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. Kong, I congratulate you and your co-workers for this outstanding research work. Using Endophytic Burkholderia sp. SSG as a potential biofertilizer promoting boxwood growth is showing great promise and it has potential application as a biocontrol agent and growth-promoting agent.
Dr. Simon Francis Shamoun
E-mail: Simon.Shamoun@Canada.Ca
Academic Editor, PeerJ
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Kong,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Endophytic Burkholderia sp. SSG as a potential biofertilizer promoting boxwood growth - that it requires a number of Minor Revisions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewer 1 declared a potential Conflict of Interest, and the Editor was aware of this when making their decision #]
The reporting of methods and the description of how this bacterium is positioned to potentially be very useful as a treatment for boxwood in production and landscape is very clear. Information is presented in step-by-step fashion and could be easily repeated by another scientist. Background is provided for each of the aspects of pathogen biology that relate to plant growth promotion, and even for the question of whether this microorganism could be used safely by humans. The data is presented professionally and the raw data is available for backup. Although references are made to some other recent by the same authors, this paper covers a distinct set of questions and provides clear answers. The isolate that they are working with has obvious growth-promotion abilities, and the tests carried out and reported here give specifics for some of the mechanisms that may be involved in the observed improvement in inoculated boxwood growth, for three cultivars with different rates of growth. Suggestions were listed for comma changes, typo correction, and slight rephrasing to make the communication more smooth, but the communication in the manuscript is very good. Detailed suggestions for improvements in wording follow:
Summary at beginning
Giving this endophyte great potential as a treatment for plant protection
Growth promoting bacterium (not -a)
The degree of growth promotion was significantly
Abstract
Line 21. Great potential as a treatment for plant protection
Line 24. Growth promoting bacterium,
Line 25. Comma after solubilization
Line 35. The growth rate of treated plants
Line 36. Notably more pronounced with the slow and intermediate
Line 57. Strains, such as those
Line 58. Low human health risk
Line 64. Biocontrol product or other potential biocontrol agents evaluated
Line 78. Add (PGP) after spelling it out because used in line 79
Line 88. Add comma after (PDA)
Line 90. From the stored culture
Line 94. What age was the colony used to inoculate? You might also say Inoculated ‘from’ rather than ‘with’ if a portion of the colony was used
Line 116. Seven days, then
Line 118. Broth, to which 0.3 ml of an overnight. [also, perhaps define ‘overnight’ as ‘overnight (16-18 hrs)’ or whatever you want here at first mention, since it is used throughout]
Line 123. Solution, then
Line 139. (fast), were
Line 142. Paper toweling. [or ‘a paper towel’]
Line 144. Soil,
Line 155. Measured
Line 160. A homogeneity test
Line 193. Winter Gem
Line 194. Winter Gem
Line 195. Promoting the growth of the slow
Line 210-11. [perhaps delete ‘and one another’. Not sure I get your meaning.]
Line 213. Cultivar, which
Line 220. Producing IAA, as other
Line 222. Ml, compared to
Line 229. Genes, although
Line 236. Nitrogen, following
Line 250. Spp.
Line 257. [meaning is not clear; making the 3 items more parallel would help the reader. “ …for iron nutrition, soil heavy metal stress alleviation, and plant pathogen suppression.] [Alternatively, ‘for iron nutrition and to alleviate the stresses imposed on plants by high levels of heavy metals in soil and for suppression of plant pathogens”]
Line 262. ‘these bacteria’ - not clear which ones you are referring to. . . . limited research on siderophores in Bcc. (?)
Line 270. Were confirmed
Line 275. Highly beneficial biofertilizer [the traits mentioned go beyond fertilization, so they are not making it a better biofertilizer, they are making it a biofertilizer with additional advantages].
Line 281. Delete ‘the’ before Saunders Bros.
Line 282. Suggest you add an initial or a first name to Ms. Richardson.
Line 289. not Burkholderia cepacia?
Line 334. not Burkholderia?
Line 385. Extra space
Line 389. P availability rather than p
Line 405. Late blight is Phytophthora capsici??? Also, journal name should be capitalized.
Line 408. Words run together after Latin name
The work is original and contributes some key knowledge of the functions of the bacterium being tested for its plant growth promotion abilities. It is clear how this fits with other studies of disease reduction with this same organism, and with studies of the genes present in the bacterium. The studies all are replicated and repeated, usually three times, to dispel fears that results are not robust. Methods are described quite clearly.
The scientific standards of the researchers appear to be excellent. Work is repeated over time, and data is subjected to statistical analysis. Appropriate controls are provided for each study. Treatments were designed to substantiate or reject the hypotheses that arose after seeing possible growth promotion in boxwood. The biochemical tests were appropriate given other work that explored the genetic makeup of he organism. The tone of the paper is straightforward rather than speculative: evidence is presented that substantiates the earlier observations that suggested growth promotion potential with the isolate.
This paper builds additional evidence that the Burkholderia isolate being studied has potential for use as a biocontrol agent. It is certainly interesting work. One wonders how widespread this organism might be in nature. It should be possible to learn more about biocontrol in general while investigating the utility of this organism for use in nurseries or landscapes.
Although very concise, the manuscript is substantiated in the literature and the experimental design is accurate, with the appropriate statistical treatment of the data. The hypothesis that Burkholderia sp. SSG is a plant growth-promoting bacterium is clearly demonstrated using boxwood as a model. The authors also performed a mechanistic investigation of the process, revealing that Burkholderia sp. SSG has the ability to grow in N-deprived medium, produces indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), the main auxin in higher plants, and siderophores. Figures, tables, and raw data are neat.
The experimental design is generally appropriate. To measure the plant growth-promotion ability, a very standard approach was used and thoroughly described. Although the assays performed to detect IAA, siderophores, and the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen are very basic bacteriological approaches, they provide some evidence to support the main finding, which is the plant growth-promoting ability of Burkholderia sp. SSG.
No comments.
Some minor revisions are needed:
1) Lane 32: “atmospheric oxygen” should be replaced with “atmospheric nitrogen”
Lanes 193 – 195:
2) “Justin Brouwers (P = 0.0014) and Winer Gem (P = 0.0190), respectively. Justin
Brouwers, Buddy and Winer Gem Buddy are slow, intermediate and fast-growing cultivars. SSG appeared more effective in promoting the slow and intermediate rather than fast growing plants.”
This statement is unsubstantiated and could be withdrawn, without any prejudice to the article.
3) Lanes 271 - 272
"These traits along with other features such as potent antagonism against pathogens and low human health risk demonstrate its potential as a biofertilizer."
I strongly suggest future studies on Burkholderia sp. SSG should include the genomic prospection and assessment of protein secretion systems, especially the Type VI Secretion Systems. They are widespread in Burkholderia spp. and can act as powerful antagonists to other bacterial or eukaryotic cells, including plant pathogens.
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.