Preliminary Studies on Suppression of Important Plant Pathogens by Using Pomegranate and Avocado Residual Peel and Seed Extracts
, Prodromos Skenderidis 1, Konstantinos Petrotos 1, Chrysanthi Mitsagga 2 and Ioannis Giavasis 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper addresses the Suppresion of Important Plant Pathogens by Using Pomegranate and Avocado wastes (Peel and Seed) Extracts.
The work in general is interesting, but the results need to be better described and discussed.
The following aspects should be taken into account in order to improve the quality of the paper:
Title: Please shorten the title if possible.
Material and methods:
- Briefly describe the extraction conditions and methods.
- Briefly describe the Well diffusion assay
- Line 95. Please indicate the meaning of PDB and MRD (line 110)?
- Tables. Replace , by . (english format).
- Line 121. Use the abbreviations the first time you write the words in the manuscript. Then just use the abbreviations. Except in the legends of figures and tables, you have to use both forms.
- Line 128-140: Please organize this for better understanding of the manuscript and work.
Results:
- The chemical characterization of the extracts obtained was forgotten in this work.
It would be important to provide simple information, for example the content in total phenolics (TPC) by the Folin-Ciocalteu method, for the isolated extracts and for the mixtures used. This would lead to a better validation and scientific interest of the work. Please take this into consideration. - Please include statistical representation in the graphs.
- Improve the quality of images in the document.
- The authors refer to the "control treatment" without the use of extract for the growth of microorganisms, correct? Please use the term 'control' and not 'control treatment'.
- Please indicate the meaning of + and - in table 8.
- Table 9, 10, 11: What do letters after numbers mean? This must be written in the footer of the tables.
- The designation of treatments in the tables should be improved. tables and graphs are very confusing for readers.
Discussion
- The results of this work must be compared directly with those reported in the discussion. The authors only report results from other authors without making a comparison with those obtained in this work.
In this sense, I recommend joining sections 3 and 4 for a better discussion of the results. - Line 435: what do you mean with " untreated methanolic extracts"?
- Line 442, 444: mg/ml
- Line 445: g/l
Conclusion:
Conclusions need to be improved.
Author Response
Dear editor,
First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.
REVIEWER 1
|
Reviewer 1 Comments |
Corrections |
|
The paper addresses the Suppresion of Important Plant Pathogens by Using Pomegranate and Avocado wastes (Peel and Seed) Extracts. The work in general is interesting, but the results need to be better described and discussed. The following aspects should be taken into account in order to improve the quality of the paper: |
Dear reviewer, thank you for the observations. The manuscript has been improved and we believe that now is meet the criteria for publication.
|
|
Title: Please shorten the title if possible. |
The title has not been changed in order to avoid any inconvenience
|
|
Material and methods:
|
Extraction methods and conditions has been briefly described. |
|
Well diffusion assay has been briefly described |
|
The meaning of PDB and MRD has been added |
|
, character has been replaced with . in tables 1 and 2 |
|
The appropriate abbreviations have been applied to the text. |
|
Lines 128-140 has been organized better |
|
Results:
|
Chemical characterization of the extracts has been presented in previous research work
«The In Vitro and In Vivo Synergistic Antimicrobial Activity Assessment of Vacuum Microwave Assisted Aqueous Extracts from Pomegranate and Avocado Fruit Peels and Avocado Seeds Based on a Mixtures Design Model Prodromos Skenderidis, Stefanos Leontopoulos, Konstantinos Petrotos, Chrysanthi Mitsagga and Ioannis Giavasis »
|
|
Graphs have been deleted since they were presented the same data information with the tables. In tables different letters presented the results of Tukey test and standard deviation is added.
|
|
Graphs have been deleted since they were presented the same data information with the tables. |
|
Thank you for the suggestion it has been changed. |
|
Meaning of + and – in table 8 has been added |
|
A meaning of the letters has been added to the footer of each table. |
|
Graphs have been deleted since they were presented the same data information with the tables. In tables different letters presented the results of Tukey test and standard deviation is added.
|
|
Discussion
|
Sections 3 and 4 has been joined |
|
It was corrected to methanolic extracts |
|
It is corrected |
|
It is corrected |
|
Conclusion: Conclusions need to be improved. |
Conclusion section has been improved |
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is a preliminary research of bacteriostasis. I have some suggestions for this manuscript.
1) The introduction is too brief, and it does not supply the enough information about the progress in bacteriostatic research of natural active substances
2) In the MM section, the description is too wordy and may confuse the readers. And why these five pathogens were selected?
3) In the results section, the figures are all the primary figures and the quality is too low. The descriptions of the results should be concise to provide the most important results, not supply all the results.
4)In conclusion, which mixture combination is the best?
Author Response
Dear editor,
First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.
REVIEWER 2
|
Reviewer 1 Comments |
Corrections |
|
This manuscript is a preliminary research of bacteriostasis. I have some suggestions for this manuscript.
|
Dear reviewer thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions |
|
1) The introduction is too brief, and it does not supply the enough information about the progress in bacteriostatic research of natural active substances
|
Introduction has been improved. New references have been added. |
|
2) In the MM section, the description is too wordy and may confuse the readers. And why these five pathogens were selected?
|
Unfortunately, this suggestion is not in accordance with the other reviewer who suggested to describe better some material and methods. These pathogens were selected due to their importance as important plant pathogens on tomato plants and their growth under field and laboratory conditions. AS we mentioned in the title this is a preliminary research study and more plant pathogens will be included in future work.
|
|
3) In the results section, the figures are all the primary figures and the quality is too low. The descriptions of the results should be concise to provide the most important results, not supply all the results.
|
Graphs have been deleted since they were presented the same data information with the tables. In tables different letters presented the results of Tukey test and standard deviation is added. Only the most important results are presented.
|
|
4)In conclusion, which mixture combination is the best?
|
Conclusion section has been improved |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was improved taking into account the reviewers' suggestions.
Some comments:
- Line 66: Pay attention to the format of references " [17-22)"
- Line 66-68: This sentence should be improved. "Thus, the extraction technologies for the production of bioactive compounds from rich in bioactive compounds such as pomegranate have been highlighted"
- Use the abbreviations the first time you write the words in the manuscript. Then just use the abbreviations. e.g. Line 113 (PDA)
- The results should be discussed point by point when analyzing the results. In this way the manuscript will be improved. On the other hand, the chemical composition results (previously published) should be clearly described to better understand the antifungal activity results.
- Some of the values in the tables continue with , instead of . (table 9)
- Decimal values must be reviewed and standardized for all tables.
- in vivo and in vitro should be in italics. Please review this in the document.
Author Response
Dear editor,
First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.
REVIEWER 1
|
Reviewer 1 Comments |
Corrections |
|
Τhe manuscript was improved taking into account the reviewers' suggestions. Some comments:
|
|
|
Line 66: Pay attention to the format of references " [17-22)"
|
It has been corrected |
|
Line 66-68: This sentence should be improved. "Thus, the extraction technologies for the production of bioactive compounds from rich in bioactive compounds such as pomegranate have been highlighted"
|
The sentence has been re-phrased |
|
Use the abbreviations the first time you write the words in the manuscript. Then just use the abbreviations. e.g. Line 113 (PDA)
|
Abbreatiation has been included |
|
The results should be discussed point by point when analyzing the results. In this way the manuscript will be improved. On the other hand, the chemical composition results (previously published) should be clearly described to better understand the antifungal activity results.
|
Results comparison from a previous study have been added. Also new reference has been added to the reference list. There was an effort to discuss results point by point. |
|
Some of the values in the tables continue with , instead of . (table 9)
|
, has been replaced with . in tables 3, 9 and 11 |
|
Decimal values must be reviewed and standardized for all tables.
|
Decimal values have been applied and standardized for all tables |
|
in vivo and in vitro should be in italics. Please review this in the document. |
It has been corrected |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors had addressed all the comments and I have no questions about this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear editor,
First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript.
REVIEWER 2
|
Reviewer 1 Comments |
Corrections |
|
The authors had addressed all the comments and I have no questions about this manuscript.
|
Dear reviewer thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
