctly describes both procedures and conclusions.

Introduction: The literary structure of the Introduction Section is good, with a simple but objective scientific, containing essential information about the work and critical information on the problem under study.

The presentation of the results in the form of graphs and tables is clear, and the results are well described. All results are comprehensive. However, the Discussion section could be improved y redesigning it based on the novel findings of the study. 

The conclusions are well formulated and justified. The research meets all applicable standards for research integrity. The presentation of the results and figures facilitated the understanding of the experimental results. A deeper mechanistic understanding of the measured parameters is missing.

•      References - Authors should include more recent references throughout the manuscript, specifically in the discussion, to increase the value of the paper. The addition of more recent references can better show the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

Final comments: The manuscript is interesting, and associated with actual plant science trends. My opinion is in support of the manuscript to be published.

 

I propose acceptation of this manuscript, with recommended minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Physiological and molecular responses of Pyrus pyraster seed-2 lings to salt treatment analyzed by miRNA and cytochrome 3 P450 gene based markers" is a comprehensive study. The manuscript is very well-presented with in accordance of findings and conclusion. 

Author Response

Physiological and molecular responses of Pyrus pyraster seed-lings to salt treatment analyzed by miRNA and cytochrome P450 gene based markers

Viera Paganová1,*, Marek Hus, Helena Lichtnerová, Jana Žiarovská, Dagmar Moravčíková, Matúš Kučka, Katarína Ražná, Aqsa Abbas

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Trieda  Andreja  Hlinku 2, 949 76, Nitra, Slovakia

Thank you for your time and attention in reviewing the manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a valuable contribution to Plants but requires certain modifications before publication. Also, the English needs improvement as some parts are grammatically incorrect or too hard to follow. The description of the plant material needs more details. Finally, the abstract and some parts of the discussion have to be changed, as the interpretation of some results is a bit vague. Below I specify my comments and suggestions for the Authors.

1. Abstract: I think that some more details should be added here:

- how many plants/genotypes were studied (this information is not written even in M&M)

- what was the age of the plants

- how long did the experiment last

- specify what “regular NaCl application” means

2. Are the target genes of the studied miRNAs known? If so, please add the relevant references to the discussion.

3. The ending of the introduction should be complemented with specific questions aimed to be answered by the study.

4. Since the study comprises individuals from an open progeny, I am wondering if all plants share the same mother tree. Or is this information unknown? Were the genotypes replicated or did all biological replicates comprise different genotypes? Please add this information to section 2.1.

5. What is the origin of the samples? Is it some progeny trial? Please add this information to section 2.1.

6. I believe that the result for the water use efficiency in Figure 4 requires more explanation and better interpretation in the discussion section.

7. Lines 430-446: the part of the discussion about miRNA requires better interpretation and discussion of the results in relation to the available literature. In fact, miR936 was monomorphic in the presented study, so what does it mean considering what is known from the previous studies?

8. The very ending of the discussion is too vague (lines 477-479) and there is no explanation of leaf/root differences that were observed by the Authors for various salt concentrations. Furthermore, there is only one study on cotton mentioned here. For sure, there are previous studies that focused on other plant species, maybe even trees.

Minor comments:

Line 27: PBA – explain the abbreviation.

Line 27: was – change to “were”.

Line 28: seedling – change to “seedlings”.

Line 36: please write also the English name of the species.

Line 38: Can be found – change to “It can be found”.

Line 44: There is a little data – change to “There is little data”.

Lines 77-78: please explain the abbreviation for microRNAs in the first sentence, not in the second one.

Line 96: on the location – change to “at the location”, also please give the geographical coordinates of the location.

In some lines, there are unnecessary spaces before “°C”, “%” or in “(R: S).

Caption to Table 1 and line 211: please write the names of the species in italics.

Line 207: polymerization – change to “elongation”.

Line 207: PCE – change to: “PCR”.

Table 3: please explain the abbreviations of the parameters (also at first mention in the text).

Line 294: 0mL – change to: “0 mL”.

Line 313: remove “been”.

Figures 6 & 7: What do the labels with numbers mean? Are they the labels of different genotypes?

Lines 344-352: this fragment should be moved to the discussion.

Table 5: As the type of obtained profile was monomorphic in all cases, maybe it can be replaced with just “all monomorphic” to make the table shorter.

Lines 395-396: this information is partly a repetition of the previous lines.

Line 398: 31% – it is not necessary to put the exact value here or please put it for all parameters discussed in this fragment.

Line 403: increases, supports – change to: “increase”, “support”.

Line 431: please add references here.

Line 475: remove “here”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines that require English correction and clarification: 27-31, 59-62, 85-88, 233-236, 353-355, 369-372, 380-383, 425-428.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Add a sentence in the Abstract part to highlight the main conclusion of this paper.

2.  The quality of Figure 1, 8 and 9 needs to be impoved.

3. Please replace Figure 5 with a new one. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx