Sheath Blight of Maize: An Overview and Prospects for Future Research Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review about Sheath Blight of Maize：An Overview and Prospects for future research directions summarizes some of the research made carried out Rs.
Unfortunately, the review is still immature and lack details. Major issue which confused me the authors mentioned that R. solani is bacteria?
My recommendation is to have the authors substantially improve the review and resubmit it.
Dear Editor,
English level is fine but can be improved.
Thanks
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
This review about Sheath Blight of Maize：An Overview and Prospects for future research directions summarizes some of the research made carried out Rs.
Unfortunately, the review is still immature and lack details. Major issue which confused me the authors mentioned that R. solani is bacteria?
Author response: Thanks for your critical comments. These comments are helpful to improve my manuscript.
We add many details to improve my manuscript according your suggestions. Firstly, we add table1 to summarize the research history of sheath blight and list detail important research progress. Please see Line 36-39 and table 1. Secondly, we add detail disease-causing and resistance-related genes which were recently reported. Please see table 2. Thirdly, we revised the figure 3 to add the detail information to easily understand the disease cycle of sheath blight of maize. Fourthly, we add the detail molecular mechanisms of maize response to Rhizoctonia solani infection. Please see new figure 4 to describe two different immune modes in line 172 to line 196. Fifthly, we add the detail selection of resistant germplasm resources. Please see 4.1 part to describe the progress in resistant germplasm resources in line 246 to Line 267. Sixthly, we add the detail progress in Jinggangmycin to control the sheath blight of crop. Please see line 287 to line 292. In addtion, we add the detail examples and progress in biological control of sheath blight, please see line 331 to line 336. Seventhly, we add the detail progress in transgenic, gene editing and nano technology to enhance resistance to sheath blight. Please see line 385 to line 388 and Line 400 and line 404.
In addition, in order to avoid any doubts from the reviewers, we made the revision which Bacteria have been changed to fungus.
My recommendation is to have the authors substantially improve the review and resubmit it.
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made major revision as you suggested. Please see new revised manuscript.
Thanks a lot.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This review provides an overview of Sheath Blight (ShB) of maize and highlights the key challenges in its management.
While the review mentions the need for breeding high-resistant maize varieties as a key point for controlling ShB, it would be beneficial to provide more specific recommendations. For instance, you could suggest exploring advanced breeding techniques like marker-assisted selection or CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing for developing resistant varieties.
Given that research in this field evolves rapidly, consider including any significant developments or breakthroughs up to the current date (September 2023).
While the review focuses on China, it would be useful to briefly discuss the global relevance of ShB in maize production.
Mentioning its impact on other maize-producing regions and how research in China could contribute to global solutions would add a broader perspective.
Incorporating figures, tables, or diagrams to illustrate key points, such as the life cycle of Rhizoctonia solani or the infection process, can enhance the comprehensibility of the review and make it more engaging for readers.
Include at least 3-4 figures and a graphical abstract
Ensure that all cited references are up to date and relevant to the points being discussed.
By addressing these suggestions, you can enhance the depth and applicability of the review, making it an even more valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of crop disease resistance.
Moderate changes are required
Author Response
Author response: Thanks for your comment. We have made major revision in management. We add new table 1, table 2 and figure 4 to manuscript to summarize the research history of sheath blight and list important research progress. In addition, we renew the figure 3 to easily understand. We add the molecular mechanisms of maize response to Rhizoctonia solani infection to enhance the depth of manuscript. Please see new manuscript.
While the review mentions the need for breeding high-resistant maize varieties as a key point for controlling ShB, it would be beneficial to provide more specific recommendations. For instance, you could suggest exploring advanced breeding techniques like marker-assisted selection or CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing for developing resistant varieties.
Given that research in this field evolves rapidly, consider including any significant developments or breakthroughs up to the current date (September 2023)
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion and critical comment. We have made major revision to add the detail examples and progress in biological control of sheath blight, please see line 331 to line 336. In addition, we add the detail progress in transgenic, gene editing and nano technology to enhance resistance to sheath blight. Please see line 385 to line 388 and Line 400 and line 404.
While the review focuses on China, it would be useful to briefly discuss the global relevance of ShB in maize production.
