S-Benzyl-L-Cysteine Inhibits Growth and Photosynthesis, and Triggers Oxidative Stress in Ipomoea grandifolia
, Marcela de Paiva Foletto-Felipe 2, Ana Paula da Silva Mendonça 1, Renato Polimeni Constantin 1, Ana Paula Ferro 1, Wanderley Dantas dos Santos 1, Rodrigo Polimeni Constantin 1, Rogerio Marchiosi 1,* and Osvaldo Ferrarese-Filho 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editors and authors; The article provides important outputs on Ipomoea grandifolia Plants and is an interesting article. The article is written in beautiful and fluent language. The references used are relevant and sufficient. It provides important and reliable results on photosynthesis, which plays an important role in plant growth and productivity. But I have some suggestions.
Title
It looks complicated. Simplify. It may be useful for readers.
Summary
A lot of abbreviations are used in the summary. There are also a lot of abbreviations throughout the article. We can give these abbreviations in supplementary form and as a table.
Also, this article is not a review article. Therefore, no numerical data was added in the summary section. Please add.
Entrance
It would be useful to add a few sentences about the plant species studied. There is information about this in the article, but it would be better to add it to the first paragraph of the article introduction instead of the penultimate paragraph of the introduction section.
Apart from this, I have no external suggestions in the introduction section.
2.1. What dose was applied to break dormancy with hydrochloric acid under the title of Seed preparation and growth conditions?
2.4. Can the Oxidative stress parameters title be updated as enzyme parameter?
I think that the table formats and figures given in the study are sufficient.
Can correlation analysis be performed on the parameters examined?
I recommend enlarging all figures just for clarity.
The discussion section is well prepared and well combined with studies in the literature.
The conclusion section is weak and should be written in more detail.
I wish conveniences.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Dear editors and authors; The article provides important outputs on Ipomoea grandifolia Plants and is an interesting article. The article is written in beautiful and fluent language. The references used are relevant and sufficient. It provides important and reliable results on photosynthesis, which plays an important role in plant growth and productivity. But I have some suggestions.
Response: We greatly appreciate your contribution to improving our manuscript. We carefully considered your suggestions and have taken steps to incorporate them into the text.
Comment 1: Title
It looks complicated. Simplify. It may be useful for readers.
Response 1: We agree. We have developed a more specific and concise title. We are confident that it will appeal to both scientific and general audiences interested in plant science.
Comment 2: Summary
A lot of abbreviations are used in the summary. There are also a lot of abbreviations throughout the article. We can give these abbreviations in supplementary form and as a table.
Response 2: We agree. According to Instructions for Authors and MDPI template, we have incorporated an Abbreviations section before the References. In this section, we have included the most commonly used abbreviations throughout the manuscript. Lesser-used abbreviations were described only when they first appeared in the manuscript.
Also, we inserted numerical data in the Abstract.
Comment 3: Entrance
It would be useful to add a few sentences about the plant species studied. There is information about this in the article, but it would be better to add it to the first paragraph of the article introduction instead of the penultimate paragraph of the introduction section.
Apart from this, I have no external suggestions in the introduction section.
Response 3: Yes, we agree, and a new paragraph has been included in Introduction section with two references (1, 2). We also rewrote a paragraph explaining the plant's resistance to glyphosate (Reference 4). Thank you!
Comment 4: 2.1. What dose was applied to break dormancy with hydrochloric acid under the title of Seed preparation and growth conditions?
Response 4: Thanks for your inquiry. To break dormancy, we treated Ipomoea grandifolia seeds with concentrated H2SO4 for 45 minutes. You can find this information in Section 2.1 of Materials and Methods.
Comment 5: 2.2. Can the oxidative stress parameters title be updated as enzyme parameter?
Response 5: We separated the analyzed parameters for oxidative (ROS, MDA, conjugated dienes) and enzymatic (SOD, CAT, POD) stress, including the subsection "2.5. Enzyme parameters”.
Comment 6: I think that the table formats and figures given in the study are sufficient.
Can correlation analysis be performed on the parameters examined?
Response 6: We appreciate your input and acknowledge the effectiveness of the table formats and figures in conveying the study's results. While a Pearson correlation analysis could be considered, we are cautious about introducing unnecessary complexity that may not significantly enhance the clarity of the findings. Given the nature of the parameters examined, we believe that the current presentation effectively communicates the key outcomes of the study.
Comment 7: I recommend enlarging all figures just for clarity.
Response 7: We have increased the number and letter sizes on all figures.
Comment 8: The discussion section is well prepared and well combined with studies in the literature. The conclusion section is weak and should be written in more detail.
Response 8: We agree, and the conclusion has been thoroughly described in detail.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the study was to evaluate the foliar application of S-benzyl-L-cysteine ​​(SBC) on plant development, photosynthesis, ROS, the level of lipid peroxidation markers and the activity of antioxidant enzymes.
in Ipomoea grandifolia plants. In the introduction, the authors referred to the content of the research and presented the purpose of the research. However, they did not isolate a research hypothesis. The research hypothesis should be added. The research methodology raises some concerns. Please specify how many repetitions the measurements were performed and why a completely random design was used in the research. Wouldn't a split plot system be better? The research results and discussion were described correctly, based on the literature regarding the research problem. The conclusions do not fully meet the purpose of the research. They need to be deeper. In reference number 31, the author's name was incorrectly provided.
Once completed, the work may be published in Agronomy.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is readable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your input in improving our manuscript. Please take note that your recommendations have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the foliar application of S-benzyl-L-cysteine ​​(SBC) on plant development, photosynthesis, ROS, the level of lipid peroxidation markers and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in Ipomoea grandifolia plants.
Comment 1: In the introduction, the authors referred to the content of the research and presented the purpose of the research. However, they did not isolate a research hypothesis. The research hypothesis should be added.
Response 1: We agree, and a description of the research hypothesis has been included.
Comment 2: The research methodology raises some concerns. Please specify how many repetitions the measurements were performed and why a completely random design was used in the research. Wouldn't a split plot system be better?
Response 2: Thank you for your inquiry. The measurements were conducted with a range of five to ten repetitions, and the results were expressed as the mean of five to ten samples ± standard error of the mean (SEM), as outlined in Section 2.6 of Materials and Methods. We employed a completely randomized design to ensure that each plot with a single plant was treated independently, thereby minimizing potential biases and allowing the treatment effects to be observed without confounding factors. This design is simple and valuable when all plots can maintain uniform experimental conditions. In certain circumstances, a split plot system might be considered more suitable, especially if multiple factors are being tested or sub-treatments within the main treatments need to be evaluated. It permits greater control over experimental variability and can provide more detailed insights into the interactions between different factors. However, in the present study, only one factor is being tested: the concentration of SBC.
Comment 3: The research results and discussion were described correctly, based on the literature regarding the research problem. The conclusions do not fully meet the purpose of the research. They need to be deeper.
Response 3: We agree, and the conclusion has been carefully and thoroughly explained.
Comment 4: In reference number 31, the author's name was incorrectly provided.
Response 4: We have made the necessary corrections. Thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The author made revisions. The article may be accepted for publication.Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments were taken into account in the publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is understandable.
