Response of Plant Immunity Markers to Early and Late Application of Extracellular DNA from Different Sources in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments to enhance the value of the manuscript

 Line 58 Do not use standard acronyms without first defining them: “CpG”

Line 74 Idem: ROS

Table 1. The table should not be presented on two separate pages

Table 1. “var” should not be italicized

Line 92 “50g” a space must be placed between the number and the unit of the parameter (this is repeated several times in the text), while other units such as "mL" are correct.

Figure 1.

What is HPA? (Define, it is convenient to put the acronym at the top of the chart for "DAP” to use this acronym).

Improve the self-explanation of this figure.

 Materials and Methods

 I suggest including a specific section in materials and methods as this is an essential part of the procedure leading to the results.

 

Line 125-127 I don't understand this text. Where is it? Is it part of the figure, or part of the main text? Either way if it is part of the figure it should be on a single page with it.

Line 153-  Again “xmL” or “x mL” revise all the text

Line 224 Some times Figure X and other figure X. Be consistent

Line 239 (nmole/L) change to (nmol/L)

 Conclusion

Line 396-397. I suggest not repeating this information in the conclusions as an "introduction" and go directly to a summary of the results and discussion as below.

Author Response

Some comments to enhance the value of the manuscript:

 Line 58 Do not use standard acronyms without first defining them: “CpG”

I erased the part of CpG leaving only the important part about the applied eDNA (that it has bacterial characteristics). 

Line 74 Idem: ROS

The meaning was added (reactive oxygen species).

Table 1. The table should not be presented on two separate pages

The changes for the table to be in one page only have been made.

Table 1. “var” should not be italicized

The error have been corrected

Line 92 “50g” a space must be placed between the number and the unit of the parameter (this is repeated several times in the text), while other units such as "mL" are correct.

Thank you for the detail, the text have been unified regarding this.

Figure 1.

What is HPA? (Define, it is convenient to put the acronym at the top of the chart for "DAP” to use this acronym). Improve the self-explanation of this figure.

 

The meaning of each acronym has been explained in the figure legend of figure 1 and highlighted with yellow color.

 

 Materials and Methods

 I suggest including a specific section in materials and methods, as this is an essential part of the procedure leading to the results.

 

The explanation in the materials and methods in regards to this part of the experiments carried out in the study trying to clarify this concern of the reviewer highlighted with yellow color. Thanks for the comment.

 

Line 125-127 I don't understand this text. Where is it? Is it part of the figure, or part of the main text? 

Either way if it is part of the figure it should be on a single page with it.

The format for that text was a mistake, it is part of the main text. Thanks for noticing.

 

Line 153-  Again “xmL” or “x mL” revise all the text

Already corrected

Line 224 Some times Figure X and other figure X. Be consistent

Corrected

Line 239 (nmole/L) change to (nmol/L)

The letter “e” has been removed.

 Conclusion

Line 396-397. I suggest not repeating this information in the conclusions as an "introduction" and go directly to a summary of the results and discussion as below.

The whole paragraph was removed and the conclusion starts now directly into the results.

Thank you for your detailed review, every comment was very helpful for the improvement of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript explored the immune responses to early and late application of extracellular DNA from different sources in tomato. They found that the self DNA application in young plants was the most effective treatment was based on the intensity and duration of immune system activation. And this work suggests that self eDNA might be applied in organic productions and promote a sustainable production system.

The only concern is that the authors did not show us whether treatments of tomato plants with self eDNA trigger defense to tomato pathogens, or treatments with self eDNA result in enhanced tomato resistance to certain pathogens.

Author Response

The manuscript explored the immune responses to early and late application of extracellular DNA from different sources in tomato. They found that the self DNA application in young plants was the most effective treatment was based on the intensity and duration of immune system activation. And this work suggests that self eDNA might be applied in organic productions and promote a sustainable production system.

Thank you for taking the time to read our whole work and for your kind comments.

The only concern is that the authors did not show us whether treatments of tomato plants with self eDNA trigger defense to tomato pathogens, or treatments with self eDNA result in enhanced tomato resistance to certain pathogens.

This is a very valuable comment. Actually live pathogen-tomato interactions are planned to be evaluated in our research group with the application of eDNA but we thought that pathogenesis tests are worth to be made in a whole new test because of the great importance they have. A paragraph has been added in the discussion addressing this matter highligthed in pink (lines380-386) in the corrected manuscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx