Machine Learning Deciphers Genotype and Ammonium as Key Factors for the Micropropagation of Bryophyllum sp. Medicinal Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manucsript is well-written, only marginal comments:

line 16,21,26:  maybe Italics ?

line 102: ...the longest...

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

The authors want to sincerely acknowledge the effort regarding the review of this manuscript. Your comments were carefully addressed, and detailed response is provided below. Please, check our responses in this cover letter and the corresponding modifications in the revised version of the manuscript, highlighted in blue.

 

The manuscript is well-written, with only marginal comments:

line 16,21,26:  maybe Italics ?

Done. All suggestions now appear in italics. Please, see the changes in blue colour in the Abstract section in lines 16, 21 and 25.

line 102: ...the longest...

Done. Please, see line 107 in the reviewed manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the research is appropriate. Overall, I see this study an interesting piece of work, but needs substantial revisions. The introduction section should be updated by recent and related references. Please make sure that the research problem is explicitly clear to the reader. Conclusion could be more concise focusing on the significant concluding statements. There are so many mistakes in this manuscript. Authors need to check grammar, space, comma, mis-spell, large and small letters, and others.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors want to sincerely acknowledge the effort regarding the review of this manuscript. Your comments were carefully addressed, and detailed response is provided below. Please, check our responses in this cover letter in blue and the corresponding modifications in the revised version of the manuscript, provided by the track-and-change function.

 

Reviewer: The subject of the research is appropriate. Overall, I see this study an interesting piece of work, but needs substantial revisions. The introduction section should be updated by recent and related references.

Answer: Done. As suggested by the reviewer, the literature references have been updated in the Introduction section. Now, all citations included in the Introduction have been published in the last 5 years, please see references [ie.- 1 – 13]. As well, some key aspects of the Introduction have been updated (please changes in blue color) such as future exploitation of Bryophylum for industrial purposes (Lines 48 – 49), the overall effect of mineral nutrition not only on the in vitro multiplication and growth rates, but also on the secondary metabolism (please, see lines 55 – 57); and the suitability of the combination of ML and PTC protocols to achieve a reliable valorization of medicinal plants from a biotechnological perspective, as recently proposed for Bryophyllum (please, see lines 73 – 75).

Please make sure that the research problem is explicitly clear to the reader.

Answer: Done. The reviewer is right. Based on the above-mentioned upgrades on the Abstract and Introduction section, the overall aim of the work was clarified. Briefly, a multidisciplinary approach, combining PTC and ML was proposed in this work as the first step to optimize a culture media formulation for in vitro-cultured Bryophyllum plants. It represents an initial stage regarding the biotechnological valorization of these scarcely known medicinal plants, thus facilitating their large-scale exploitation as biofactories of bioactive compounds. Please, see lines 19-24 in the Abstract and 73-83 in the Introduction.

Conclusion could be more concise focusing on the significant concluding statements.

Anwer: Done. This comment was carefully taken into consideration. As a response to the updated objective proposed in the revised (as mentioned above in both the Abstract and Introduction sections), the conclusions were also updated to be more concise. Please, see lines 295-305.

There are so many mistakes in this manuscript. Authors need to check grammar, space, comma, mis-spell, large and small letters, and others.

Answer: Done. We thoroughly improved the overall writing of the manuscript, improving the general readability and comprehension. Please, see the changes all over the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisions are satisfactory and article can be processed further for publication.