Regulation of Different Lights on Energy Acquisitions, Microtuber Formation, and Growth of In Vitro-Grown Solanum tuberosum L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This is a good research project, with good, noteworthy results.

However, please emphasise more in the introduction the purpose and importance of this research.

In addition, there are a few comments in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to comments of the reviewers

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Regulation of Different Lights on Energy Acquisitions, Microtuber Formation and Growth of Vitro-Grown Solanum tuberosum L.” (ID: agronomy-3030485). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments and suggestions are as following:

 

Reviewer #1:

This is a good research project, with good, noteworthy results. However, please emphasize more in the introduction the purpose and importance of this research. In addition, there are a few comments in the file.

Response: Thank you for your approval of the manuscript and the suggestions and comments on further revisions. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the description in manuscript according to the suggestions. The revisions in manuscript were labeled with color.

1. The introduction did not emphasize the purpose and significance of this study more prominently.

Response: we have revised the final paragraph of the introduction to more prominently highlight the objectives and significance of our study. The revised text is as follows:

“Based on the issues discussed above, we measured and analyzed the relevant indicators related to photoautotrophy, heterotrophy, and microtuber formation and growth of in vitro-grown potato plantlets under different light quality conditions, aiming to reveal the mechanisms by which light quality regulates microtuber formation, position and growth of in vitro-growth potato plants from an energy acquisition perspective. The current results can provide a reference for the selection of supplemental light spectrum and the input of exogenous sugar in the production of microtubers.”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 108 to 114.

2. Reference of [22] insertion error .

Response：Thank you for reminder. We have corrected it from [22] into [12]. The corrected content is as follows:

“Plantlets grown under monochromatic green and yellow lights also show similar morphological features [12]”.

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on line 57.

3. The description of the variety is missing; lack of source ofMS.

Response：We have added descriptions of the varieties and the source of the MS medium. The corrected content is as follows:

“The experiment was conducted using the Shepody variety (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. Shepody), which was developed in Canada in 1980 and is primarily used for making French fries. The variety is characterized by rapid degeneration, high susceptibility to tuber diseases, and a reliance on potato in vitro-growth virus-free breeding. Potato virus-free seedlings were cut into 1–1.5 cm segments with a piece leaf and inoculated into tubes containing 10 mL of MS medium (Hope Bio-Technology Co., Qingdao, China.) .... ”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 118 to 124.

4. Measurement method of dry weights lacks literature support.

Response: Since weight measurements are typically conducted using conventional methods, we did not cite literature describing the measurement techniques. To provide greater clarity, we have added information about the measuring instruments. The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 150 to 154, and the corrected content is as follows:

 Revision text: “Dry weights of tuber, root, shoot and whole plantlets were measured for 10 plants under each growth condition after drying at 85℃ in an oven to a constant weight using an electronic balance (AUY 120, SHIMADZU,Philippines) ”

 

5. The measurement method for solute consumption in the culture medium lacks literature support.

Response: This method was developed by us through experimental trials, and therefore lacks literature support. The data used and the accuracy of this method have also been described in the text. For specific information, we described in the manuscript on lines 162 to 170.

 

6. lack of source of acetone and ethanol.

Response: We have supplemented the manufacturer of acetone and ethanol. The text revised is as follows:

“Chlorophyll (Chl) and carotenoids (Car) were extracted from the third fully expanded leaf of five plants with a mixture containing acetone, ethanol (Lingfeng Chemical Reagent Co., Shanghai, China), and water (4.5:4.5:1, v/v/v). The Chl and Car contents were determined using the method of Ma et al. [33]. ”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 176 to 177.

7. Correlation analysis is not mentioned.

Response：Thank you for reminder. We have added the method for correlation analysis in the statistical analysis section.

The revision text：“The correlations between dry weight of root, stem, leave, whole plant of plantlets, and solute consumption were determined on treatment means by Pearson’s correlation analysis. ”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 213 to 215.

 

8. Figure 2 lacks graphic aesthetics.

Response: We have made improvements in Figure 2.

The updated version of Figure 2 is shown below, with the hope of meeting the aesthetic requirements of the Journal.

