Molecular Mechanisms of the Effects of Sodium Selenite on the Growth, Nutritional Quality, and Species of Organic Selenium in Dandelions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The quality of this section is poor. Please rewrite it.

1.   The background is not sufficient for the needs of the current study.

2.   The study’s objectives are missing.

3.   Too many abbreviations in the abstract could make itself confused.

4.   “first decreased and then increased” is too ambiguous. Please mention the meaning of trend on stead of giving description

5.   The connections between the experiment on dandelion’s features and the one on the molecular aspects are poor.

6.   There are not conclusions or suggestions at the end of the abstract.

7.   Keywords: “T. mongolicum” should be in full form.

Introduction: This section needs modifications.

1.   The needs and the gaps of the current study are not been raised. Therefore, the introduction is informative, but lacks of persuasiveness and reasons why the study should be conducted.

2.   Physiological and molecular parameters measured in the study should be reviewed in the introduction as why they had to be determined.

3.   At the end of the introduction, the aims or the hypothesis of the study should be clearly stated.

4.   The last paragraph involves too much methodology.

Materials and methods: This section needs modifications

1.   How many replications are there? (line 90)

2.   “The MDA content, CAT activity, and GSH activity” should be defined.

Results: This section needs modifications.

1.   There are too many undefined abbreviations. They should be in full forms at first mentions.

2.   Figures should be redesigned. Some letters are too big, and some are too small.

Discussion: This section needs modifications.

1.   Many long arguments are cited with a single literature. For example, in lines 554-558, the two sentences are related to a single study, so the citation should be at the end of each sentence. Otherwise, please try to summarize the sentences and merge them together.

2.   “Previous studies have shown that SULTRs, NIP, PHT, etc. were the main genes mediating Se entry into plant roots. APS, APR, SIR, CS, SL, SMT, CBL were the main genes mediating Se metabolism in chloroplasts. SMT, MTR, MMT were the main genes mediating Se metabolism in the cytoplasm” where are the studies?

Conclusions: This section is prepared well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience and review of our mannuscript, which was very helpful to us. We have made revisions to the entire text according to your suggestions,

Abstract: The quality of this section is poor. Please rewrite it.

1. The background is not sufficient for the needs of the current study.

In the abstract, we have included information on the health issues of selenium deficiency and the significance of supplementing selenium through vegetable diets.

2. The study’s objectives are missing.

At the end of the abstract, a supplement was added to the study on the absorption and transport mechanism of selenium. In the early stage, we conducted some research on the mechanism of selenium enrichment in other plants [12, 34, 48, 50, 52], but in this manuscript, we have made some new discoveries about the absorption and transport of selenium

3. Too many abbreviations in the abstract could make itself confused.

The abbreviations in the abstract have been replaced with the full text. Considering the universality of gene names and the word limit of the abstract, gene abbreviations have been retained

4. “first decreased and then increased” is too ambiguous. Please mention the meaning of trend on stead of giving description

Here we modify it to inhibit chlorophyll content during high concentration selenium treatment

5. The connections between the experiment on dandelion’s features and the one on the molecular aspects are poor.

The work in the molecular biology section mainly relates to the conversion indicators of inorganic selenium to organic selenium, and the changes in biomass and nutritional components mainly provide reference for the selenium enriched biological enhancement of dandelion.

6. There are not conclusions or suggestions at the end of the abstract.

At the end of the abstract, we added a summary and significance of the study.

7. Keywords: “T. mongolicum” should be in full form.

We have supplemented the complete species names in this section.

Introduction: This section needs modifications.

1. The needs and the gaps of the current study are not been raised. Therefore, the introduction is informative, but lacks of persuasiveness and reasons why the study should be conducted.

We have supplemented the introduction section, explaining the significance of selenium enriched biological reinforcement in dietary selenium supplementation. In addition, this study is also a new supplement to the selenium absorption and transformation mechanism of other crops in the early stage.

2. Physiological and molecular parameters measured in the study should be reviewed in the introduction as why they had to be determined.

The content of physiological parameter determination is quite extensive, relatively basic work, mainly to provide reference for selenium enriched bio enhanced vegetable cultivation. Due to space limitations, we have included it in the discussion section for introduction.

3. At the end of the introduction, the aims or the hypothesis of the study should be clearly stated.

This study aims to provide a fundamental study on dandelion as a dietary source for selenium supplementation in vegetables, with the theoretical aim of improving the molecular mechanisms of selenium absorption and metabolism in crops

4. The last paragraph involves too much methodology.

The last part of the introduction has removed the description of the method

Materials and methods: This section needs modifications

1. How many replications are there? (line 90)

The treatment of dandelion seedlings has three replicates, each consisting of 24 seedlings, which have been supplemented in the materials and methods section. Additionally, we have provided photos of the treatment as supplementary materials (Figure S1).

