Physiological Responses of Common Bean Genotypes to Drought Stress
, Elena Topalova 2, Jenny Renaut 3, Sébastien Planchon 3, Aamir Raina 4,5 and Nasya Tomlekova 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see my attached 'Comments for Authors' file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, here are the changes made. (in blue by authors)
Major Comments
- My major concern is on the Abstract, which is not well structured. The aim of this study is not mentioned/ articulated in the abstract. Moreover, the abstract has been left hanging, ie., there is no concluding sentence in the abstract. Besides, there are several grammatical errors which need attention as mentioned in minor comments below.
Answer: Thank you! Corrections have been made to the abstract in accordance with the comments made.
2) In my opinion, Supplementary Figure 1 should be part of the main body of the manuscript to give this article more appeal. That figure can be the main figure.
Answer: We prefer that Figure 1 remains as a supplementary. We moved the figure from the supplementary to the main body of the manuscript.
Minor Comments
3) Figure 2B y-axis scale can be customized to have a lower limit of 0.4 so that graphs are not too long unnecessarily.
Answer: Corrected.
4) Authors should also go through the entire manuscript correcting several grammatical and spelling errors that are apparent, including the following:
- Line 2:the word ‘toward’ should be substituted with ‘to’
Answer: Corrected.
(ii) Line 18: ‘Bean’ should be written in full as Common bean followed by its scientific name in bracket.
Answer: Corrected.
(iii) Line 19: ‘Bean’ should be written in full as ‘Common bean’
Answer: Corrected.
(iv) Line 21: Put a comma after ‘In the present study, ...’. The phrase ‘was summarized’ needs to be changed, you need to be specific here.
Answer: Corrected.
(v) Line 23: change the word ‘reaction’ to ‘response’
Answer: Corrected.
(vi) Line 25: the word ‘relation’ should be changed to ‘relationship’
Answer: Corrected.
(vii) Line 34: should be written as follows: ‘.... common bean or field bean belongs ...’
Answer: Corrected.
(viii) Line 36: the phrase “…consumed as a staple food ...’’ is not correct.
Please revise to ‘main legume’
Answer: Corrected.
5) Line 53: It seems some phrases are used casually. For instance, ‘.... Could be kept at bay...’ may not be the best option here. It needs to be changed.
Answer: Corrected.
Additionally, the assertion that ‘escaping drought is not possible…’ creates confusions. Please change the word for your intended meaning to be clear. Plants can escape drought - one of the drought resistance mechanisms, in addition to drought avoidance and drought tolerance.
6) Line 49: Put a comma after ‘Worldwide, ‘. The word ‘is’ should be changed to ‘are’
Answer: Corrected.
7) Line 59: ‘grew into’ needs to be changed. There is grammatical error there.
Answer: Corrected.
8) Line 60: the word ’performant’ can be deleted. Moreover, the entire sentence spanning line 60-61 needs to be revised for clarity.
Answer: Corrected.
9) Line 65: the word ‘found’ should be changed to ‘find’
Answer: Corrected.
10) Line 100: the phrase ‘with increased higher productivity’ is not clear. Do you mean ‘higher productivity’, in which case is different from saying ‘increased productivity. Also, substitute ‘towards’ with ‘to’. The word ‘reaction’ should be changed to ‘response’
Answer: Corrected.
11) Line 103: correct the phrase to read as follows, ‘according to their..’
Answer: Corrected.
12) Line 111: ‘Bean’ should be written in full as ‘common bean’
Answer: Corrected.
13) Line 232: the word ‘been’ should be changed to ‘bean’
Answer: Corrected.
14) Line 271: ‘in response of ...’ should be changed to ‘...in response to ...’
Answer: Corrected
15) Line 285: change the word ‘decreasing’ to ‘decreased’
Answer: Corrected.
16) Line 289: change the word ‘does’ to ‘did’
Answer: Corrected.
