Comparative Study of Inoculation Methods to Determine the Aggressiveness of Xanthomonas citri pv. glycines Isolates and to Evaluate the Reaction of Soybean Cultivars to Bacterial Pustule

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors kindly go through the manuscript

for comments and highlighted, underlined sentences for corrections

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All the comments and requests were fixed in the text. New references have been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Many references are out of date - old sources have been removed and replaced with new ones

Author Response

Please, find attached a new version of the paper. References have been updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The study you conducted is interesting  and could be of interest to the scientific community. Despite of this still some modifications are required to the manuscript.

All suggestions are marked on the manuscript.

Best Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All the comments and requestes were fixed in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments to the authors:

Authors analyzed the effects of different inoculation methods of Xanthomonas citri pv. glycines in soybean. This is an interesting study, which provide important method to study the mechanism of soybean disease resistance. The MS should be published after revised.

 

All my questions about this article are as follows：

1.       There are also a lot of writing and languish error in the manuscript.

2.       Abstract section, Line13, the description of the severity of the disease was not rigorous, perhaps in Brazil, the disease is the worst. Authors should determine whether this is the most serious disease globally in soybean.

3.       Line44, Please update the latest data, for example for 2021-2022.

4.       Line46-47, Citation error in the reference format.

5.       Line333, Gene names need to be italicized when written.

6.       Figure1, The evolutionary tree is not beautiful.

7.       Figure2, Latin names of strain need italics.

8.       References are too old, please add more new references within three or five years.

9.       Figure3 and 4, figures are persuasive, but they need to be scaled, and the relevant statistics of disease grades need to be done to better reflect the differences between the different treatments.

Author Response

1. The manuscript will be revised by a native english speaker.
2.  Fixed
3. Done
4. Done
5. Done
6. Tree were improved
7. Done
8.  New references were added
   
   All the modifications are in the new file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I hope to see this research applied to soybean production soon

Author Response

We also hope! Thank you