Inorganic Phosphate Solubilization by a Novel Isolated Bacterial Strain Enterobacter sp. ITCB-09 and Its Application Potential as Biofertilizer
, Ruth Noemi Aguila-RamÃrez 3, BenjamÃn Otto Ortega-Morales 2, René EfraÃn Canché SolÃs 4, Antonio O. Chab-Ruiz 1, Katia I. Cob-Rivera 1, Benito Dzib-Castillo 5, Rodrigo Enrique Tun-Che 2 and Juan Carlos Camacho-Chab 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved accordingly.
Author Response
We are thankful to reviewer 1 for this positive criticism.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was significantly improved but English presentation still needs to be polished.
Author Response
English has been polished.
We are thankful to reviewer 2 for this positive criticism.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors in their resubmitted version of the manuscript “Inorganic Phosphate Solubilization by a Novel Isolated Bacterial Strain Enterobacter sp. ITCB-09 and Its Application Potential as Biofertilizer” have addressed all the comments made by the three reviewers. They have also incorporated new results that further strengthen the use of the specific strain as biofertilizer. Furthermore, all grammar issues have been corrected.
I have some points that need to be answered. These are related mostly to the analysis of the new data:
In Figures 6 and 7, regarding the effect of the strain in plant height and leaf number, we see in the box-plot graphs many values as outliers. Have the authors checked the required statistical assumptions before applying the specific test?
Moreover, I don’t find the box-plot graph to describe adequately the results. A bar chart (like the one in fig. 1) would be less confusing and clearer. Unless the authors want to point out something that is not clear to me after reading the text.
Also, in these two graphs, I expect them to express the significant differences by adding letters to above the bars to express the Bonferroni results. The same should be done in fig 1.
The figure legends of these two graphs must also be improved, as they should describe independently from the text the graph. The type of analysis used must be included as well as any type of symbol added related to the analysis.
Also, the graph legend under these two graphs must be deleted as the authors are already describing the treatments in the x-axis.
In the M&M there is a subsection named “Data analysis”; nevertheless, this is only referring to the germination experiment. In lines 105-107 the authors also provide information about statistical analysis applied in other part of their dataset. The proper way would be to have all statistical analyses in the same subsection and not dispersed in the manuscript.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 3
Comments and suggestions for authors
The authors in their resubmitted version of the manuscript “Inorganic Phosphate Solubilization by a Novel Isolated Bacterial Strain Enterobacter sp. ITCB-09 and Its Application Potential as Biofertilizer” have addressed all the comments made by the three reviewers. They have also incorporated new results that further strengthen the use of the specific strain as biofertilizer. Furthermore, all grammar issues have been corrected.
I have some points that need to be answered. These are related mostly to the analysis of the new data:
In Figures 6 and 7, regarding the effect of the strain in plant height and leaf number, we see in the box-plot graphs many values as outliers. Have the authors checked the required statistical assumptions before applying the specific test?
R= The assumption of normality was applied to the values before performing the analysis. To determine the effect of the treatments on the development (height and number of leaves) of the seedlings, we used a mixed linear model. The treatments and substrates (Table 1) were considered fixed factors, and time and measurement intervals were deemed random factors. The Type III sum of squares was selected because the experiment design was unbalanced (Reference: 42), since not all the seedlings germinated.
Moreover, I don’t find the box-plot graph to describe adequately the results. A bar chart (like the one in fig. 1) would be less confusing and clearer. Unless the authors want to point out something that is not clear to me after reading the text.
R = Figures 6 and 7 were changed to bar charts.
Also, in these two graphs, I expect them to express the significant differences by adding letters to above the bars to express the Bonferroni results. The same should be done in fig 1.
R = Corrected.
The figure legends of these two graphs must also be improved, as they should describe independently from the text the graph. The type of analysis used must be included as well as any type of symbol added related to the analysis.
R = Improved.
Also, the graph legend under these two graphs must be deleted as the authors are already describing the treatments in the x-axis.
R = Deleted.
In the M&M there is a subsection named “Data analysis”; nevertheless, this is only referring to the germination experiment. In lines 105-107 the authors also provide information about statistical analysis applied in other part of their data set. The proper way would be to have all statistical analyses in the same subsection and not dispersed in the manuscript.
R = Corrected.
We are thankful to reviewer 3 for this positive criticism.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- This manuscript aims to isolate and test a potential biofertilizer from Enterobacter sp. strains. Unfortunately, the data look preliminary and did not analyze by proper statistical tools such as ANOVA, particularly in Figure 1.
- There is a lack of quantitative data for phosphatase Activity.
- There is a lack of a control strain for comparison in Table 3.
- It needs to give a brief history of the use of biofertilizers particularly in Enterobacter sp. and related species as well as the most efficient or popular biofertilizers nowadays for comparison.
- Some problems with grammar are found in the text.
- The conclusion is not fully supported by the results.
- Abstract: This problematic has limited the sustainable agriculture reach. - This problem has limited the sustainable agriculture reach.; the strain ITCB-09 belong to genus - the strain ITCB-09 belongs to the genus
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The manuscript presents a novel bacterium that shows the ability of inorganic phosphate solubilization. Strong evidence through experimental data was provided to support the conclusion. However, a thorough revision especially English editing is required before publication.
Specific comments
- Line 1-4: Title: a very fundamental investigation was carried out in this study and it requires many more tests before this bacterium can be applied as biofertilizers. So please remove “Its Application Potential as Biofertilizer” in the title.
- Line 8-18: Please use English for all affiliations
- Line 31: Please remove “sp.”
- Line 48: Please check again the “mineralization” term. In my knowledge, it is not that process. If yes, please provide a reference.
- Line 118: Please remove “fermented”
- Line 161-162: need critical English editing
- More interpretations on evolution history and phylogenetic analysis of this strain are required
- Line 180: It is “16S rRNA”
- The manuscript requires extensive English Editing.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors in their manuscript “Inorganic Phosphate Solubilization by a Novel Isolated Bacterial Strain Enterobacter sp. ITCB-09 and Its Application Potential as Biofertilizer” present a very well-organized work. I don’t find it to be very novel as many similar works have been published in recent years, but their approach in terms of investigating different phosphate solubilization mechanisms is interesting. To be honest I would prefer to see the specific article in the form of short communication, as I would have expected the authors to have applied this bacterium in pots to examine its true potential.
Other comments
The authors should write all species names in italics.
In the M&M section, they present part of their results. These sentences should be omitted (e.g. Lines 99-101; 114-115) and presented in results
The first paragraph of the discussion should be omitted. They mention once again what was written in the introduction.
Line 227 (…. However, other studies have reported different isolation strategies). Why the authors chose a different approach than other researchers. They should make this clear and also explain whether their results are comparable to those presented by the other studies.
