Rapid In Vitro Multiplication of Non-Runnering Fragaria vesca Genotypes from Seedling Shoot Axillary Bud Explants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Rapid in vitro multiplication of non-runnering Fragaria vesca genotypes from Seedling shoot axillary bud explants.

 

54-55: Please explain what exactly are the problems?

65-66: Explain in objective 3 + 4 what you mean with ‘response’. Suggestion: ‘Determine the effect of strawberry genotype on shoot production rates…’

 

Material and Methods:

2.1: Please describe the source of the seeds.

2.2.: Please describe how many seeds were used per genotype, and how many seedlings were transferred to 50mL jars per genotype. Were there any seeds that did not germinate? Please describe what 50mL jars were used, how they were stored and for how long each genotype was grown in jars before explants were excised. Please also describe the environmental conditions (photoperiod, temperature).

2.3.: Treatments as well as experiments are not clear. A table describing the experimental conditions as well as the treatments and used genotypes for each objective would be very helpful. Based on the text, it is not clear which explants from which genotype were investigated in which experiment. It is also absolutely not clear which parameters were assessed.

There should be an experimental set-up for each of the listed objectives (1-4), including treatments, number of replicates, experimental design and parameters that were assessed in each experiment. Please rewrite this chapter and explain all four approaches in much more detail. Pay especially attention to a clear list of treatments, the number or replicates and a clear understanding of what parameters were assessed in each experiment.

Parameters and environmental conditions need to be explained in much more detail for mist chamber and greenhouse. What parameters were taken in the greenhouse? How large were the containers? Were they fertilized? How often? What was the misting cycle in the mist chamber? What was the drainage in the greenhouse? What was the EC and pH? How often were they fed with nutrients? Many more questions. Please explain the whole system better.

2.4: Experimental design needs to go into 2.3; It is not clear what the authors refer to as the ‘leaf explant experiments’ and the ‘shoot explant experiments’ those experiments are not sufficiently described before (see comments above).

 

Results and Discussion:

I only go brief over this part, since I think the authors need to rewrite the M&M part and resubmit.

 

Table 1: Please mention the genotype used in this experiment.

Table 1 (ln 137) should be Table 2. Same here, please mention the gentotype.

Figure 1: Figure captions are usually below the Figure. Pleas mentions the genotypes that are seen in the pictures

Figure 2: See Figure 1.

Figure 3: Caption below. ‘Baron Solemacher’ with capital B.

 

There are two tables below the Conclusions that seem to be misplaced (Table 2 and 3, which should be Table 5 and 6).

 

Conclusions:

The conclusion that a shoot generation protocol was developed is not true. There is no protocol included in the manuscript and there are significant gaps in the Material and Methods.

 

 

This manuscript reports useful data, but unfortunately in an unorganized way with a completely insufficient description of methods, treatments and protocols. I am happy to look at this publication again, but right now this manuscript needs to be rewritten and resubmitted.

Author Response

As per reviewer's suggestion the manuscript has been reorganized. The reorganized/corrected manuscript has been attached.

The corrections/revisions have been made in the Introduction, Materials and Methods (2.1-2.4), Results and Discussion, Tables and Figures, Conclusion following your suggestions.

The corrected/revised manuscript has been attached herewith for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the presented manuscript “Rapid in vitro multiplication of non-runnering Fragaria vesca genotypes                from seedling shoot axillary bud explant” the authors analyze the consequences of an application of various growth regulator combinations on efficient multiplication in vitro unique genotypes of Fragaria vesca. It is impossible to designate this research as being of any interest to readers. Rather, it looks like a student work. The study is rather weak and extremely carelessly submitted. It would be highly desirable to improve English.

A number of inaccuracies need to be noted that require correction.

Regarding Tables in text. The tables are out of order. For example, Table 1 is first located on lines 124-126, and then repeats again on lines 137-139. Then Table 2 is omitted and table 3 follows, located on lines 184-189. And Table 2 is located at the end of the text on lines 225-228. Table 3 is repeated 2 times: on lines 184-189, as well as on lines 229-234. There is no mention of the Fragaria vesca cultivar in Table 1.

Figures. While in Figure 1 different photographs are denoted by the letter I (i, ii, iii), in Figure 2 different photographs are denoted by different letters (E-J). And where are the letters A, B, C, D? In Figure 1, the photo between lines 156 and 157 is not marked in any way. In Figure 2, photos from G to J are completely redundant, since the task was not to study the survival rate of regenerants in the soil. Although in the section Materials and Methods, a description of the transfer of plants from aseptic conditions to greenhouse conditions is present.

Nowhere in the text is the number of explants, which were subjected to experiments, is indicated, and the total number of shoots obtained from treatments is not indicated. It makes no sense to do statistical processing on several dozens of specimens.

Although in this study several varieties of Fragaria veska were used, both running and not running, but the results of Table 2 did not reflect the relationship between the "running" trait and the regeneration ability of explants. There is no discussion of this important relationship in Results and Discussion.

Section References are not performed according to requirements of the MDPI journals.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The manuscript has been revised and corrected following your suggestions especially in the Tables and Figures and Results and Discussion.

Reference part has been formatted as per MDPI formatting.

The revised manuscript has been attached herewith for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

We note with satisfaction that the authors have made enough corrections to the text of the manuscript. However, I would like to note that it would be desirable to make the figures more accurately. In addition, we consider that Figure 2 contains redundant photos (Fig. 2 g-j). Since the text of the manuscript does not provide a description of the procedures for acclimation of regenerants to open ground conditions, as well as soil conditions, the amount of soil in pots, etc.
We recommend splitting Figure 2 into two separate figures with appropriate captions, such as we provide in the attachment.
Otherwise, we believe that the article can be published with the changes made.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

I have reorganized the Figure 2 as per your suggestion to make it more accurate.

I have splitted Figure 2 into two separate figures with appropriate captions, taking the attachment provided by you.