Preliminary Research on the Effects of Different Substrates on the Metabolome of Potted Peonies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

With the improvement of the level of mass consumption, factory seedlings are becoming more and more popular. In this sense, matrix properties are extremely important for plant growth and development. The manuscript “Effects of different matrixs formulations on metabolome of potted peony” investigated the different types of matrix formulations on peony growth and substance metabolism dynamics. The importance and the meaning is enough, and the results is convincing. However, there are some shortcomings that need to be solved before publication.

Major:

1. The main shortcoming is that the language is not fluent. The authors could turn to a language editing service or a native English speaker for help.

2. Why the authors used 'Luhehong' as the experiment material? Does it have distinguished features? The authors should give more information about the variety.

3. The introduction part feels seemingly confused, I suggest that the introduction part should be polished.

4. The figure legends in the all figures are very simple, please add more information for the figures.

5. The discussion part needs polishing to take the meaning of the manuscript further.

Minor:

1. The title is seemingly too simple, and can be changed to a new title to fully reflect the full manuscript studied.]

2. Line 20: “ratios” is inappropriate here, please change another word. “Through the growth and development”? The authors did not perform a series of metabolomics during peony development.

3. Line 21: showed.   The name for the matrix formulations should be verified.

4. Line 39: “loved by people” seems like a repetition of Line 37.

5. The characteristics and ornamental values of peony are not fully described.

6. Lines 43-45: The sentence should be rewritten.

7. Line 50: “results” can be changed to “performance”.

8. Lines 62: 1:1:1?

9. Lines 65: 3:1:1 instead of 0.6:0.2:0.2 

10. Lines 66-67: especially the roles of different combinations of substrates on peony metabolism during growth and development.

11. Lines72-73: In order to …formula? Then what? Please check.

12. Lines 75: kept at ideal matrix the required range?

13. Lines 80: matrix effects on

14. Lines 108: replicate organisms for each substrate group. Did the authors perform replicates for metabolomics? Please specify it.

15. Lines 275-276: regulating, affecting

16. I think the names for metabolism pathways should be lowercase letters in the text, such as ascorbate and aldarate metabolism…

 

17. In my view, the conclusion part should not contain references. This part should contain the main findings of the work and the meaning the manuscript intends to represent.

Author Response

Thanks for your reviews, details please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Effects of different matrixs formulations on metabolome of potted peony" describes the approach to investigating the growth rates of potted peonies in different matrixs based on root analysis and the four key metabolites identified as significant.

The paper is quite complex and at times was difficult to "join the dots" as several presentations of results are provided. The methods and statistical analysis appear sound however I have a few comments:

1. The "matrixs" do not seem to be too much different from the existing substrate used (i.e., peat-vermiculite-perlite) so I am wondering what sort of % reduction in non-renewable substrates would actually be replaced?

2. While improvements have been attributed to Combination K, it would be interesting to better understand the composition/character (nutrients, fungi/bacteria present, etc) of the "Straw mix" and "rice husks" as these will be fundamental drivers of ABC transporter processes. Obviously the rice husks have some properties that contribute to the increased peony growth rate, but it is not really discussed.

3. There are many studies on using organic and inorganic waste materials for horticulture. For example, substrate mixes have been designed using configurations of green waste compost, crushed glass, and other materials, and have been successfully used in horticultural settings (flowering plants). If the non-renewable aspects of the existing substrate is an issue then maybe there should be some discussion on other alternatives (rather that adding a different component, which has not really been characterised, to the existing substrate). Maybe a direction for future research?

4. While the root analysis approach, statistics, and general logic of the study is sound, the Conclusion is not strong. For example, the strongest statement is "The elongation of peony root was affected by regulating Ascorbate and Aldarate metabolism, thus changing the growth state of potted peony", and the Conclusion should start with this statement (as these were your findings). Sentences such as "It can alleviate drought stress of pepper [31]" and "Similarly, as mentioned above, propionic acid has also been shown to alleviate the poor growth of wheat under drought conditions [21]"........both pepper and wheat are far from a peony, and are not your findings, so I question the relevance of including these references here.

I am not an expert on the detail of ABC transporters, but I do know that the energy released from the reaction drives transport or regulates cellular functions. Identifying 4 key metabolites as part of your study seemed a great approach, and while I have made a few comments (hopefully constructive), I encourage the authors to look at the structure of the paper, and maybe focus on point 4 above. Some of the references are not really relevant in the text.....but maybe a simplified diagram showing how the 4 key metabolites influence ABC transporters would be suffice (better for the reader), and then reference that Figure.

Very interesting study! :)

Author Response

Thanks for your reviews, details please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presented for review is interesting. It concerns the influence of the substrate on the matabolome of peonies. The manuscript is fairly well written. It creates a coherent, logical whole.

My reservations are primarily related to the scope of the research carried out. The study included samples of only 6 plants. Due to the small size of the research sample, it is difficult to assess the value of the results obtained. Hence, some conclusions (in line with the opinion of the authors themselves - see lines 274, 301) fall only into the category of assumptions.

More important remarks:

L2-3: add “preliminary research” to the title,

L 75: explain abbreviation matrix K,

L122: change section title to “ Liquid chromatography” or equivalent,

L135: change section title to “ Mass spectrometry” or equivalent,

L192-205: in my opinion the "results" section is not a place to discuss the value of the methods used. The whole paragraph should be removed or moved to discussion,

L209-260: all presented graphs are illegible and should be enlarged (fonts, legend, etc.), the bars should be clearly separated,

L287: the authors did not include data on the statistical analysis of the number of leaves in the manuscript. For this reason, the claim that the frond number has increased significantly is illegitimate.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your review, just as your opinion, our sample size is small limited by the experimental site and we will accept all the remarks. And we have changed our title and other parts, including graphs. As for leaves, the original data were used in another article, and not a main part of our focus, so we choose to not listed to avoid conflicts. Thanks again for your comments. We will revise according to your comments. Have a nice day.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed any concerns and the paper presentation and results have been placed in context of the purpose of this study. I encourage the authors to continue their metabolome studies as the detail will be of signifixcant interest in the horticultural industry.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you so much for making the suggested corrections. The (graphic) quality of the charts is still too low.