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.
Dear Dr. Bello-Bedoy, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this article for publication and wish you further success in your scientific research.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Section Editor recommends modifying the title to "..growth and metabolic profiles.."
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have made the necessary changes. I don't have any more comments. The article may be accepted for publication.
Dear Dr. Bello-Bedoy, I ask you to review your article carefully and consider the reviewers' suggestions. The study has shortcomings, but they can be easily addressed by careful discussion and citation of relevant studies.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The text needs to be completely revised. It contains too many errors, for example:
- Line 55: “Seed priming using nanoparticles (i.e., nano priming)”.
Correction: nanopriming
- Line 57: “The application of 57 nano primming can induce”.
- Correction: nanopriming
- Line 60: “However, the effects of nano priming”
- Correction: nanopriming
- Line 67: “Nanoprimming effects with Silver nanoparticles”
- Correction: nanopriming, silver
- Line 71: “in a diploid cultivar exposed nanoprimming”
- Correction: nanopriming
- Line 72: “with silver particles, but its effects”
- Correction: nanoparticles
- Line 75: “effects of AgNP nanoprimming”
- Correction: nanopriming
- You should pay attention to the words "nano priming, nanopriming, nano primming, nanoprimming, nanoparticle (the "s" is missing), particle (it should be nanoparticles).
- The abbreviations "AgNP" and "AgNPs" are used interchangeably. Their use should be consistent. "AgNps"
- Lines 131-132: “4.16 (207.9mg/50 seeds) and wild chili seeds had a mean weight of 2.6mg (132.7 mg/50 seeds)”
Correction: 4.16 mg, 207.9 mg, 2.6 mg (put a space between the value and the unit of measurement)
- Line 137: “Each treatment had four replicates”
The suggestion: “Each treatment was replicated four times”
- Line 169: “o the nearest 0.0001 gr”.
Correction: 0.0001 g.
- Lines 143-145: “Day to germination was registered since the day there were treated. The number of germinated seeds was counted every day and along 14 days of germination where most seeds had germinated”.
Suggestion: Germination was recorded from the day of treatment. The number of germinated seeds was counted daily over the 14 days of germination, when most seeds had germinated.
- Line 179: Subscript in the formula for sodium carbonate
- Line 186: Superscript in square centimeter
- Line 304: “(100ppm and 250 ppm)”.
The entire text needs to be reviewed, as it includes a value without a space followed by its unit of measurement, and in others, there is a space between the value and the unit.
- Line 222: “concentration were measured by means of a two wan analysis of variance” – two-way?
- The study uses commercial silver nanoparticles. At least one TEM or SEM image of the reagent batch used must be included, or at least the nanoparticle size and polydispersity must be specified. Small changes in shape or size can cause comparable changes.
- When using commercial nanoparticles recovered with PVP, there is no comparison as to whether this PVP acted in any way, or if there is a report specifying that it does not affect in a similar study at the concentration at which the AgNPs were used.
- A simple question: Why were sugars not studied as part of metabolites, or any other than just polyphenols?
- Line 146: “Total germination percentage (%) and germination rate. The germination percentage (G%)”.
% and G% are not the same?
- Line 175: “1 mL of hydro-methanolic solution (methanol 100%) for 24 hours in the dark”.
Observation: It is confusing to use the term "hydro-methanolic solution" and specify that it is 100% methanol. Please correct that.
- Lines 176-182: Was the protocol carried out as described in the reference “Ainsworth & Gillespie, 2007”? If the protocol was followed, please specify it directly, since you do not mention any concentration of the reagents.
- Was the potential effect of silver as a free ion versus a nanoparticle monitored? This is important to understand whether the response is due to the nanoparticle effect or simply due to the silver ionic effect.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21103441
If experimental data are not available, this point should be fully discussed with appropriate references.
- Lines 327-338 It's a good discussion, but it reads more like a conclusion.
- Lines 336-338: There are references cited (Song & He, 2021; Thongmak et al., 2022), raising doubts about whether the final lines are taken from these authors or are actually part of this discussion.
"Further research is needed to understand how domestication has shaped
germination mechanisms and their relationship to nanoprimming technology (Song & He, 2021; 338 Thongmak et al., 2022).
- Lines 382-387: "Future research should focus on understanding the physiological and molecular mechanisms underlying the interaction between nanoparticles and seeds (Mahakham et al., 2017)"
This idea is mentioned a couple of times in the discussion. The question is: What did the authors do to carry out these new studies that address the questions raised by others?
- The terminology alternates between "wild vs. cultivated" and "wild vs. domesticated." This can cause confusion. It's advisable to maintain consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.
Consider that domestication is an evolutionary process in which the genetic characteristics of a wild species are modified to adapt it to human needs. Cultivation, on the other hand, refers to the management of plants, whether domesticated or wild, for their growth and production.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Review is attached.
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.