2. “The MDA content, CAT activity, and GSH activity” should be defined.

In Section 2.3 of Materials and Methods, we have added the definition of the enzyme activity unit.

Results: This section needs modifications.

1. There are too many undefined abbreviations. They should be in full forms at first mentions.

We have added the full name of the acronym that first appeared.

2. Figures should be redesigned. Some letters are too big, and some are too small.

We have adjusted the font of Figure 8 to Figure 11 by transferring some of the images to supplementary files, reducing the length of the manuscript while improving the display quality of the images.

Discussion: This section needs modifications.

1. Many long arguments are cited with a single literature. For example, in lines 554-558, the two sentences are related to a single study, so the citation should be at the end of each sentence. Otherwise, please try to summarize the sentences and merge them together.
2. “Previous studies have shown that SULTRs, NIP, PHT, etc. were the main genes mediating Se entry into plant roots. APS, APR, SIR, CS, SL, SMT, CBL were the main genes mediating Se metabolism in chloroplasts. SMT, MTR, MMT were the main genes mediating Se metabolism in the cytoplasm” where are the studies?

The plural expression of genes is different, and these genes are mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of section 4.4, where SURTRs include SURTRs1;1, SULTRs1;2, SULTRs2;1, SULTRs2;2, SULTRs4;1, SULTRs4;2 and so on. The second-class gene, PHT refers to PHT1.1, and NIP refers to the NIP2 gene. APS is the ATP sulfonylase gene.

Conclusions: This section is prepared well.

Thank you for your encouragement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

All comments can be found in the manuscript in the form of comments.

Firstly, the section Material and methods must be improved for the manuscript to be accepted for publication. Other parts I find very interesting with numerous informations and data. However, for proper review of the paper you must provide more clear info about the vegetation trial (design, plant number etc).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English OK, only minor to some moderate errors detected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience and review of our mannuscript, which was very helpful to us. We have made revisions to the entire text according to your suggestions,

All comments can be found in the manuscript in the form of comments.

In the suggestions section of the article, we have made corresponding modifications using blue font and review mode. Please refer to them. Thank you!

Firstly, the section Material and methods must be improved for the manuscript to be accepted for publication. Other parts I find very interesting with numerous informations and data. However, for proper review of the paper you must provide more clear info about the vegetation trial (design, plant number etc).

In the Materials and Methods section, we have supplemented the number of plant treatments and the number of repetitions, and added photos of plant treatments in the supplementary documents

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review -   Manuscript ID: horticulturae-2832639

Molecular mechanisms of the effects of sodium selenite on the growth, nutritional quality, and species of organic selenium in dandelions

Hua Cheng , Siyuan Chang , Xinyu Shi , Yuanfei Chen , Xin Cong , Shuiyuan Cheng , Linling Li

 

The research topic is interesting. The authors conducted a laboratory hydroponics experiment in order to investigate molecular mechanisms of the effects of sodium selenite on the growth, nutritional quality, and species of organic selenium in dandelions.

The structure of the manuscript corresponds to the requirements. The manuscript is too long.

Abstract does not meet the requirements, it is too long (254 words). The abstract should be shortened according to the requirements.

There is no clearly formulated objective of this experiment. I missed that both in the Abstract and at the end of the Introduction.

Introduction: Briefly and clearly state the purpose of the experiment.

L 58-60: You indicate the literature sources incorrectly in the introduction: the review article [14] is not suitable to cite here, it contains 131 references from different studies. Which study are you referring to from “Fan, M.; Zhang, X.; Song, H.; Zhang, Y., Dandelion (Taraxacum Genus): a review of chemical constituents and pharmacological effects. 722 Molecules 2023, 28, (13), 5022.“?

L 63-64:  “As a wild vegetable resource, T. mongolicum is widely cultivated in China and is deeply loved by people [16]“. 16. Di Napoli, A.; Zucchetti, P., A comprehensive review of the benefits of Taraxacum officinale on human health. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 2021, 45, 110.  This study was conducted in Italy, not in China!!!  Please cite studies from at least a few countries, not a review article.

Please check if there are more such inconsistencies in the references.

 

Materials and methods chapter is detailed and clear.

L 79 and L 81 – “Hebei” and “Hubei” - please check for errors.

L 90: “with two pots for each treatment.“ The experiment was carried out in only two replicates??? Such a number of repetitions is insufficient and does not meet the requirements for laboratory experiments.

Results. The work is interesting, but very extended and prolonged. A lot of material, a lot of pictures, some of them need to be uniform in font and picture size. Would like to see the data discussed more concisely and specifically.

