An Electric Signal Conduction Characterization Model (ESCCM) for Establishing an Effective Poplar Regenerative System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I would like to appreciate for giving me the chance to review the paper titled “ An Electric signal conduction characterization model (ESCCM) for establishing an effectively poplar regenerative system” by Zhang and colleagues. In the mentioned paper authors established an Electrical Signal Conduction Characterization Model (ESCCM) by wavelet analysis and processing, which this signal was obtained from the MS medium with different hormone combinations and concentrations of PRS. In this research, the authors found that ESCCM can improve the efficiency of PRS, which provides new insight and theory into molecular breeding. To me, the topic is interesting and made a new insight into the tissue culture of plants/ trees. However, I have some concerns regarding the paper, and I would like to evaluate the paper after doing some major corrections on the paper by the authors. 

 

The English language of the paper needs improvement and I suggest authors send/ re-send it to a professional English service for editing. 

 

Abstract

The abstract is too short and doesn’t present enough information regarding materials and methods, results and even conclusion. Personally, by reading the abstract I couldn’t get the information which may need to absorb. I suggest authors, explain the material and methods, present the results, conclude the data, and even clarify the future steps for this article in the abstract. 

 

Introduction

The EC part of the introduction is not well organized and confusing. I would prefer if the authors will make paragraphs separately and talk about each topic in a single paragraph. 

 

Please explain more about the concept and application of EC in plant tissue culture. 

 

In addition, the authors stated that there are a few numbers of studies about measuring plant growth rate combined with the EC method however they didn’t detail the same studies, the advantages, the achievements, etc. 

 

Discussion

The authors didn’t disuse their results and didn’t compare them with other results and just elaborated on the results in the discussion section. The discussion section should be re-written and discus, rather than just presenting the results. 

 

Conclusion

What is the conclusion and achievements of this paper? The authors didn’t clarify and present it well. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The content is interesting and well presented.

Here are my comments and suggestion to the authors.

In the introduction state the genetic background of the plant(basic chromosome number, ploidy level, etc.).

In the Materials and methods section carefully check line 136 to 146 for English editing 

In the result section, presents the P-value associated with each treatment this will give more credit to the work.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest accepting the paper in the current format. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf