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 changes suggested by the reviewer have been incorporated. The manuscript is accepted for publishing in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors have incorporated all the suggested changes. I think article is ready for publication.
NA
NA
NA
The manuscript needs substantial improvements to meet the standards of PeerJ. Kindly incorporate all the changes suggested by the authors.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The study deals with interesting topic and meets the publication criteria of PeerJ
Appropriate
Valid findings
Additional sheet of reviewer comments attached
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled " Biocontrol endophytes Bacillus subtilis R31 influence the quality, transcriptome and metabolome of sweet corn". The authors studied how bacillus subtilis R31 affects the quality, as well as the transcriptome and metabolome of the banana. This topic is interesting for the readers of PeerJ. The manuscript is generally well-written.
Experimental design is rigorous.
. However, my major concern is that the statistical analysis is not performed correctly and metabolomic data is not identified correctly.
1: The authors stated that the application of Bacillus R31 can improve the quality of banana, however, the authors only showed a mean value, and did not do any statistical analysis, e.g. ANOVA to compare with the control.
Also from a quick look on figure 1, the std is high for most parameters and the mean between control and R31 group is so small. It seems that the application of Bacillus subtilis does not improve the banana quality at all.
2: The metabolomic data analysis is also problematic. First, the retention time for the metabolites are all missing. And also, due to the resolution limit of the quadrupole, there are a lot of isomers and molecular has similar precursors that could not be separated well with the methods in this manuscript.
For example, if check table S19, Pterolactam and proline were identified as two compounds in the identification table, but their Q1 is exactly the same and Q2 is only 70.07 vs 70.10, their peak area is also the same. These two identification is basically duplicate of one single peak. Same can be found between 5-Oxoproline and 5-Oxo-L-Proline as well as many other compounds.
Biocontrol Endophyte Bacillus subtilis R31 Influences the Quality, 3 Transcriptome, and Metabolome of Sweet Corn
This manuscript studied the influence of Biocontrol B. subtilis R31on the transcriptome and metabolome of sweet corn, it contains useful information and the idea is good, but there are some remarks that need to be improved before publication.
In the abstract: add the objective at the begging of the abstract
Line 28: ofB…correct
In the introduction: add the hypothesis of the study
Line 73: sticky words should be receivedaChinese
Line 81: sticky words on the
Line 231: DEGsindifferent ??
LINE 372: qualitycharacteristics??
LINE 383: requiresfurther?/
The discussion section is short. It needs more details and improvements.
More clarity is needed
GOOD
CHECK THE REFERENCE IN AND OUT THE MANUSCRIPT
Bacillus subtilis has been reported as biocontrol agent in the literature. In this manuscript author reported the metabolomics and transcriptomic analysis of sweet corn with the improved quality of corn. As author reported that biocontrol properties has been mentioned in another article. In that article author compared the biocontrol properties of two endophytes, one of which is Bacillus subtilis R31.
I found that some information is missing, as I am unable to find a relation between biocontrol properties in banana and metabolic relation with the corn.
I suggest that author should also evaluate the biocontrol properties of Bacillus subtilis R31 in corn against different phytopathogens.
Rewrite the introduction with the missing information, so that readers can understand the purpose of the study.
Plant defense properties of Bacillus subtilis should also mention clearly.
no comment
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.