All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript was significantly modified, following the Reviewers' comments. As a consequence, the manuscript content is suitable for publication in Peer Journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address all concerns raised by both reviewers, in particular, the comments from Reviewer 1, who suggest additional experiments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
This manuscript, entitled “Genetic diversity of enterotoxigenic Bacillus cereus strains in coriander in southwestern Mexico”, had described the toxigenic profile, biofilm production, genes associated with the production of biofilms, sporulation rates, enzymatic profile, psychotropic properties, and genetic diversity of B. cereus strains from coriander in southwestern Mexico. Due to lack of significance and novelty, my suggestion is rejection.
First and most importantly, the samples were collected from a relatively small area within a short period (six-week study period). Also, only 60 coriander samples and 17 B. cereus strains were recovered. The results yield from such samples have limited guidance and significance.
Secondly, only toxigenic profile, biofilm production, genes associated with the production of biofilms, sporulation rates, enzymatic profile, psychotropic properties, and genetic diversity were included in the study. Such phenotype screening is pre-experimental studies upon further in-depth molecular mechanism investigation. The data are insufficient to be published as a scientific manuscript unless there’s novel strain types and genes identified. However, in the current study, none of such types were identified.
Thirdly, the results and discussion parts were short and dull, the data presentation is poor. Due to the lack of significance data to be discussed, I suggest the authors to perform more in-depth study.
The manuscript written by Cástulo-Arcos et al. reports some interesting results. In this work, the authors have discovered that Bacillus cereus strains produce a low amount of biofilm and produce rates sporulation around 80%.
In general, this paper is clearly laid out, well planed and easy to read. The experiments are well designed and appropriate controls are presented.
The novelty and significance of the manuscript were not highlighted, please modify the paper more clearly.
Manuscript Title: Genetic diversity of enterotoxigenic Bacillus cereus strains in coriander in southwestern Mexico
Manuscript ID: #71248
The manuscript written by Cástulo-Arcos et al. reports some interesting results. In this work, the authors have discovered that Bacillus cereus strains produce a low amount of biofilm and produce rates sporulation around 80%.
Some specific suggestions or questions are listed below:
1.Abstract: Abstract should be written more precisely and explain novelty of this work.
2.Introduction: Introduction is easy to read but needs a little completed. Bacillus strains are well known for their metabolic capability and environmental versatility as well as for their ability to manage bacterial and fungal pathogens infecting crop plants. Authors should add more information into this section and cite the recent research into the field based on the recent literature (such as doi: 10.3390/plants11030457; doi: doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020365; 10.3390/microorganisms9122511; doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101712; doi: 10.3390/plants10112342; doi:10.3390/microorganisms8020223; doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.10.004; doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6164-y; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.106; doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133609; doi: 10.1021/jf404908j; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.570307).
3.Introduction: Coriandrum sativum, Please check throughout the manuscript that abbreviations/acronyms are defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table.
4.Introduction: In addition, this part should focus on the research progress related to the topic and emphasize the innovation of this research. However, the novelty and significance of the topic were not highlighted, please modify the introduction more clearly.
5.Material and Methods: please add relative references to support all the methods.
6.Results: This section is too simple. Please add all the results in details.
7.Results: Figure 3 is not clear. Please re-draw the figure and provide high quality one.
8.Discussion: Authors should add more depth discussion into this section and cite the recent research into the field.
9.Conclusions: Authors can add and revise the Conclusions section for the better understanding of the topic and its future research.
References: Many of the references have been superceded and more modern ones are required
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.