Mentioning its impact on other maize-producing regions and how research in China could contribute to global solutions would add a broader perspective.
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion and crucial comment. This is the purpose of our manuscript. Although the manuscript focuses on China, we hope it is helpful to contribute to global solutions. We add new part 4.1 to introduce the impact of maize sheath blight on Southeast Asia and the results of screening of antagonistic germplasm resources in India and China. Please see Line 246 to line 267.
Incorporating figures, tables, or diagrams to illustrate key points, such as the life cycle of Rhizoctonia solani or the infection process, can enhance the comprehensibility of the review and make it more engaging for readers.
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion and crucial comment. We renew Figure 3 to illustrate key points, such as the life cycle of Rhizoctonia solani or the infection process, can enhance the comprehensibility of the review and make it more engaging for readers.
In addition, we add a new Figure 4 for molecular mechanism of maize infection response to Rhizoctonia solanum to enhance the depth of manuscript. Please see line 172 to line 196.
Include at least 3-4 figures and a graphical abstract
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion. New 3-4 figures and 2 tables have been added to manuscript. It is difficult to make a graphical abstract because the manuscript includes too much information.
Ensure that all cited references are up to date and relevant to the points being discussed.
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion. We renew the references to ensure that all cited references are up to date. In prospect, we add the new progress relevant to the points being discussed. Please see new references and prospect.
By addressing these suggestions, you can enhance the depth and applicability of the review, making it an even more valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of crop disease resistance.
Author response: Thanks for your suggestion and crucial comment. We already have made major revision to make the manuscript an even more valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of crop disease resistance.
Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addressed the an overview of Sheath Blight of Maize and Prospects for future research drections. The manuscript is of a mere progress in the field. Sheath Blight of maize aspects are poorly presented and should be discussed deeply. More deatils about the disease mangement should also be given. Accumulative tables/figures that gather information about effective strategies to manage sheath blight should be probided
Future prospects should be discussed in details and future resaerch directions should be clearly presented. Emphasis should be given to developing resistant maize varieties, biological control agents and effective fungicides. Also, authors should shed some light on the molecular mechanisms of sheath blight infection and pathogenesis.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The manuscript addressed the an overview of Sheath Blight of Maize and Prospects for future research drections. The manuscript is of a mere progress in the field. Sheath Blight of maize aspects are poorly presented and should be discussed deeply. More deatils about the disease mangement should also be given. Accumulative tables/figures that gather information about effective strategies to manage sheath blight should be probided
Author response: Thanks for your crucial suggestion and comment. These suggestin is important to improve our manuscript. We add recently progress in manuscript and summarize the important progress in table 1. in order to further investigate molecular mechanism of sheath blight infection and maize disease resistance. We add the disease-causing and resistance-related genes in table 2. More details were indicate in renew figure 3. we add a new figure 4 to enhance the depth of this manuscript about molecular mechanism of maize response to Rhizoctonia solani infection.
Future prospects should be discussed in details and future resaerch directions should be clearly presented. Emphasis should be given to developing resistant maize varieties, biological control agents and effective fungicides. Also, authors should shed some light on the molecular mechanisms of sheath blight infection and pathogenesis.
Author response: Thanks for your crucial suggestion and comment. We add the nonotechnology to be applied to the control of maize sheath blight in line 400 to line 404. to developing resistant maize varieties, biological control agents and effective fungicides were discuss in prospect. We add a new figure 4 to elucidate the potential molecular mechanisms of sheath blight infection and pathogenesis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Sheath Blight is very important problem in maize production in many parts of the world. Therefore presenting the state of knowledge about the disease and its etiology seems very important. Unfortunately, in the reviewer's opinion, the presented manuscript requires a thorough revision. The most significant shortcomings are listed below
17 “To effectively protect crops against ShB, it is necessary to combine information on pathogenicity and disease prevention and control of pathogenic bacteria and identify areas that require more in-depth research”
Rhisoctonia solani - pathogen responsible for ShB is a fungus, the mention on bacteria in context of ShB prevention is not clear and should be elucidated
36 „ShB is one of the most widespread and serious diseases in maize 36 crops [3]” It is not true generally. Authors should add that occurrence of ShB is related mostly with humid weather areas.
31 “my country” authors use this statement several times, direct indication of the country seems to be more proper
44 “pathogenic related genes” in resistance theory of plants to pathogens different pathogenesis related genes has been recognized. Pathogenic related genes are far less known and it has been nice if the authors explain what they mean by this group of genes
87 “growth of the bacteria is 5.4-7.3 [26,27] “ in several parts of the paper authors mentioned on bacteria in context of rhizoctonia or ShB. This is completely incomprehensible.
121 “When it is rainy and humid, the lesions grow spores and white mycelium” The fungus Rhisoctonia solani does not produce spores. What the authors mean in the statement that the lesion grow spores
236 “…. prolonged use of a single fungicide can increase the risk of antifungal” This sentence seams to be incomplete.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
Thanks for your crucial suggestion and comments. Your suggestion and comment are very important to improve our manuscript. According your suggestion and comments, a major revision has been made.
We add two new tables and a new figure 4, renew figure 3. in addition, we add part 4.1 to manuscript for selection of resistant germplasm resources. Please see new manuscript.
17 “To effectively protect crops against ShB, it is necessary to combine information on pathogenicity and disease prevention and control of pathogenic bacteria and identify areas that require more in-depth research”Rhisoctonia solani - pathogen responsible for ShB is a fungus, the mention on bacteria in context of ShB prevention is not clear and should be elucidated
Author’s response: Thanks for your crucial suggestion and comments. We already made the revision to change bacteria to fungus. We renew the figure 3 to easily understand for reader. We add the molecular mechanisms of maize response to Rhizoctonia solani infection and summarize disease-causing and resistance-related genes to enhance the depth of research.
36 „ShB is one of the most widespread and serious diseases in maize 36 crops [3]” It is not true generally. Authors should add that occurrence of ShB is related mostly with humid weather areas.
Author’s response: Thanks for your crucial suggestion. We change “ShB is one of the most widespread and serious diseases in maize” to “ShB is one of the most widespread and serious diseases in maize when it was planted in humid weather areas”. please see line 36.
31 “my country” authors use this statement several times, direct indication of the country seems to be more proper
Author’s response: Thanks for your comment. We change “My country” to “ China” in the revised version.
44 “pathogenic related genes” in resistance theory of plants to pathogens different pathogenesis related genes has been recognized. Pathogenic related genes are far less known and it has been nice if the authors explain what they mean by this group of genes
Author’s response: Thanks for your comment. In order to explore potential molecular mechanisms, we summarize the disease-related genes and resistance-related genes are listed in Table 2 which were recently reported. They are potential pathogenic related genes or pathogenesis related genes. Please see table 2.
87 “growth of the bacteria is 5.4-7.3 [26,27] “ in several parts of the paper authors mentioned on bacteria in context of rhizoctonia or ShB. This is completely incomprehensible.
Author’s response: Thanks for your reading carefully. We already have done the revision in whole manuscript to change bacteria to fungus. Please see new revised version.
121 “When it is rainy and humid, the lesions grow spores and white mycelium” The fungus Rhisoctonia solani does not produce spores. What the authors mean in the statement that the lesion grow spores
Author’s response: Thanks for your reading carefully and comment. According to your suggestion, we revised the statment to remove of "spore". please see line 124 in revised manuscript.
236 “…. prolonged use of a single fungicide can increase the risk of antifungal” This sentence seams to be incomplete.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing out the problem. We revised the sentence to add the completeness. Please see line 295 to line 298 in revised version.
Thanks a lot!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Sheath Blight of Maize: An Overview and Prospects for future research directions" is sufficiently improved and I can say thank you other reviewers for their massive contribution to improve it.
I recommend it can be accepted for publication.
Dear Editor in Chief,
I noticed minors and I am sure the editorial board will handle them.
thanks and best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised in the previous version, and the manuscript is now suitable for acceptance.
Should be revised for some minor grammatical mistakes.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made necessary changes requested. However, the entire manuscript should be revised for the English language and scientific names should be checked to be (italic).
The entire manuscript should be revised for the English language.