Discussion is also very extensive.

Conclusions

L 654-656:“ Compared with the control group, chlorophyll content increased first and then decreased, while soluble sugar, soluble protein, flavonoids, total phenol and Vc content increased.“ Formulate in such a way that it is clear in which variants these changes occurred, which variants were compared to the control. Please indicate the limits soluble sugar, soluble protein, flavonoids, total phenol and Vc content, from which the amount of chlorophyll started to decrease. Now some kind of swing is being described - it increased - it decreased. Please work on the conclusions and provide clear sentences.

L 668: „and provided new insights for Se absorption and transformation in different crops.“ You only studied Taraxacum mongolicum and in the conclusions you talk about "different crops ". Hence the findings do not match the results obtained.

The article is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience and review of our mannuscript, which was very helpful to us. We have made revisions to the entire text according to your suggestions,

The research topic is interesting. The authors conducted a laboratory hydroponics experiment in order to investigate molecular mechanisms of the effects of sodium selenite on the growth, nutritional quality, and species of organic selenium in dandelions.

The structure of the manuscript corresponds to the requirements. The manuscript is too long.

We have removed some content from the result description, and in addition, some images have been transferred to supplementary files.

Abstract does not meet the requirements, it is too long (254 words). The abstract should be shortened according to the requirements.

We have streamlined the content of the abstract, adjusted its structure, and currently only have 190 words.

There is no clearly formulated objective of this experiment. I missed that both in the Abstract and at the end of the Introduction.

Introduction: Briefly and clearly state the purpose of the experiment.

We have added the research objectives and significance of the manuscript in the abstract and introduction, and marked it in blue font and revisions mode in the manuscript.

 

L 58-60: You indicate the literature sources incorrectly in the introduction: the review article [14] is not suitable to cite here, it contains 131 references from different studies. Which study are you referring to from “Fan, M.; Zhang, X.; Song, H.; Zhang, Y., Dandelion (Taraxacum Genus): a review of chemical constituents and pharmacological effects. 722 Molecules 2023, 28, (13), 5022.“?

We have replaced this reference with a research paper.

L 63-64:  “As a wild vegetable resource, T. mongolicum is widely cultivated in China and is deeply loved by people [16]“. 16. Di Napoli, A.; Zucchetti, P., A comprehensive review of the benefits of Taraxacum officinale on human health. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 2021, 45, 110.  This study was conducted in Italy, not in China!!!  Please cite studies from at least a few countries, not a review article.

Please check if there are more such inconsistencies in the references.

 We have replaced the references from [14-16] with research papers.

Materials and methods chapter is detailed and clear.

L 79 and L 81 – “Hebei” and “Hubei” - please check for errors.

This is correct. Dandelion seeds were purchased from Hebei Province and the experiment was conducted in Hubei Province

L 90: “with two pots for each treatment.“ The experiment was carried out in only two replicates??? Such a number of repetitions is insufficient and does not meet the requirements for laboratory experiments.

I am sorry for the description error. The treatment of dandelion seedlings has three replicates, each consisting of 24 seedlings, which have been supplemented in the materials and methods section. Additionally, we have provided photos of the treatment as supplementary files (Figure S1).

Results. The work is interesting, but very extended and prolonged. A lot of material, a lot of pictures, some of them need to be uniform in font and picture size. Would like to see the data discussed more concisely and specifically.

We adjusted the font size of the images in Figures 8 to 11 and transferred some of the images to the supplementary file. In addition, the manuscript has removed some repetitive descriptive sentences from the results. Please refer to the modification marks in the text for details.

Discussion is also very extensive.

Thank you for your encouragement.

Conclusions

L 654-656:“ Compared with the control group, chlorophyll content increased first and then decreased, while soluble sugar, soluble protein, flavonoids, total phenol and Vc content increased.“ Formulate in such a way that it is clear in which variants these changes occurred, which variants were compared to the control. Please indicate the limits soluble sugar, soluble protein, flavonoids, total phenol and Vc content, from which the amount of chlorophyll started to decrease. Now some kind of swing is being described - it increased - it decreased. Please work on the conclusions and provide clear sentences.

In the results and conclusion part of the manuscript, the description of changes in nutritional components and antioxidant enzyme activities of Taraxacum mongolicum treated with sodium selenite was revised

L 668: „and provided new insights for Se absorption and transformation in different crops.“ You only studied Taraxacum mongolicum and in the conclusions you talk about "different crops ". Hence the findings do not match the results obtained.

We revised the description of different crops. In the early stage, we have conducted some research on the selenium enrichment mechanism of other crops [12,34,48,50,52], but in this manuscript, we have found some new genes for selenium absorption and transport, which play an important role in selenium absorption and transport.