Thanks again for the reviewers’ comments and for the editor’s letter concerning our manuscript. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoying Liu

E-mail of Xiaoying Liu: [email protected]

Tel:+008613852293413

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for this beautiful and rare research. I think the results will be useful in future research and potato production. However, there are some shortcomings that I have identified. I marked these on the manuscript. You can find it below.

 Purpose of the research: In the research, criteria such as tuber formation of potato under the effects of different colors of light, growth characteristics of seedlings, determination of photosynthetic and heterotrophic abilities, and morphological measurements were examined.

“Shepody” variety was used in the research. The study was conducted in a growth chamber.

 Suggestions:

 Line 11: variety name can be written.

 Line 96: It is said that there is no research on potatoes. Is there any research on any other plant other than potatoes? Can at least one literature reference be made?

 Line 101-113: Some of the information in this paragraph is written as if it were given in the materials and methods section. Some information was explained as if it were in the results section. Since this section is the introduction part, it should be written accordingly. Additionally, it is more appropriate to clearly state a purpose in this section.

 Line 118: In the introduction, diploid or tetraploid potatoes are mentioned. What feature does the variety used show in this respect?

 Line 124: What is the light intensity or wavelength here? Could the light here interact with different lights later?

 Line 135: What is the wavelength of W here? Or did I not see it? Also, how were the wavelengths of blue, green and yellow lights determined? Is there any research based on it?

 Line 141: Measurements

 Line 148: which time?

 Line 143: where is it? It should be easy to find on the manuscript.

 Line 264: It is important that the abbreviations on the figure and the information below the figure are displayed with the same letters.

 Line 311: It will be easier for the reader to include explanations of the abbreviations under each figure. If the editorial office deems it appropriate, I recommend that every shape be made of gold. It can be defined briefly and clearly.

 Line 314-317 : This section is not appropriate as a table header. This part should be given as a table footer.

 Table 1: ?

 Line 378: results

 Line 406: The headline, which consists of a full sentence, looks like an interim news headline in newspapers. I think it should be changed.

 Line 552-553: doi numbers can be given in references.

 Line 559: Some journal names are capitalized, some are lowercase. should be standard

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to comments of the reviewers

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Regulation of Different Lights on Energy Acquisitions, Microtuber Formation and Growth of Vitro-Grown Solanum tuberosum L.” (ID: agronomy-3030485). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments and suggestions are as following:

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for this beautiful and rare research. I think the results will be useful in future research and potato production. However, there are some shortcomings that I have identified. I marked these on the manuscript. You can find it below.

 Purpose of the research: In the research, criteria such as tuber formation of potato under the effects of different colors of light, growth characteristics of seedlings, determination of photosynthetic and heterotrophic abilities, and morphological measurements were examined.

“Shepody” variety was used in the research. The study was conducted in a growth chamber.

 

Response:

Thank you for your approval of the manuscript and the suggestions and comments on further revisions. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve the manuscript. We response these points that you listed item by item as follows.

 

Major points:

1. Line 11: variety name can be written.

Response: We have revised the description in Abstract paragraph according to your helpful suggestions. The revisions in Abstract paragraph were labeled with color on Line 12.

Revised text：“... we investigated the effect of light qualities on photosynthetic and heterotrophic abilities as well as microtuber formation and growth of potato plantlets (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. Shepody).  ”

 

2. Line 96: It is said that there is no research on potatoes. Is there any research on any other plant other than potatoes? Can at least one literature reference be made?

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. In response to the comments, we conducted another literature search from some databases including Web of Science, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and other archives, but we still did not find any reports on the effects of light quality on the heterotrophic regulation of plants, specifically in potatoes or other crops.

 

3. Line 101-113: Some of the information in this paragraph is written as if it were given in the materials and methods section. Some information was explained as if it were in the results section. Since this section is the introduction part, it should be written accordingly. Additionally, it is more appropriate to clearly state a purpose in this section.

Response: Thank you for helpful suggestion, and we have revised them. The revised text is as follows:

“Based on the issues discussed above, we measured and analyzed the relevant indicators related to photoautotrophy, heterotrophy, and microtuber formation and growth of in vitro-grown potato plantlets under different light quality conditions, aiming to reveal the mechanisms by which light quality regulates microtuber formation, position and growth of in vitro-growth potato plants from an energy acquisition perspective. The current results can provide a reference for the selection of supplemental light spectrum and the input of exogenous sugar in the production of microtubers.”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 108 to 114.

