Integration of Phenotypes, Phytohormones, and Transcriptomes to Elucidate the Mechanism Governing Early Physiological Abscission in Coconut Fruits (Cocos nucifera L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, The manuscript of your authorship was sent to me for review, and I gave a good evaluation. The weakness of this manuscript is the description of the methods. Different methods were used in the experiments, which should have been better described. The method for the determination of enzyme activity is hardly described at all. How were the samples prepared, what was the pH of the buffers used, and what were the substrates? All this should be given in the description of the methods. Also, what were the units of activity? I suggest to the authors to complete this part, which will increase the scientific value of the work reviewed by me.
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes |
|
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Can be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The method for the determination of enzyme activity is hardly described at all. How were the samples prepared, what was the pH of the buffers used, and what were the substrates? All this should be given in the description of the methods. Also, what were the units of activity? I suggest to the authors to complete this part, which will increase the scientific value of the work reviewed by me.
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have given in the description of the enzyme activity methods. seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 22, paragraph 4.2 , and line 872-889, highlight in red. |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected. |
||
|
Response 1:Thank you! I also pay attention to the quality of English language during the editing process, manuscript highlight in red. |
||
|
5. Additional clarifications |
||
|
After modification, the line number corresponding to the content has changed, and what you see after modification is the changed line number. |
||
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt was a great pleasure to read this mauscript and I would like to commend the authors for conducting this relevent and significant study which can bring benefit to the coconut industry.
I have some minor comments and suggestions for authors to address. Please see them below:
1. Introduction
Line 47: "Unpolished flowers" Please use a technical term as this term is not clear
Line 69-70: What causes the down regulation? I assume this is linked to previous sentence but its not clear.
Lines 123, 127: Add references
I also suggest to add couple of studies on coconut fruit abscission where investigations were done on the influence of environmental factors, pollination etc.
2. Results
Line 142: "Smooth and smooth" please fix the typographical error.
Line 144: Are these 10 samples from 3 trees? How many samples were taken from one tree? Sample size seems too small.
Section 2.3.2: This section is heavy with details. Please focus on the ones that are highly relevant to abscission and significantly different in AF and CF samples. If not I suggest to present these data in a table.
Section 2.3.3: Suggest to foucs on the DEGs that are being discussed in the discussion section.
Results section can be simplified more as I feel like most of the results are being reiterated from the figures.
3. Discussion
Lines 638, 640, 717: Add references
Discussion section is written well and connects well with the aims of the study.
4. Materials and methods
Section 4.1: How many AF and CF fruits were sampled?
Line 866: "Organism" - suggest to use the term "sample"
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Can be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Can be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Can be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Must be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: Introduction: Line 47: "Unpolished flowers" Please use a technical term as this term is not clear |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised "Unpolished flowers" to “unpollinated flowers" . Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 2, paragraph 1, and line 49, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 2: Introduction:Line 69-70: What causes the down regulation? I assume this is linked to previous sentence but its not clear. |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised sentence for “However, the negative controls for auxin/indole-3-acetic acid (AUX/IAA) and auxin response factor (ARF) proteins inhibited the transformation of tomato and Arabidopsis ovaries into fruits, which can be eliminated through pollination/fertilization or auxin treatment, leading to cell proliferation and fruiting. Moreover,the biosynthesis and action of ETH and ABA are significantly downregulated”. Pollination/fertilization or auxin treatment causes the the biosynthesis and action of ETH and ABA in down regulation. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 2, paragraph 3, and line 68-72, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 3: Introduction: Lines 123, 127: Add references. I also suggest to add couple of studies on coconut fruit abscission where investigations were done on the influence of environmental factors, pollination etc. |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a reference about on coconut fruit abscission where investigations were done on the influence of environmental factors, pollination etc. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found reference number ‘42’, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 4: Results: Line 142: "Smooth and smooth" please fix the typographical error. |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised "Smooth and smooth" to "smooth". seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3, results 2.1, and line 145, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 5: Results: Line 144: Are these 10 samples from 3 trees? How many samples were taken from one tree? Sample size seems too small. |
||
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Are these 10 samples from 10 trees. One AF and CF samples were taken from one tree. 15 days after coconut flower pollination, the longer and wider the fruit size was about 4.5cm and 3.0cm, respectively. And sample size was well for the treatments. |
||
|
Comments 6: Results: Section 2.3.2: This section is heavy with details. Please focus on the ones that are highly relevant to abscission and significantly different in AF and CF samples. If not I suggest to present these data in a table. |
||
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised Section 2.3.2. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 6-8, and line 210-288, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 7: Results:Section 2.3.3: Suggest to foucs on the DEGs that are being discussed in the discussion section.Results section can be simplified more as I feel like most of the results are being reiterated from the figures. |
||
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised Section 2.3.3. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 8-10, and line 294-389, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 8: Discussion: Lines 638, 640, 717: Add references. Discussion section is written well and connects well with the aims of the study. |
||
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added Add references. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Figure 10 in line 553-556, reference 5 in line 570-572, Figure 7 in 652-654, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 9: Materials and methods: Section 4.1: How many AF and CF fruits were sampled? |
||
|
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. 10 AF and 10 CF fruits were sampled.Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Section 4.1, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 10: Materials and methods: Line 866: "Organism" - suggest to use the term "sample" |
||
|
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised "Organism" to "sample". Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found– page 21, paragraph 1, and line 822, highlight in red. |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you! I also pay attention to the quality of English language during the editing process, manuscript highlight in red. |
||
|
5. Additional clarifications |
||
|
After modification, the line number corresponding to the content has changed, and what you see after modification is the changed line number. |
||
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript by Lu et al., mechanisms of early coconut fruit abscission were investigated. Enzyme activities, hormone levels, transcriptome, and gene expression were compared between early abscission and non-abscission coconut fruits. This study improves our understanding of the development and abscission of coconut fruits. The article is interesting and well written. There are a few minor comments.
L. 21, 24. “ethylene (EHT)”. “EHT” should be replaced with “ETH”.
Fig. 1b. It should be noted that the weight of ten fruits (L. 144) is presented.
There is no reference to Table S4 in the text.
Supplementary Materials section should be added after Conclusions.
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes |
|
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Can be improved |
Our corresponding response was in the point-by-point response letter |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1:L. 21, 24. “ethylene (EHT)”. “EHT” should be replaced with “ETH”. |
||
|
Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised “EHT” to “ETH”. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found– page 1 and line 22,30, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 2: Fig. 1b. It should be noted that the weight of ten fruits (L. 144) is presented. |
||
|
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised Figure 1b, noted that the weight of ten fruits is presented. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found– Figure1b. |
||
|
Comments 3: There is no reference to Table S4 in the text. |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.Therefore, we have referenced to Table S4 in the text. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found– page 6-7 and line 232-266, highlight in red. |
||
|
Comments 4: Supplementary Materials section should be added after Conclusions. |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added supplementary Materials section after conclusions.. Seen in the revised manuscript this change can be found– page 22-23 and line 896-916, highlight in red. |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you! I also pay attention to the quality of English language during the editing process, manuscript highlight in red. |
||
|
5. Additional clarifications |
||
|
After modification, the line number corresponding to the content has changed, and what you see after modification is the changed line number. |
||