17) Line 343: the word ‘show’ should be changed to ‘showed’
Answer: Corrected.
18) Line 344: change the word ‘increasing’ to ‘increased’
Answer: Corrected.
19) Line 345: change ‘showed’ to ‘show’
Answer: Corrected.
20) Line 349: delete the word ‘the’ that is after ‘common bean’
Answer: Corrected.
21) Line 352: the phrase’ are able and are..’ should be replaced by the word ‘is’ to make that sentence grammatically correct.
Answer: Corrected.
22) Line 353: the phrase ‘response towards water deficit of 26…’ should be modified to, ‘… response of 26 Bulgarian bean mutant lines to water deficit was evaluated …’
Answer: Corrected.
23) Line 444-447: this whole sentence needs to be revised. “We found that the line with highest productivity is able to maintain higher effective photosynthetic quantum efficiency, photosynthetic electron transport rate and thus photosynthetic performance in primary leaves comparing with the line with decreased production caused by drought’’. It is not high productivity that leads to higher effective photosynthetic quantum efficiency and photosynthetic performance, but the other way round. Therefore, the sentence needs to be revised to clearly point out that fact.
Answer: Corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal
Agronomy (ISSN 2073-4395)
Manuscript ID
agronomy-2242433
Type
Article
Title
Physiological responses of common bean genotypes toward water deficiency
Authors
Petko Mladenov , Sibel Aziz , Elena Topalova , Jenny Renaut , Sébastien Planchon , Aamir Raina , Nasya Tomlekova *
Breeding for drought tolerance has proved challenging, at least partly because tolerance mechanisms are often environment-specific, and screening methods that integrate the multiple spatial and temporal variations that are relevant to this stress are difficult to establish. Thus, analysis of accessions from germplasm banks is an important step in choosing the best genotypes, considering that a cache of genetic diversity is accessible for the improvement of yield stability resides in the germplasm of crops and their wild relatives. The use of adequate screening tools facilitates and refines the work, allowing plant performance to be predicted, making choices more effective and the breeding process more rapid, and reducing production costs as much as possible.
The use of physiological parameters is relatively simple and they have been applied in evaluation of plants under water deficit conditions.
The present topic “Physiological responses of common bean genotypes toward water deficiency” is investigated in the literature, and there is a very few of reference published. However, this paper gives significant contribution to the current knowledge in related field. The data are sound and it deserves to be published.
I have very favorable comments for current research and manuscript quality, well-written and presented. It deserves to be published upon addressing following minute observations:
??Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets.
?? Keywords should not be the same as mentioned in the title or abstract.
?? Kindly don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation.
?? Collected data is sound one. It deserves to be published after minute improvements.
???? Very Minute Scientific Discussion. It can be improved viz I would have expected slightly greater discussion of how exactly plants growth was affected, more detail on the mechanisms and logical reasoning is required.
???? For discussion section, not much detailed discussion is going on. This is just restating the observations and results. There is much more scope here for discussing the implications of what these results mean.
?? Use www.turnitin.com to find and eliminate unnecessary self-repetition and any copied text.
?? A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed.
?? Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Agronomy Journal. References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing.
?? Verify each reference from original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, here are the changes made. (in blue by authors)
1) Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, correction made.
2) Keywords should not be the same as mentioned in the title or abstract.
Answer: Corrected.
3) Kindly don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation.
Answer: Thank you, correction made.
4a) Very Minute Scientific Discussion. It can be improved viz I would have expected slightly greater discussion of how exactly plants growth was affected, more detail on the mechanisms and logical reasoning is required.
Answer: We have added additional information to the discussion.
4b) For discussion section, not much detailed discussion is going on. This is just restating the observations and results. There is much more scope here for discussing the implications of what these results mean.
Answer: We have added information to the discussion.
5) A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed.
Answer: Thank you, we corrected this section.
6) Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Agronomy Journal. References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing.
Answer: Thank you, checked and corrected - added DOI.
7) Verify each reference from original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.
Answer: Thank you, we corrected this section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The production of edible vegetables, particularly beans, which have significant economic importance, is threatened by drought globally. As a result, the authors selected an appropriate subject for their study, considering how climate change may affect the viability of agriculture. 26 genotypes of common beans were divided into categories in the current study based on plant productivity and morphology under drought stress. They discovered that, compared to the line with decreased productivity brought on by drought, the line with the highest productivity can maintain a higher effective photosynthetic quantum efficiency, photosynthetic electron transport rate, and thus photosynthetic performance in primary leaves. In addition, the authors found a connection between photosynthetic rates and the buildup of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase in the drought-tolerant mutant line, maintaining the plant's productivity under drought-like conditions. They also discovered that the survival and yield of plants under drought stress depend on the accumulation of molecular chaperones such dehydrins and sHSPs. Thus, we might conclude that the study's findings are both intriguing and encouraging. Additionally, the manuscript is expertly written. The background information and justification for the study's goals are provided in the manuscript's introduction section. Figures and tables illustrate the study's findings in an attractive way. In conclusion, I must applaud the authors of this MS and urge the editor-in-chief to consider publishing the work in "Agronomy" .
Note: I must ask authors to abide by the citation and bibliographic guidelines set forth by MDPI journals.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. I am attaching the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an interesting research about the proteomic profile of mutant lines under water deficit conditions. However, the abstract and the discussion need improvement. In the abstract, it is not obvious to the reader that the research was on mutant lines. In the discussion, a part of the experimental procedure is repeated. In the discussion the results are presented briefly.
Further suggestions are indicated in the accompanying document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, here are the changes made. (in blue by authors)
1) Question: Plants? Define, cultivars? genotypes?
Answer: corrected - genotypes.
2) Question: You did not refer previously that you have used in your experiment mutant lines.
Answer: We have made changes to the abstract and referred the use of mutant lines.
The genotypes included in the present study are mutant lines obtained by 6.2 mM EMS - treatment of the initial cultivar “Evros” (the old name of the initial cultivar was breeding line L564).
3) Question: line 55 - the biological what?
Answer: corrected.
4) Question: The sentence ‘Therefore, improving drought tolerance is a 58 critical priority area grew into strategic goal for agriculture known as one of the poorest 59 sectors of the global economy’ is confusing. Rewrite.
Answer: corrected.
5) Question: There was no rain during the experimental period?
Answer: The experimental studies were conducted over three consecutive years. Common bean seeding was done so that flowering coincided with the driest period of the year. The data presented show a response to drought stress recorded by two consecutive years of no rainfall. We additionally prevented possible irrigation with plastic nylon in case it had started to rain.
6) Question: Not from all of the 26 lines?
Answer: In previous studies, 26 mutant lines were evaluated for phenotypic traits. They were subjected to biometric studies to evaluate productivity compared to the initial genotype. As a result, the twelve mutant lines with the highest productivity and one with the lowest productivity and other valuable mutant traits were selected and included in the physiological studies.
7) Question: Under drought stress or independently? It is not clear
Answer: The presented data show results obtained after drought stress compared to controls (untreated plants by drought stress).
8) Comment: These data have to be part of the Material and methods section.
Answer: A correction was made to this part of the text and moved to Material and Methods section.
9) Question: Also, to the material and methods you refer 12 lines and now 4, this is confusing for the reader. Finally, why did you select and focus the 4 lines?
Answer: Text in materials and methods and results is corrected. We focused on these four lines from the results of the PCA, selected according to their productivity, earliness, and morphological differences compared to the initial cultivar. Further, we showed the photosynthetic performance of the two mutant lines with the highest and the lowest productivity within all 26 evaluated, which we used for proteomics analyses. For proteomics we used the most distinct mutants according to their productivity evaluated after drought stress treatment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors' responses and changes in the manuscript are satisfactory and I have no further comments. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted
