A Bioactive Compounds Profile Present in the Selected Wood Rot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript and in the attached file are some suggestions for improvements. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is very interesting. I found some places in the text that have to be corrected. The English grammar have to be improved. In the methods description the alkaline and acidic hydrolysis should be rewritten more clearly, by separating  in text the steps of alkaline and acidic hydrolysis, e.g. in points, because now it is a lot of information and reader can be confused. There is mismatching between the data in table 2 and the chromatograms presented in supplementary materials. The highest peak in chromatogram (Figure S1) is number 10 – ferulic acid, it means that it had the biggest concentration in fungi. The colour of the chromatogram – black is signed to Ba fungi. It means that the biggest concentration of ferulic acid, as the peak is the biggest, should be presented in table 2 at the Ba fungi. When you look into table 2, the data for Ba fungi dose not show the highest concentration of ferulic acid.            

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are several issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before thinking of publication. 

The scientific names of species should be in italics. The first time mentioned should not be cut using an acronym. Be careful with the parentheses (some of them are single). In the introduction, you mention the specific fungi species as regards the infestation of standing trees by them. Nevertheless, you shound mention as /well the attack and infestation of cut tree in the form of roundwood, trunk/branches/root wood. Please add the proposed work  https://doi.org/10.3390/f10121111 , in order to support such a statement. In the end of introduction, please try to highlight the meaning and significance of the study. More specifically, you could refer somehting answering to what is the ultimate goal of this experimental work. Please, provide age of the fungi cultures. Did you follow the procedure of a specific standard for the experimental processes (chemical analyses, saponification method etc.)? In line 186, the sentence needs improvement. Please provide more information on the aim of the specific statistical analysis process. Where possible, provide as well the standard deviation values, except for the mean values in tables. In the conclusions wich are logically stated in the text, you should also highlight the meaning/significance/impact of this study findings (as a continuation of the aim description in introduction section).

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with the little-studied issues that are the compounds found in fungi that conduct wood decomposition.

Line 53-55; 63-64  Latin names should be written in italics

With some reagents appear the markings of the company from which they come, with others not. Please unify this issue in the methodology.

The DM designation is not explained (I think it means dry matter). In the verse 353  it's written in small letters.

The ERG designation is explained in verse 261, while it should be in 255. Shouldn't ergosterol results also be converted to dry matter?

It would be interesting to compare the composition of the same fungal species taken from other habitats.

The chromatograms would be more legible if "base shift" processing, that is, separation of the individual chromatograms, was applied.

Including figures in the paper would have been more beneficial and given an improved perception of the manuscript.

He suggests reading the following articles:

DOI:10.15376/biores.16.1.1287-1295

DOI:10.5604/01.3001.0014.5967

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I think your manuscript improved after these corrections and now I do not have any additional comments or suggestions. Probably some text editing will be done after this stage (I noticed some extra spaces in the introduction).

Best

Reviewer 3 Report

As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. The figures are not very clear, they need improvement in the final stage before publication. Therefore, almost all the proposed changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.