Screening Cultivated Eggplant and Wild Relatives for Resistance to Bacterial Wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum)
, Elmahdy Metwally 2, Mohammed Elmahrouk 2 and Mohamed Rakha 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors accepted some comments and comments. The authors justified and explained their changes in the manuscript. The Z8 level also explained why some comments and comments were not included in the text. I read the manuscript and I got to know the authors' comments. I think that the manuscript is already suitable for printing.
Author Response
July 07, 2019
Dear Editor:
I have attached our revised manuscript, "Screening cultivated eggplant and wild relatives for resistance to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum)", which is submitted to Agriculture (agriculture-480545).
After careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments, we made a number of major revisions and improvements. Our response is in bold type.
Reviewer #1
The authors accepted some comments and comments. The authors justified and explained their changes in the manuscript. The Z8 level also explained why some comments and comments were not included in the text. I read the manuscript and I got to know the authors' comments. I think that the manuscript is already suitable for printing.
We thank the first reviewer for the very positive feedback.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise again this manuscript and we look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Journal of Agriculture.
Best regards,
Mohamed Rakha
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have done a great job in evaluating resistance of 47 accessions of eggplant to bacterial wilt which provide important information for future agriculture production and application, however, it lacks the significance and rationale of study in the introduction, and I recommend the authors to rewrite the introduction part. Additionally, there are some grammatical typos and wrong usage of tense in several sentences which also need to be addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response
July 07, 2019
Dear Editor:
I have attached our revised manuscript, "Screening cultivated eggplant and wild relatives for resistance to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum)", which is submitted to Agriculture (agriculture-480545).
After careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments, we made a number of major revisions and improvements. Our response is in bold type.
Reviewer #1
The authors accepted some comments and comments. The authors justified and explained their changes in the manuscript. The Z8 level also explained why some comments and comments were not included in the text. I read the manuscript and I got to know the authors' comments. I think that the manuscript is already suitable for printing.
We thank the first reviewer for the very positive feedback.
Reviewer #2
Authors have done a great job in evaluating resistance of 47 accessions of eggplant to bacterial wilt which provide important information for future agriculture production and application, however, it lacks the significance and rationale of study in the introduction, and I recommend the authors to rewrite the introduction part. Additionally, there are some grammatical typos and wrong usage of tense in several sentences which also need to be addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Introduction part contains general information on bacterial wilt pathogen, symptoms, control methods, breeding for resistance to bacterial wilt in eggplant, problems related to research topic, and objective. We agree with the reviewer and have added in the some information on eggplant wild relatives and their importance in breeding. Additionally, we have fixed the grammatical typos in the manuscript.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise again this manuscript and we look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Journal of Agriculture.
Best regards,
Mohamed Rakha
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
