Graded Moisture Deficit Effect on Secondary Metabolites, Antioxidant, and Inhibitory Enzyme Activities in Leaf Extracts of Rosa damascena Mill. var. trigentipetala
, Hanen Wasli 2, Hatim M. Al-Yasi 1, Esmat F. Ali 1, Ahmed A. Issa 1, Fahmy A. S. Hassan 3 and Kadambot H. M. Siddique 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Lot of English grammar and spelling mistakes are there in whole sections of the manuscript. Overall study is interesting
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewers:
Response to the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript:
“Graded moisture deficit effect on secondary metabolites, antioxidant and inhibitory enzyme activities in leaf extracts of Rosa damascena Mill. var. trigentipetala“
Written by Hessini et al. (2022)
Submitted to Horticulturae (ISSN 2311-7524), MDPI
Manuscript No.: horticulturae-1587835
- First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. As suggested by the reviewer, we thoroughly and carefully revised and updated the manuscript according to the reviewer valuable comments as mentioned below point by point. Moreover, an expert on the topic to improve its content from both scientific and grammatical points of view has reviewed the manuscript. In this context, we sent the revised manuscript to MDPI Professional English Editing Service to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors. The certificate is attached below.
Reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1:
Lot of English grammar and spelling mistakes are there in whole sections of the manuscript. Overall study is interesting
Thank you for your positive evaluation and your comments, which contributed to improve the revised version of our manuscript
Comment (1):
Abstract: I will suggest adding percentage % of increase and decrease of attributes in comparison with control treatment.
Response (1): The percentage % of increase and decrease of attributes in comparison with control treatment were inserted.
Comment (2):
Introduction: Spellings mistakes at Line 63 (Rosaceae family).
Line 78 (varieties will increase our, of core).
Response (2): The spelling mistake was corrected
Comment (3): Hypothesis and Objectives of the study are not clear. Mention the objectives clearly.
Response (3): The objectives were improved according to your recommendation
Comment (4):
Results and discussion: There are many spelling mistakes in every paragraph which must be corrected. Tables and figures are fine and easily understandable. Discussion is well expressed by using previous researches.
Response (4): Done, please see the certificate in attached file.
Comment (5):
Conclusions: Conclusion is general, it should be specific to express overall findings and add 1-2 sentences of recommendations.
Response (5): The conclusion was modified according to your recommendations
All modifications were marked with green color.
Once again, the authors are thankful to the Reviewer for providing us valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We hope that the reviewer will be satisfied with the updated version of the manuscript and recommend it for publication in Plant-Basil, MDPI.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript link polyphenol accumulation and radical scavenging ability upon drought stress in R. damascene. The work is clearly written and the figures and tables underly the text. There are some minor points that should be changed.
Line 78-78, Line 85, line 108, line 197, line 244, line 251, line 264, line 275-276, line 285, line 292, line 301, line 398, line 403, line 409: Spaces between words are missing.
Section 3.4: Please define in Material and methods the column used for RP-HPLC.
Line 121: HPLC is doubly written and making the sentence difficult to understand.
Line 163: What do you mean “The o mixtures”?
Line 213: I did not find figure 1. Do you mean table 1?
Line 299: In reference 26 it is not particularly claim that polyphenols “can also uphold the integrity of the envelope membrane through lipid adjusting during cellular dehydration [26]”. It is suggested to use another literature or rephrase the sentence.
Line 301-319: What is about polyphenol production upon drought stress in the plant model organism Arabidopsis thaliana? Please add into the text.
Table 4: Please define the meaning of the used colors in the table legend.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript:
“Graded moisture deficit effect on secondary metabolites, antioxidant and inhibitory enzyme activities in leaf extracts of Rosa damascena Mill. var. trigentipetala”
Written by Hessini et al. (2022)
Submitted to Horticulturae (ISSN 2311-7524), MDPI
Manuscript No.: horticulturae-1587835
- First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. As suggested by the reviewer, we thoroughly and carefully revised and updated the manuscript according to the reviewer valuable comments as mentioned below point by point. Moreover, an expert on the topic to improve its content from both scientific and grammatical points of view has reviewed the manuscript. In this context, we sent the revised manuscript to MDPI Professional English Editing Service to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors. The certificate is attached below.
Reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #2:
The manuscript link polyphenol accumulation and radical scavenging ability upon drought stress in R. damascene. The work is clearly written and the figures and tables underly the text. There are some minor points that should be changed.
Authors answer: Thank you for your positive evaluation and your comments, which contributed to improve the revised version of our manuscript.
Comment (1):
Line 78-78, Line 85, line 108, line 197, line 244, line 251, line 264, line 275-276, line 285, line 292, line 301, line 398, line 403, line 409: Spaces between words are missing.
Response (1): Done
Comment (2):
Section 3.4: Please define in Material and methods the column used for RP-HPLC.
Response (2): The column for RP-HPLC was defined; please see line 140-141.
Comment (3):
Line 121: HPLC is doubly written and making the sentence difficult to understand.
Response (3): The mistake was rectified
Comment (4):
Line 163: What do you mean “The o mixtures”?
Response (4): It’s the mixture of different extracts (the fault was rectified)
Comment (5):
Line 213: I did not find figure 1. Do you mean table 1?
Response (5): Yes, it’s the Table 1 (the fault was rectified)
Comment (6):
Line 299: In reference 26 it is not particularly claim that polyphenols “can also uphold the integrity of the envelope membrane through lipid adjusting during cellular dehydration [26]”. It is suggested to use another literature or rephrase the sentence.
Response (6): As recommended, we use another reference (number 32) since some modifications have been obtained in the main manuscript.
Comment (7):
Line 301-319: What is about polyphenol production upon drought stress in the plant model organism Arabidopsis thaliana? Please add into the text.
Response (7): Done, please see line 351-354.
Comment (8):
Table 4: Please define the meaning of the used colors in the table legend.
Response (8): The meaning of the used colors in the table legend were defined.
All modifications were highlighted with purple color.
Once again, the authors are thankful to the Reviewer for providing us valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We hope that the reviewer will be satisfied with the updated version of the manuscript and recommend it for publication in Plant-Basil, MDPI.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments
The author of the manuscript “Graded moisture deficit effect on secondary metabolites, antioxidant and inhibitory enzyme activities in leaf extracts of Rosa damascena Mill” need to revise the manuscript due to numerous errors and problems in the research article.
Line 37: atypical
41: Strongcompetition
48: chain [5] [6].
Line 65: “isolated from different organs are”…. Which plant are you talking about?
Line 78: varietieswillincreaseour
Line 91: withhalf-strength, Uniformcuttings
Line : 104: placedin
L 108: weredetermined
L113: absorbance for carotenoids is missing
“663 and 645 nm for Chla, Chlb, and carotenoids, respectively”
L 141: write full form
RE against the ABTS radical
L 177: Include country, city, make and model of all the instrument used in the expt.
Table 1: write new table 1 title. Keep the present title as a footnotes.
L244: thepresence
Table2:
Revise the Table 2. TPC and TFC values are not placed properly.
L300, 301:
Inphenolic, inphenolic
Line 342: “Values are the means of three replicates and standard deviations. Values with different superscripts differ significantly at P<0.05 (Tukey’s test).>…..” Keep the present title as a footnotes.
Table2: Keep the following as a footnotes
“Values are the means of three replicates and standard deviations. Values with different superscripts differ significantly at……
L 364: stresseffects
L382” Studies are needed???????
L390: Keep the following as a footnotes.
“Data represent the mean ± standard deviation of three independent assays. Values with different superscripts significantly differ (P< 0.05) for correlation coefficients between total phenolic content (TPC)/total flavonoid content (TFC) and IC50 values for LOX and AChE activities.”
Author Response
Response to the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript:
“Graded moisture deficit effect on secondary metabolites, antioxidant and inhibitory enzyme activities in leaf extracts of Rosa damascena Mill. var. trigentipetala”
Written by Hessini et al. (2022)
Submitted to Horticulturae (ISSN 2311-7524), MDPI
Manuscript No.: horticulturae-1587835
- First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. As suggested by the reviewer, we thoroughly and carefully revised and updated the manuscript according to the reviewer valuable comments as mentioned below point by point. Moreover, an expert on the topic to improve its content from both scientific and grammatical points of view has reviewed the manuscript. In this context, we sent the revised manuscript to MDPI Professional English Editing Service to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors. The certificate is attached below.
Reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #3:
The author of the manuscript “Graded moisture deficit effect on secondary metabolites, antioxidant and inhibitory enzyme activities in leaf extracts of Rosa damascena Mill” need to revise the manuscript due to numerous errors and problems in the research article.
Authors answer: Thank you for your positive evaluation and your comments, which contributed to improve the revised version of our manuscript.
Comment (1):
Line 37: atypical
41: Strong competition
Response (1): Spaces between words was rectified
Comment (2):
48: chain [5] [6].
Response (2): The appropriate form was used.
Comment (3):
Line 65: “isolated from different organs are”…. Which plant are you talking about?
Response (3): Done; the correspondent species was added in the main text “Rosa damascena Mill”
Comment (4):
Line 78: varieties will increase our
Line 91: with half-strength, uniform cuttings
Line: 104: placed in
L 108: were determined
Response (4): Spaces between words were rectified
Comment (4):
L113: absorbance for carotenoids is missing “663 and 645 nm for Chla, Chlb, and carotenoids, respectively”
Response (4): Done; please see line 124.
Comment (5):
L 141: write full form RE against the ABTS radical
Response (4): The full form was inserted; please see line 159-160
Comment (6):
L 177: Include country, city, make and model of all the instrument used in the expt.
Response (6): The country, city and the model of all instrument used in the experiment was included.
Comment (7):
Table 1: write new table 1 title. Keep the present title as footnotes.
Response (7): Done. The present title was kept as footnotes (as recommended)
Comment (8):
L244: the presence
Response (8): Spaces between words were added
Comment (9):
Table2: Revise the Table 2. TPC and TFC values are not placed properly.
Response (9): TPC and TFC values were properly placed in Table 2.
Comment (10):
L300, 301: Inphenolic, inphenolic
Response (10): Spaces between words were rectified
Comment (11):
Line 342: “Values are the means of three replicates and standard deviations. Values with different superscripts differ significantly at P<0.05 (Tukey’s test).>…..” Keep the present title as footnotes.
Response (11): The title « Values are the means of three replicates and standard deviations. Values with diffèrent superscripts differ significantly at P<0.05 (Tukey’s test) » was kept as a footnotes.
Comment (12):
Table2: Keep the following as footnotes “Values are the means of three replicates and standard deviations. Values with different superscripts differ significantly at……
Response (12): Done
Comment (13):
L 364: stress effects
Response (13): Done
Comment (14):
L382” Studies are needed???????
Response (14): The sentence was rewritten.
Comment (15):
L390: Keep the following as footnotes. “Data represent the mean ± standard deviation of three independent assays. Values with different superscripts significantly differ (P< 0.05) for correlation coefficients between total phenolic content (TPC)/total flavonoid content (TFC) and IC50 values for LOX and AChE activities.”
Response (15): Done
Once again, the authors are thankful to the Reviewer for providing us valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We hope that the reviewer will be satisfied with the updated version of the manuscript and recommend it for publication in Plant-Basil, MDPI.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
As the author of the manuscript revised the article carefully and responded to all queries with proper answers, the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
