Mutagenesis and Flowering Promotion through Sodium Azide In Vitro Culture of Cymbidium faberi Rolfe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is focused on development of a regeneration protocol for Cymbidium faberi Rolfe which is not new for existing knowledge (for example: DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.1326; DOI: 10.1007/s11240-004-4956-y; DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI16704-22, etc.). The authors also performed some incomplete experiments to produce mutants by using NaN3 - a well known mutagen, but unfortunately only on in vitro shoot stage. In this way, the title, abstract and conclusions are speculative because no regenerated mutant plants were obtained and described.
The materials and methods should be revised and described more correctly.
The conclusions must be revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript discusses the development of a mutant Cymbidium faberi Rolfe using the chemical mutagen sodium azide to enhance its characteristics. The study was well planned and the introduction was well written, providing basic information and identifying the research gap. However, most of the references cited in the introduction are outdated. Additionally, examples of using this mutagen to improve plants should be included. The Materials and Methods section needs to be revised to include precise information, enabling the experiment to be replicated. There is also a lot of missing information that needs to be addressed.
1. italicize “in vitro” in the abstract (line number 13)
2. Co cultivation is a technique to grow two organisms together to see the interaction. Here the authors treated the explants with sodium azide, which is a chemical. Hence the usage of word in the abstract “co-cultivated is not appropriate (line number. 16)
3. Reference is missing for the sentence “There are fewer systematic studies on Cymbidium faberi Rolfe in terms of fast propagation by histoculture” in line number 52-53.
4. in materials and methods, how the “Cymbidium faberi Rolfe” plant was identified? Is the seeds were obtained from a recognized company or organization? (in line number 90)
5. “NaN3 is prepared in the laboratory” is wrong. Make it clear. From which company this chemical was purchased. The sentence may be revised as “NaN3 solution was prepared in the laboratory”.
6. how long the seeds were treated with NaOCl? (in line number 97)
7. Expand the abbreviated at first citation (BA, NAA, 2,4 D, IAA etc).
8. In line 158 change Table 1 as table 2.
9. Line 130-131 is contradicting to Line 135-136. What is the difference between E1-E6 and H1-H6?
10. Fig 1a-1d were not cited in the text.
11. Discussion need to be revised thoroughly. Each result should be discussed. The impact of PGR in the in vitro culture development requires to be discussed as the authors used different concentration of various growth hormones. Line 259-268 is not necessary in discussion. It may be deleted or moved to introduction. The authors mentioned about using coconut water in the in vitro culture establishment in Introduction. However, they used coconut milk in their experiment (Line number 114-114 and 118-119). However, they did not discussed why they used coconut milk.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive English edition is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ‘Mutagenesis and Flowering-Promoting by Sodium Azide In Vitro Culture of Cymbidium faberi Rolfe’ is a multi-authored work describing the possibility of using induced mutagenesis with using sodium azide to increase the phenotypic diversity and consumer attractiveness of an ornamental plant from the orchid family.
In my opinion, the document is not acceptable for publication in its original form. Major revisions to the manuscript are required. Please see my comments below:
1. The species name should be corrected and unified. 'Cymbidium faberi' should be italic and 'Rolfe' should not - Cymbidium faberi Rolfe.
2. Line 16 – should be ‘shoot growth inducing medium’.
3. Lines 17, 18 – ‘0.0 (control)’ is unnecessarily repeated.
4. Line 18 - in this line a new sentence should start with ‘The mortality...'.
5. Punctuation, such as missing spaces, should be corrected throughout the manuscript - such as in lines: 20, 32, 102, 103, 105, 135, 136, 138, 226, 227, 229, 230, 233, 226-227.
6. The citation in the text should be corrected - no initials, only the surname and year – lines: 68, 262, 275, 278.
7. Line 104 - please change ‘PLBs proliferate’ to ‘PLBs proliferation’.
8. Line 112 - please change ’PLBs induced shoots’ to ‘PLBs shoot induction’.
9. Line 117 please change the sentence ‘Rooting was induced and transplanted’ to ‘Rooting induction and seedlings transplantation’.
10. Lines 122-128 –please shorten the sentence starting with ‘After 80 days…’ and use the past tense.
11. Please replace the semicolon with a period between the sentences – lines: 135, 162, 164.
12. Line 150 – I don’t know if ‘diameter’ is used here properly, what is ‘growth diameter’, growth diameter of what?
13. Lines 164-169 – please shorten the sentence and change your grammar/sentence style. Please use sentences like: ' In the treatment B1 it was observed that after addition of 0.5 mg/L 6-BA PLBs were...’.
14. Table 2 is not cited in the text.
15. Line 166 – please change ‘newborn’ to ‘new’ or ‘newly formed’.
16. Line 173 - please standardize the capitalization in the title of subchapter 3.2.
17. Please standardize the format of solution concentrations in the text and tables - mg/L or mg·L-1.
18. The picture f in the Figure 1 is in poor quality – please change this picture.
19. Please standardize the description of Figure 1 - the description of individual photos (a-f) should start with a capital letter.
20. Treatments are described differently in the materials and methods than in the results. In materials and methods E1-E6 are for concentrations of 1.0-3.0 mg/L NaN3 and in the results - E1-E7 - correspond to concentrations of 0.0-3.0 mg/L NaN3. The same situation is for treatments described as ‘F”. Moreover, in section 2.3 treatments H0-H6 and M0-M7 are described with the same concentrations of sodium azide as for E and F treatment. Are they the same treatments? Please explain this.
21. Line 208 – change ‘of 1.5 mg/L,,’ to ‘at 1.5 mg/L’.
22. Description of Figure 2 - the species name should be written in italics.
23. Description of Table 4 - should be ‘concentration of NaN3’.
24. Please insert subscript in ‘NaN3’ – lines: 238, 257, 267, 270, 271, 273, 275, 291, 294.
25. Please use past tense to describe the results in chapter 3.5.
26. Lines 270 and 271 - species names should be written in italics.
27. Lines 274-281 – please shorten the sentence.
28. Lines 286-287 - please remove the repetition ‘such as’.
29. Line 296 - should be ‘pH’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI do not think that this research covers the scientific standards of Holticulture
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors significantly revised the manuscript. They answered all the comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language need to be fine tuned. Better revision of language is required.
Author Response
Comment: The language need to be fine tuned. Better revision of language is required.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have looked for English editing services in MDPI Author Services. Deficiencies in the English language have been corrected in the re-uploaded revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThan kyou for your response. The paper may be accepted in a revised form.
Author Response
Comment: Thank you for your response. The paper may be accepted in a revised form.
Response: Thank you very much for your reply, we have uploaded the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
