The Functional Characterization of MaGS2 and Its Role as a Negative Regulator of Ciboria shiraiana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the MS and found it well presented and documented. The abstract, introduction, materials, diagrams, figures, results and conclusions are all acceptable. The references are adequate and relevant. The english is also good.

However, in the abstract, C. should be spelled out in full. The MS has new results of interest to the scientific community. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 as the highest, I would give the MS  a rating of 8.

I detected on plagarism or any form of plagarism. I recommend acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have re-read the abstract one more time, and C. shiraiana was spelled in full name as Ciboria shiraiana. These changes can be find in the Abstract line 22 to 25 and highlighted in red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors send their manuscript entitled ‘Functional characterization of MaGS2 and Its roles of negative regulator against Ciboria shiraiana’ . for revision to Plants journal.

Manuscript is interesting I have no further remarks and in my opinion manusctipt could be accept in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, and we express our sincere appreciation for recognizing our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract of this paper needs to be improved. Le last 5/(6 lines are quite confusing. From one side it is said that  The authors say Moreover, AtPIP1;4 and AtPIP2;4 collaborate to transport bacterial pathogens and flg22-induced apoplastic H2O2 into the cytoplasm, leading to increased callose deposition and enhanced defense gene expression to strengthen immunity. This sentence must fo be more clear. The results reported in fig. 7D, E  would gain if not only leaf symptoms were shown but also values of biomass and chlorophyll content.

Overall the results reported are important but they are not enough to conclude on the role of   H2O2 in plant immunity. Hydrogen peroxide  is related in general to tolerance to biotic and biotic stress

In my opinion, the paper needs a reflection and the results discussed in terms of what is known in terms of the   H2O2 role on plant stress.

The authors should consider the information on the production of H2O2

and of its role in plant defense 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The abstract of this paper needs to be improved. Le last 5/(6 lines are quite confusing. From one side it is said that  The authors say Moreover, AtPIP1;4 and AtPIP2;4 collaborate to transport bacterial pathogens and flg22-induced apoplastic H2O2 into the cytoplasm, leading to increased callose deposition and enhanced defense gene expression to strengthen immunity. This sentence must fo be more clear. The results reported in fig. 7D, E  would gain if not only leaf symptoms were shown but also values of biomass and chlorophyll content.

Overall the results reported are important but they are not enough to conclude on the role of   H2O2 in plant immunity. Hydrogen peroxide  is related in general to tolerance to biotic and biotic stress

In my opinion, the paper needs a reflection and the results discussed in terms of what is known in terms of the   H2O2 role on plant stress.

The authors should consider the information on the production of H2O2

and of its role in plant defense 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions and comments. Although there were some confusing issues, we have carefully revised our abstract and main text thoroughly. Therefore, we have read the Abstract one more time, and we had emphasized the roles of MaGS2 gene in the resistance against biotic stress, in this study the role of MaGS2 was characterized as a negative regulator of resistance against Ciboria shiraiana, which causes the sclerotiniose in mulberry.

Besides, we mentioned that the function of GS is involved in plant development and resistance to diverse stresses. These changes can be found in paragraph 3 line 77-78 in section of Introduction page 2. (highlighted in red in revision file)

Moreover, the results were described with more details in section of Results. These changes can be found in line 97-101, 146-152.

Furthermore, the results were discussed with more details in Discussion section, these changes can be found in line 188-190, 209-215, and all changes were highlighted in red in revision article. Finally, the revised manuscript has been resubmitted.