Tolerance Screening for Phytophthora capsici and Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae in Cucurbita spp. and Gene Expression Responses in Mutant Families
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
I read your manuscript and I thank you for your contribution in the study area of contribution in the study area of Fusarium solani and Phytophthora capsici. There is an attached PDF version with comments and suggested changes. Therefore, I invite you to provide all these corrections in the entire body of the manuscript to make this study updated and strong enough to be accepted in Horticulturae.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your effort in the evaluation of this article. We have incorporated most of your suggestions as they are useful and will improve the understanding of the work. We hope that these changes will cover your enquiries.
Major suggestions have been related with results and methods presentation. We are aware that the manuscript is difficult to summarize and structure due to the diversity of each screening. In the graphical abstract and Table 1 we have tried to make it more comprehensible. All suggestions and changes from the reviewers about the methods and results presentation have been incorporated.
Please find attached the document with more specific changes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I know that describing multi-motifs research is not easy and difficult to present in a short paper. An important result was obtained, and the selected mutants can be used for further research on the nature of their resistance and in breeding work. Nevertheless, I must say that the manuscript is difficult to read and gives the impression to be messy.
Testing multiple genotypes is not logically related to testing mutants. Did the results of genotype testing influence their selection for mutagenic treatment? Probably not because the mutants come from earlier works (do I understand correctly?). I am advising to use the results with genotypes in another paper.
Below the tables, it is necessary to indicate which generation and for which pathogen they were tested; it would be easier for the reader to follow the results. Tables and figures should be self-explained.
Terms should be standardized and used consistently. For example, in tab. 1 the actors are named cultivars, although not all genotypes were cultivars, so perhaps better name them "genotypes „ or "accessions ".
In tab. 2 the description is in% but fractions are shown and consequently, percentages are in the text but not under the tables
In tab. 1, there is information that the testing of genotypes concerned only the radicals but in tab. 2 are the results of screening collected after 37 days.
Radicals test results for mutants are missing.
Discuss please, whether it makes sense to test on radicals, at least with the used inoculum concentration, if nothing survives.
My general point is to make the manuscript easier to read and understand.
It is difficult to understand Table A.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your effort in the evaluation of this article. We have incorporated most of your suggestions as they are useful and will improve the understanding of the work. We hope that these changes will cover your enquiries.
Major suggestions have been related with results and methods presentation. We are aware that the manuscript is difficult to summarize and structure due to the diversity of each screening. In the graphical abstract and Table 1 we have tried to make it more comprehensible. All suggestions and changes from the reviewers about the methods and results presentation have been incorporated.
Please find attached the document with more specific changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I read the revised version of the manuscript entitled: Tolerance screening for Phytophthora capsici and Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae in Cucurbita spp., and gene expression responses in mutant families (Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1591066 submitted to Horticulturae (R2). After reading the manuscript corrections, I noticed that many suggestions were accepted and included in the text, making it more complete and precise. I believe the manuscript has been improved however, I consider that the text still needs a general polish to accommodate the new sentences before being accepted for publication. The most important points, suggestions and comments (in red) are mentioned in the attachment Moderate English changes required; therefore, I invite the authors again to send the new version of the manuscript to a native speaker.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the quick response and the effort for this new round of revisions. All suggestions for changes have been incorporated and comments answered. The new modifications of the manuscript have been highlighted in red. We hope that this version has correctly incorporated your inquiries.
Also, the graphical abstract has been modified according to standard parameters.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for accepting some of my suggestions. Nevertheless, I still have some comments.
- You did not mention in the Introduction that 18 genotypes were tested and what the purpose of testing 18 genotypes was. In the abstract, there are no results of this test. Here is the occasion to show the linkage between these two motifs. For example: Because no resistant genotypes were found so tolerance among mutants was looked for.
- Line 98: still „varieties”. By the way, the term „variety” is reserved for natural populations (botanical) and „cultivar” for homogenous populations made in the breeding process. If there is a mix of cultivars and breeding lines, the term „genotype” is the most appropriate.
- 114: all experiments
- 134: genotypes, instead varieties
5.148: these are not the control genotypes (control for what ?), but the tested/screened genotypes,
6.150: mutant populations
7. 172: rather grown than developed in the greenhouse,
8. 216: genotypes instead of variety,
- 339: inoculated and non-inoculated ?
10. 444: should rather be: was found in the phenotype and gene expression, instead "sustained"
Author Response
We appreciate the quick response and the effort made again during this round of revisions. All suggestions for changes have been incorporated and comments answered. The new modifications of the manuscript have been highlighted in red. We hope that this version has correctly incorporated your inquiries.
Also, the graphical abstract has been modified according to standard parameters.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
