Genomic Insight into a Potential Biological Control Agent for Fusarium-Related Diseases in Potatoes: Bacillus cabrialesii Subsp. cabrialesii Strain PE1

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, authors isolated and identified a Bacillus cabrialesii subsp. cabrialesii strain PE1 from potatoes. Strain PE1 was evaluated as a potential biological control agent against fungal phytopathogen Fusarium languescens. Moreover, a draft genome sequence of strain PE1 was obtained. However, overall, there are some irregularities in the manuscript. Then, I report some points that should be implemented.

1. In vivo assays for the antagonistic activity of strain PE1 against Fusarium languescens is necessary, authors should be aware of this assay.

Others:

Introduction:

Line 30, this sentence is not clear.

Materials and Methods:

Line 120 looks like a result.

Results:

In Table 2, data don't need italics.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers, 

I hope this message finds you well.

Attached is the revision letter based on your valuable comments.

Best regards, 

Sergio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

In general, the introduction is not  descriptive enough to justify the work of the manuscript.

Detailed comments:

(Line 30-36) This part does nor add any new or relevant information for the manuscript

(Line 45) references are required (fungicide resistance by Fusarium strains line 45)

(Line 65). it is necessary to describe the characteristics of the field or crop that justified its selection for the isolation of the bacteria

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers, 

I hope this message finds you well.

Attached is the revision letter based on your valuable comments.

Best regards, 

Sergio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors provide a genome resource for Bacillus cabrialesii subsp. cabrialesii strain PE1, a potential biocontrol agent against Fusarium dry rot of potato. In addition to presenting basic genome parameters, genome annotation and mining were conducted to identify genes and biosynthetic clusters potentially associated with biocontrol activity.

Although the evidence for PE1 to be an effective biocontrol agent against dry rot is very weak (based solely on in vitro assays with cell-free supernatant), I consider this a useful foundation for future work. However, the following general concerns need to be addressed:

1) What is the role of Fusarium languescens in Fusarium dry rot of potato? Typically the disease is associated with F. sambucinum and F. solani, and I have not heard previously of F. languescens being associated with the disease. Lines 40-42 in the Introduction also do not mention this particular species as a causal agent of Fusarium dry rot. Why was F. languescens used in the current study?

2) I am not sure the evidence is strong enough to say that the bacterium is endophytic (line 55). It could have been protected from surface disinfestation in the eyes of the potato, without being a true endophyte.

3) Line 146: For the three replicates to be truly “independent”, the cell-free supernatants would need to be made up independently three times, separately for each replicate. I doubt this was done here, but if it was, it needs to be explained to support the claim of independence.

Additional comments and suggestions:

12: Bacillus strain PE1

26: Replace “potato farming” keyword with “Solanum tuberosum”.

38: Symptoms are not diseases; they are a result of diseases.

41-42: How do these Fusarium species differ in symptoms on potato, their geographic distribution, and relative importance? Interestingly Fusarium languescens, the biocontrol target of the current study, is not mentioned here. What is the role of F. languescens in potato?

73: colony shape

239-297: Specific tables and figures should not be cited in the Discussion – that is what the Results section is for. The Discussion should synthesize, not refer back to specific data points.

262: tritici

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, 

I hope you are doing well, and thank you for all your positive comments.

Attached you can find the revised version of our manuscript.

Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors abundantly revised them manuscript, however, we still think that the activity of strain PE1 against Fusarium languescens in vivo assays is necessary. The other, In Table 2, data 230573, 345237, 424703, 487830 don't need italics.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, 

I hope you are doing well, and thank you for all your positive comments.

Attached you can find the revised version of our manuscript.

Regards, 

Sergio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf