Persistence of Growth Enhancement Induced by Oxygen Plasma Irradiation Seed and Leaf
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See Attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable recommendation. I have attached herewith the point-to-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is interesting for research on physical mutation, but the contents need to be improved.
In 2. Experimental Apparatus and Methods, materials should be introduced clearly, for example, how many seeds used and how are them irrigated, and after germation, please add the figures including control and treatment. For the leaves, the treatment is not clearly introduced. So recommend the authors to revise.
L108-109 and L121-132 seemed to be some repetive, so please revise.
which mutant gernations are used to anlyze the gene expression and epigenetics analysis, this should be clearly presentation.
Results
Recommend the authors to add the control.
For Fig.5, Fig.7 and Fig.8, the differences should be added.
1. The results and discussion should be seperately written.
2. The plants figures should be added.
3. Some sentences were not clear, for example, L101-102, The plant is irradiated for 10 seconds 3 times and 20 seconds with oxygen plasma and 30 seconds irradiated with air plasma, which is not clear, needs to be revised.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable recommendation. I have attached herewith the point-to-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper «Persistence of Growth Enhancement Induced by Oxygen Plasma Irradiation Seed and Leaf» by Shameem Ahmed, Sayma Khanom, and Nobuya Hayashi is devoted to the study of influence of oxygen and air plasma on the increase in "productivity" of Arabidopsis plants and the mechanisms of inheritance of the results of this treatment by the next generations of plants.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Parts of the materials and methods are repeated in 108–120 and 122-132.
The order of the references is incorrect. References [17-20] line 89 go first, and references [7-8] come after, line 112.
The captions to Figures 1 and 2 are hard to see.
Figure 3. The caption of the figure contains an extra word: oxygen.
The authors did not discuss other values of oxygen pressure in the plasma at all. 20 and 40 Pa on day 36 are almost no different.
Line 258. It needs a data reference
Lines 259–277 and 311–338 again have no reference to the data. Or write that the data is not shown.
In all figures, the data are presented without statistics. This is not very convenient for comparing results. Display the validity of the difference in the results. Also, how many replicates were performed.
I believe that the conclusion section is very long. It looks more like an introduction, so I suggest that the authors shorten this section.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable recommendation. I have attached herewith the point-to-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The issue I am concerned about has already been revised by the author in the revised manuscript, and I believe that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
