Bioprospecting Plant-Growth-Promoting Endophytic Bacteria Isolated from Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) Shoots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

.

The present article entitled “Bioprospecting plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria isolated from Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) shoots” based on an interesting theme. Author had  isolated endophytic strain from the different parts of the Moso bamboo and evaluated their plant growth promoting traits. Further authors have performed pot experiment to evaluate the impact of endophyte inoculation on the morphological yields ,

Although author have well designed the study but English of the article is very poor needs extensive revision.

In addition all the figures are of not up to the quality and difficult in visualization

.

The present article entitled “Bioprospecting plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria isolated from Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) shoots” based on an interesting theme. Author had  isolated endophytic strain from the different parts of the Moso bamboo and evaluated their plant growth promoting traits. Further authors have performed pot experiment to evaluate the impact of endophyte inoculation on the morphological yields ,

Although author have well designed the study but English of the article is very poor needs extensive revision.

In addition all the figures are of not up to the quality and difficult in visualization

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed article describes diversity of endophytic bacteria in Moso bamboo shoots, identification of some of them, their characteristics that potentially allow them to stimulate plant growth confirmed by promotion of the growth of host plants (Arabidopsis and bamboo itself) by some bacterial isolates. The results are rather novel and interesting and the article in general is satisfactory written. However I have a lot of minor remarks, which mostly relate to presentation and should be addressed by authors. Authors should not forget that they submitted their article to the Forest journal and not to specialized microbiological journal. In accordance, some terms and description should be deciphered so that the text is understandable not only to specialists. If revised version will be sent to me, I expect that authors will show me the changes they will make in accordance with each of my numbered remarks. This would accelerate preparation of my second report.

 

1.       Lines 43 -44. “Bamboo shoots/culms/branches and underground rhizomes/shoots are connected together in a tightly interconnected system, which allows them to compete for light with taller trees” – this “connected together in a tightly interconnected system” sounds rather awkward. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear. Do authors mean that shoots are not connected to roots in other plants?

2.      Line 81. “the last rinse solution was inoculated with R2A Liquid Medium agar on the surface and kept at 30°C for 72 h.”- This should be modified. It is unclear what and where was inoculated. Can it be that “the last rinse solution was inoculated on the surface of R2A liquid agar medium”?

3.      “visually visualized” – should be modified

4.      Line 97. It should be Schwyn et al and not Schwyn et a ( l should be added after a)

5.      Lines 104-105 “To determine whether the isolate produces 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-Carboxylate 105 (ACC) deaminase, a single bacterial colony was selected” – a single sounds like only one. This should be changed to make clearer how many and which colonies were selected.

6.      Line 110. “in ADF medium” – this abbreviation should be deciphered.

7.      Line 115. “P-solubilization ability” – it should be added, whose ability is meant (bacterial?)

8.       Line 117. “Nitrogen-fixing capacity was quantified using Ashby's Medium” – why this sentence is placed inside the paragraph on P-solubilizing ability?

9.      Line 124. “The CAS-shuttle assay” – CAS should be deciphered.

10.  I am not happy with the title of the section 2.5. Molecular diagnosis. I advise to change it for  “Molecular identification of bacterial isolates”

11.  Lines 164-166. “Arabidopsis seedlings grown for 5 d were transferred into half of a new 1/2 MS medium and the other half was incubated for 12 d with 20 μL of a 5 × 108 (cfu/mL) bacterial suspension and 20 μL of sterile water for the control”- It seems to me that authors meant that half of Arabidopsis seedlings grown for 5 d were transferred into a new 1/2 MS medium and the other half was incubated for 12 d with …. The sentence should be modified in this or some other way. In the present state it is unclear.

12.  Line 193. “roots of Moso bamboo shoots “ – I advise to specify that those “roots of shoots” were shoot-born adventitious roots (this can be also done above, when roots are mentioned)

13.  Line 207. “R2A was found to be more…” - advise to remind readers that R2A means medium.

14.  “diverse isolates were isolates” – this “isolated isolates” should be somehow rephrased.

15.  Line 218. “bacteria were found to be the most in the S3” - this should be modified. May be, the most ABUNDANT?

16.   Line 233. “isolates purified from the period” – isolates are not purified FROM the period , but from plants. I advise to substitute “from” with “during the period”

17.  “highly significantly higher” – is the first “high” needed?

18.     Line 270. “By synthesizing their functional properties” – cannot it be analyzing their functional properties. I think “synthesizing” is misleading.

19.  Line 273. “IAA production were screened to construct a phylogenetic tree, respectively.” – Something is likely to be wrong here. It sound as if phylogenetic tree was constructed on the basis of IAA production. This should be rephrased.

20.    Table 1. Abbreviations BD24-2, TD33-1 and RD7-4 should be deciphered in the table caption.

21.    Line 301. “effect on the root length of the primary roots of Arabidopsis” - the first “length” should be deleted

22.  Figuires 5a, b, c are very small and letters on them are invisible. They should be somehow increased.

23.  Lines 312-314. “The above results have demonstrated that the endophytes of Trichoderma harzi-anum can indeed promote the growth of Arabidopsis, but are the endophytes promoting the growth of Arabidopsis by increasing” – it is unclear, where this Trichoderma harzianum came from. It is never mentioned anywhere in the text above or below.

24.  Line 324. “demonstrated the inhibitory effect of these two probiotic bacteria on root elonga-324 tion” – but only one bacteria is mentioned in this sentence

25.     .Line 335. “higher root length” – I am not sure that “higher” is appropriate for roots. I advise to write “longer roots”

26.     Line 361. “this has been observed in crops such as cotton, potato, 361 maize and rice” – references are needed here.

27.     Lines 366-368.“For example, in Arabidopsis inoculated with Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf4, Pseudomonas aeruginosa [5], or Bacillus amylolique-faciens LJ02 [31],” – I failed to find a verb in this sentence.

28.     Line 378.“More than a dozen phosphates”-  which “dozen” phosphates are meant?

29.     “Plant growth promotion by growth-promoting bacteria isolated…” – I advise not to repeat “growth promotion” twice. Cannot it be “Plant growth promotion by bacteria isolated…”

30.    “enhancing root exploration” – unclear sentence. I advise “soil exploration by roots”

It is not bad, but some editing is needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx