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.
Authors have revised manuscript as per suggestion. Therefore, It is recommended that manuscript to be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The Section Editor noted:
"fluoresced" should be replaced with "fluorescent" (4 instances). line 26 "Aster" should not be capitalized
it seems to be connected now with respect to title, methodology and reported results
Well defined, Relevant, good standards
Satisfied with the proposed findings and rigorous discussion on it
Authors have improved their manuscript. Now, it may be accepted for the possible publication.
Acceptable
Valid
Authors are advised to revise the manuscript as per suggestions of the reviewers.
[# 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. #]
Language improvement is required in introduction and discussion.
Figures are well explanatory
Research design is appropriate. Title of the article, aims and objectives and methodology of article correspond well.
Research question is well formed
This study has reported for the first time the association of Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris’ infection in Almond Trees in India. That is why the paper has merits and the authors have performed molecular detection and fluorescent microscopic studies. The manuscript should be exhaustively revised to avoid any conceptual, typographical and grammatical errors.
1. The title is not justifying the study please mention it as the first report and remove characterization as single gene has been used for identification.
2. Modify line 11-12 : The almond, a commercially important tree nut crop worldwide, is native to the Mediterranean region.
3. Correct line 15: consistently affected?
4. Recheck the phylogenetic identity results and incorporate modifications if observed any variation.
5. Line 40-41: such common phrases are not required in a scientific study.
6. Correct lines 57-58
7. Line 115: rectify the error.
8. Line 126-127 please add further detail of the location
9. What methods have been previously used in the detection of phytoplasmas in almond trees? Those references should be included in this manuscript.
10. it’s a general suggestion to the authors to observe vector populations in the vicinity of those regions to establish phytoplasma-vector relation studies.
11. Please correct the grammar in sections such as introduction and discussion.
Authors of the manuscript “Detection and molecular characterization of Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris associated with almond trees in India” provided first host report of a Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris infecting almond in India, expanding the knowledge of the diversity and distribution of phytoplasma strains affecting almond trees globally.
The manuscript is well-written in an engaging and lively style. The level is appropriate to the journal’s readership. The subject is very important, it’s currently something of a “hot topic” in almond growing areas, and this study makes significant contributions. This article may be accepted for the possible publication after correction of a few typos, grammatical mistakes and other minor issues.
Keywords must be different from title to enhance search ability and findability. Select words that describes the highlight/novelty of the research. Arrange these alphabetically.
L33: Italicize botanical names.
L17: Why surveys were conducted during May to 17 September?
What is null hypothesis of this study?
Give further detail about the status of almond-associated phytoplasmas in India and rest of the world.
L122: In the recent surveys during vernal (May to June) and autumnal (September to November)…? When surveys were conducted?
L132: Please maintain uniformity while writing subheadings.
Did you follow Kochs postulates during the study?
Give geographical locations of surveyed areas.
L138: The sample bits (about 2mm in size) will be stored at 4ºC in 0.1 M?
L140: …. thickness will be prepared and these section will be transferred to clean glassslide?
L142: The sections will be covered by cover slip and blotted firmly with filter paper ..?
What positive control was used during this study/ Please explain
Please make corrections in the phytoplasma species groupings mentioned in results section.
Please highlight the screened isolates used during this study in the phylogenetic tree.
Please write the complete name of an organism or term before writing its abbreviation. Afterwards, no need to write the complete term in a section.
Confirm either it is first study in India?
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.