 

4. Line 118: In the introduction, diploid or tetraploid potatoes are mentioned. What feature does the variety used show in this respect?

Response: Commonly cultivated potatoes are homologous tetraploid species that reproduce asexually through tubers. Due to the complexity of tetraploid genetics, the process of genetic improvement in potatoes has been slow. Currently, diploid breeding has become a hot topic in the global potato research field. However, to achieve diploid hybrid potato breeding, two key obstacles must be overcome: self-incompatibility and inbreeding depression. The varieties of ‘Shepody’ used by us are tetraploid potatoes

 

5. Line 124: What is the light intensity or wavelength here? Could the light here interact with different lights later?

Response: the low light is 10±5μmol m^-2 s^-1 of white light, and the uniform weak white light treatment of the experimental materials is to ensure better survival of the newly inoculated stem segments of in vitro-growth potato plantlets. To clarify the term "low light," we have added descriptions of light intensity and light quality. The specific revised version is as follows:

Revised text：“..., Subsequently, the sealed tubes were incubated in a W environment for 3 days with an intensity of 10±5μmol m^-2 s^-1. ”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 129 to 130.

 

6. Line 135: What is the wavelength of W here? Or did I not see it? Also, how were the wavelengths of blue, green and yellow lights determined? Is there any research based on it?

Response: Thank you for your question. The LEDs lamps used in our experiment were provided by Opt-run Biotechnology Co., Ltd. in Nanjing, China.  The peak wavelength of monochromatic light (including blue, green, yellow and red lights) are known, while white light is a broad-spectrum light that simulates natural sunlight, containing light of various wavelengths.

 

7. Line 141: Measurements

Response: We have revised the description in “Materials and Methods” section according to your helpful suggestions, and corrected similar errors. 

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 147 and 171.

 

8. Line 148: which time?

Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have added the specific time. The revised text is as follows:

“The increase in dry weight of different organs was calculated as the difference in dry weight of different organs between the end and the beginning of each designated period (Light treatment period including 0-15 d, 15-30 d, 30-45 d and 45-60 d).”

“The solute consumption in the culture medium (MS-consumption) was calculated as the difference in dry weight of the culture medium between the end and the beginning of each designated period (Light treatment period including 0-15 d, 15-30 d, 30-45 d and 45-60 d). ”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 157 to 158 and 169 to 170.

 

9. Line 143: where is it? It should be easy to find on the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your question. Leaf area is shown in Figure 1h, and leaf number is in the supplementary material (Figure S1).

 

10. Line 264: It is important that the abbreviations on the figure and the information below the figure are displayed with the same letters.

Response: thank you for helpful suggestion. We have revised the description according to your helpful suggestions. The revisions were labeled with color in Line 280.

Original text：“Dry weights of leaf, stem, root and tuber under blue (a), green (b), yellow (c), red (d) and white (e) lights.”

Revised text：“Dry weights of leaf, stem, root and tuber under B (a), G (b), Y (c),R (d) and W (e)”

 

11. Line 311: It will be easier for the reader to include explanations of the abbreviations under each figure. If the editorial office deems it appropriate, I recommend that every shape be made of gold. It can be defined briefly and clearly.

Response: We have included all the abbreviations for light treatments in the figure captions to enhance the self-explanatory nature of the figures. You can find all revisions in the captions of figures and tables.

However, we don't understand what “If the editorial office deems it appropriate, I recommend that every shape be made of gold. It can be defined briefly and clearly means, so we don’t know how to revise them. If any modifications are necessary, please do not hesitate to contact us for adjustments

 

12. Line 314-317 : This section is not appropriate as a table header. This part should be given as a table footer.

Response: We have revised Table 1 and Table 2 according to the suggestion. You can find detail revisions in the captions and notes of two tables.

 

13. Table 1: ?

Response: We have deleted “from” in Table 1.

 

14. Line 378: results

Response: The term "the finding" refers to the description provided earlier in this section, with specific details outlined from lines 395 to 398 in the updated manuscript.

