Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

 

 

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS MANUSCRIPT NUMBER AGRONOMY-2294185

Reviewer #1

1. The manuscript should be revised by a native English person.

 

The manuscript has been reviewed by paid editing services at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english

.

 

2. The author should explain how to inhibit browning reaction of callus.

 

In this research, browning was caused by the presence of the fungal culture filtrate in the culture medium. As indicated in the manuscript, incorporation of PDB (medium for fungal growth) to MSP medium (for callus growth) did not induce browning. Hence, appearance of browning was a consequence of toxicity of fungal filtrate in avocado cells, hence, for us it was a useful marker of toxicity and we did not do any attempt to avoid its appearance.

 

After 1-week incubation in liquid medium, no change in callus weight was found; however, the callus exposed to CF showed a dark brown colour. After 1 month of culture onto solid MSP medium, all embryogenic callus previously cultured in liquid medium supplemented with PDB (from 20 up to 80% v/v) showed same colour and growth than control callus cultured in MSP medium; however, the weight of callus previously exposed to CF decreased as the amount of CF added to the medium increased (76% and 41% of growth in relation to the control at 20% and 40% CF; respectively); however, at higher concentrations, 60 and 80% CF, callus was necrotic and no new growth could be observed.

 

Cells which did not show a browning response could have undergone a genetic change due to selection pressure of the fungal filtrate and would be somaclonal variants, as it has been shown in many other systems where cells resistant of culture filtrates have been obtained. A sentence has been included the discussion. (Lines 422-423)

 

Resistant line could have arisen as consequence of a somaclonal variation event as shown in other cell systems following culture in the presence of fungal filtrates (22,23).

 

 

(3) The author should build a model to general comprehensive description how the gene families in susceptible and resistant lines to response to the Rosellinia necatrix infect, respectively.

 

A supplementary figure 1 has been included showing a comprehensive description of upregulated genes after exposition of susceptible and tolerant callus lines to fungal filtrates.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2Please English language should be checked in the whole manuscript.The manuscript has been reviewed by paid editing services at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english..   Line 21: please write the disease in capital letters. Line 37: please write Lauraceae in italics.

Changed as suggested by the reviewer

 Line 112-113: any sugar in the MSP medium? The medium was supplemented with 30 g l^-1 sucrose (It has been indicated in the text, Lines 119-120)Line 134: please write “200” instead of “two hundred”.

Change as suggested by the reviewer.

 Line 183: please write “1” instead of “one”.

Change as suggested by the reviewer.

 Please enlarge the table 1; some details, as for instance the letters indicating the statical analysis, are too small

Modified as suggested by the reviewer.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf