Use of Liquid Culture with the ElecTIS Bioreactor for Faster Recovery of Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L.) Shoots from Conservation at 4 °C
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted after minor revision. The work describes the performance of plants propagated in a new type of temporary immersion bioreactor (ElecTIS) compared with the traditional semi-solid gelled medium. The experimental design and interpretation of results were sound. Overall, this is a good piece of work that will contribute to the body of knowledge on micropropagation using bioreactors. A few minor suggestions are outlined in the attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please refer to the attached document for details of some recommended suggestions.
Author Response
Authors would like the thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the manuscript, also we thank them for the revision. Every correction was valuable and were revised carefully. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer has been attached below, and the corrections have been highlighted in the text.
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor and author
This is an interesting review article about the investigation of “Use of liquid culture with the ElecTIS bioreactor for faster recovery of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L.) shoots from the conservation at 4°C.”. I think that it can be useful for the research in the field. The abstract abides by all the editing instructions and presents clear the objectives of the study.
However, there are some major observations:
1. Please, the title needs to be changed
2. Rewrite it to emphasize the importance of your research in Conclusions.
Detail
- Table : Data representation needs to be unified. For example, FW and DW were presented as standard deviations, while other traits were represented by ANOVA.
- Mention any references to treating phytohormones (BA, etc.) or reasons in Discussions.
- Did your research group develop the bioreactor? It needs to be mentioned.
- Add the IT number or variety name of the resource you used for your study. If it's a breeding line, add a description of the breeding line and generation.
- Uniformity of terms is needed. For example, 3 weeks or 24 days
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some sentences are imprecise in their wording
Author Response
Authors would like the thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the manuscript, also we thank them for the revision. Every correction was valuable and were revised carefully. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer has been attached below, and the corrections have been highlighted in the text.
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors presented the advantages of blackberry micropropagation in ElecTIS bioreactors, after slow growth storage, with very clearly presented data. The results are valuable, practically applicable and are worth publishing. However, certain clarifications are needed in Materials and methods.
The authors should pay attention to the following questions/observations:
144. Please explain better „small shoot clusters”! What does it mean? How long shoots, how many of them in cluster?
210. “For each cultivar, each experiment was repeated a minimum of 3 times.” Explain what repetition is to you! Do you mean three bioreactors/glass jars or three consecutive subcultivations?
153. Please explain better methodology of rooting! You say that you cut the shoots into 0.5 cm long segments. Did you separate shoots before? For example, you have a huge cluster as on Figure 2 f. How did you prepare small segments? How many such small segments did you put in each bioreactor/glass jar? Can you add a photo of that initial rooting stage in Fig 4?
Author Response
Authors would like the thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the manuscript, also we thank them for the revision. Every correction was valuable and were revised carefully. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer has been attached below, and the corrections have been highlighted in the text.
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