 

15. Line 406: The headline, which consists of a full sentence, looks like an interim news headline in newspapers. I think it should be changed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe that this expression is more effective and conducive to conveying the theme, and there are many articles named in this format, such as the 41^st and the 49^th references in the reference lists.

 

16. Line 552-553: doi numbers can be given in references.

Response: We have revised the description in References paragraph according to your helpful suggestions. The revisions in References paragraph were labeled with color in Lines 582-706. However, there are two references without DOIs that are labeled with color in Lines 633 and 663.

 

17. Line 559: Some journal names are capitalized, some are lowercase. should be standard.

Response: We have revised the description in References section according to your helpful suggestions. The revisions in References section were labeled with color in Lines 591, 599, 604, 622.

Thanks again for the reviewers’ comments and for the editor’s letter concerning our manuscript. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoying Liu

E-mail of Xiaoying Liu: [email protected]

Tel:+008613852293413

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments:

Line 109: If possible, describe the more specific role of the two indicated genes in tuber development and sugar transport, or at least specify the sources that were cited.

Lines 111-113: Is this the main aim of the experiment? The goal is not clearly clear! It would be helpful to shorten the passage (lines 101-113), focusing primarily on the precise aims of the experiment and excluding discussions of how the experiment was carried out (these details are listed in the materials and methods)

Lines 324-325: Which lights are meant here? Based on the data provided in Table 1, we can deduce the exact opposite of what you've stated here.

Line 448: Put “solanaceous” in italic.

Line 479: Put word Arabidopsis in italic.

Line 517: I don't think it's necessary to mention Figure 6 in conclusion.

Author Response

Response to comments of the reviewers

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Regulation of Different Lights on Energy Acquisitions, Microtuber Formation and Growth of Vitro-Grown Solanum tuberosum L.” (ID: agronomy-3030485). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments and suggestions are as following:

 

Major points:

 

1. Line 109: If possible, describe the more specific role of the two indicated genes in tuber development and sugar transport, or at least specify the sources that were cited.

Response: We have added the description of the more specific role of the two indicated genes in tuber development and sugar transport according to your helpful suggestions.  

Revision text：“In potato leaves, the highly expressed StSUT1 is an important characteristic for efficient transport of sucrose from the leaves to the outside, furthermore, When the expression of StSUT4 in potatoes is inhibited, it promotes early tuberization and increases tuber yield.”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 91 to 94.

2. Lines 111-113: Is this the main aim of the experiment? The goal is not clearly clear! It would be helpful to shorten the passage (lines 101-113), focusing primarily on the precise aims of the experiment and excluding discussions of how the experiment was carried out (these details are listed in the materials and methods)

Response: Thank you for helpful suggestion, and we have revised them. The revised text is as follows:

“Based on the issues discussed above, we measured and analyzed the relevant indicators related to photoautotrophy, heterotrophy, and microtuber formation and growth of in vitro-grown potato plantlets under different light quality conditions, aiming to reveal the mechanisms by which light quality regulates microtuber formation, position and growth of in vitro-growth potato plants from an energy acquisition perspective. The current results can provide a reference for the selection of supplemental light spectrum and the input of exogenous sugar in the production of microtubers.”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 108 to 114.

 

3. Lines 324-325: Which lights are meant here? Based on the data provided in Table 1, we can deduce the exact opposite of what you've stated here.

Response: I’m sorry for this error. We have corrected it.

The correct text is：“Correspondingly, the dry matter derived from the culture medium was significantly higher in the monochromatic light (B、G、Y、R) treatments.”

The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 345 to 346.

 

4. Line 448: Put “solanaceous” in italic.

Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have revised that. The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on line 473.

 

5. Line 479: Put word Arabidopsis in italic.

Response: We have revised Arabidopsis in italic.The updated text can be found in the revised manuscript on line 507.

 

 

6. Line 517: I don't think it's necessary to mention Figure 6 in conclusion.

Response: We have deleted the citation. The revision were labeled with color in Line 546.

 

 

Thanks again for the reviewers’ comments and for the editor’s letter concerning our manuscript. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoying Liu

E-mail of Xiaoying Liu: [email protected]

Tel:+008613852293413

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx