Enhancing the Growth Performance, Cellular Structure, and Rubisco Gene Expression of Cadmium Treated Brassica chinensis Using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis Extracts
, Md. Tajol Faeiz Md. Tajudin 1, Ali Majrashi 2, Mekhled Mutiran Alenazi 3, Noor Afiza Badaluddin 1, Ahmad Faris Mohd Adnan 4, Normaniza Osman 4 and Khamsah Suryati Mohd 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research article entitled: “Enhancing the growth performance and Rubisco gene expression of Brassica chinensis (Pak Choi) planted in Cd-contaminated soil using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis extracts” investigates the significance of two microbial strains to mitigate the Cd stress and improved crop production under Cd-contaminated soil. The overall contents discussed in this review are reasonable and sound. However, there are a few suggestions needed to incorporate to improve the quality of this manuscript. I, therefore, suggest a major revision for this manuscript.
Abstract section:
Authors are advised to improve the quality of the abstract section; please underscore the scientific value added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did, and what you found and recommended. Moreover, the abstract needs careful reading and should depict significant results precisely. It should have a more substantial concluding sentence. Please conclude your abstract section by mentioning future strategies and recommendations.
Introduction section:
1. Authors should mention that various strategies (physical, chemical, and biological) have been used to mitigate the Cd stress in plants (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.773815), (please mention their demerits), and then authors explain the facts with reason that why they select the application of Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis extracts as a suitable option to mitigate Cd stress in Pak Choi. Please justify.
2. Initials line should be supported by recent references (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.773815)
3. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Discuss the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? Please note that the paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and study novelty.
4. The introduction section is abrupt and background information is scattered. It lacks systematic layering and connectivity between the sentences as well as paragraphs.
5. What are the objectives of this study?
6. What was the hypothesis of this study?
Materials and methods
1. Please mention the cultivar name used for this study.
2. How many seeds were grown in one pot?
3. Line 210, please mention the details about the instrument (Model name, company name, city, and country)
Results
1. Authors are advised to present the results in figures form, not in tables
2. Please explain the abbreviations present in tables or figures (in footnotes)
3. Please mention the scale of SEM figures
4. Authors are advised to add PCA analysis to enhance the quality of data presentation
Discussion
1. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review.
2． One way of improving the Discussion is to avoid the repetition of results in this part. Discussion is very shallow and needs in-depth discussion with the recent literature published. In discussion, there is a lack of mechanistic approach.
3. Delete too old citations from the discussion section
Conclusion section
The conclusion is generic and fails to improve the existing knowledge base. The conclusions can still be improved by analyzing where the current work on adsorbents is focused, what are the remaining gaps in the literature and where more research should be conducted. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning compared with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. Limitations in the suggested approach should be discussed in the conclusions section. Please add future work as well.
A professional edition should edit the language of this manuscript.
Moderate editing of English language is required
Author Response
Responses to reviewer:
Horticulturae, MDPI
Manuscript title: Enhancing the Growth Performance, Cellular Structure and Rubisco Gene Expression of Cadmium Treated Brassica chinensis using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis Extracts
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We have made corrections to our manuscript, according to your comments and suggestions. All the corrections are highlighted with blue color on the revised manuscript. These are listed below;
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This research article entitled: “Enhancing the growth performance and Rubisco gene expression of Brassica chinensis (Pak Choi) planted in Cd-contaminated soil using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis extracts” investigates the significance of two microbial strains to mitigate the Cd stress and improved crop production under Cd-contaminated soil. The overall contents discussed in this review are reasonable and sound. However, there are a few suggestions needed to incorporate to improve the quality of this manuscript. I, therefore, suggest a major revision for this manuscript.
√ Thank you for the comments
Abstract section:
Authors are advised to improve the quality of the abstract section; please underscore the scientific value added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did, and what you found and recommended. Moreover, the abstract needs careful reading and should illustrate significant results precisely. It should have a more substantial concluding sentence. Please conclude your abstract section by mentioning future strategies and recommendations.
√ We already improved the abstract according to your comments
Introduction section:
- Authors should mention that various strategies (physical, chemical, and biological) have been used to mitigate the Cd stress in plants (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.773815), (please mention their demerits), and then authors explain the facts with reason that why they select the application of Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis extracts as a suitable option to mitigate Cd stress in Pak Choi. Please justify.
√ The strategies of Cd mitigation have been included as suggested and justification of using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis has been justified.
- Initials line should be supported by recent references (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.773815)3. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Discuss the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? Please note that the paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and study novelty.
√ The recent references are added in the introduction and some changes has been made as highlighted in blue font
- What are the objectives of this study?
The objective of this study has been explained in introduction section
- What was the hypothesis of this study?
The hypothesis of this study has been elaborated in the last section of introduction.
Materials and methods
- Please mention the cultivar name used for this study.
The cultivar name used for this study has been added to the study
- How many seeds were grown in one pot?
The number of seedlings has been mentioned in the materials and methods section.
- Line 210, please mention the details about the instrument (Model name, company name, city, and country)
The details of instrument has been added as suggested.
Results1.
- Authors are advised to present the results in figures form, not in tables2.
√ The manuscript consists of 10 figures. So, we presented growth parameters in table. Too many figures in manuscript may be look messy. Thanks for the comments.
- Please explain the abbreviations present in tables or figures (in footnotes).
Abbreviations of treatments involved have been added.
- Please mention the scale of SEM figures 4.
The scale for each figure of SEM studies has been added as suggested
- Authors are advised to add PCA analysis to enhance the quality of data presentation
√ We tried to present data clearly and easily readable. Another reviewer did not ask for PCA analysis. Thank you for your comments. We will try to follow your comments in our future research and publication.
Discussion
- In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review.
√ Discussion has been edited with additional justification from recent study as recommended.
- Delete too old citations from the discussion section
√ The old citations has been replaced by latest and recent citations.
Conclusion section
The conclusion is generic and fails to improve the existing knowledge base. The conclusions can still be improved by analyzing where the current work on adsorbents is focused, what are the remaining gaps in the literature and where more research should be conducted. Limitations in the suggested approach should be discussed in the conclusions section. Please add future work as well.
√ The conclusion section has been edited according your comments and suggestions.
A professional edition should edit the language of this manuscript. Moderate editing of English language is required
√ We checked and corrected minor grammatical mistakes. We think the standard of the language is suitable for the journal.
We resubmit the revised manuscript to the journal ‘horticulturae’. We look forward to your positive response.
Thank you & kind regards,
Corresponding author
Mohammad Moneruzzaman Khandaker, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Bioresources and Food Industry University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Campus Besut, Terengganu, Malaysia
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigated the potential of two algal extracts (Sargassum polycyctum and Spirulina platensis) in different doses and proportions as alleviators of Cd stress and mechanisms involved in Cd toxicity and tolerance in Pak Choi. They assesed such parameters as: morphological parameters, chlorophyll a, b and carotenoid concentrations gas exchange as well as catalase, ascorbate peroxidase and peroxidase acitivities, malondialdehyde, proline and protein contents and others. I do find this work interesting and valuable. The Cd stress tolerance potential and mode of action of Sargassum polycyctum and Spirulina platensis extracts has not been widely researched, so this is new aspect in the paper. The manuscript is well written. There are only few issues which should be addressed before publishing.
Line 278 – I belive there is a mistake in equation 4
Line 298 – it should be capital letter at the beginning of the sentence
Line 373: I think it should be “There is no significant difference..”
Line 377 – according to the Table 3 100SS does not have the highest root dry weight
Line 387 – In this paragraph there is nothing about root dry weight, so the title should be changed
Lines 392 – 394 are repeated twice
Line 424 – rather „difference”
Figure 3 and Figure 4 - Figure captions should be rather below figures (as in Figures 1 and 2)
Figure 8 – the last picture is not described – I mean it should be probably 100SS
Line 671 – should be „compared to…”
Line 762 – should be „It often manifests…”
It seems to me that there are many unnecessary spacings in the beginning of new sentences: for example line 762, 776, 801……
English is fine, there are some small errors. Some of them I mentioned in my remarks
Author Response
Responses to reviewer:
Horticulturae, MDPI
Manuscript title: Enhancing the Growth Performance, Cellular Structure and Rubisco Gene Expression of Cadmium Treated Brassica chinensis using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis Ex-tracts
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We have made corrections to our manuscript, according to your comments and suggestions. All the corrections are highlighted with blue color on the revised manuscript. These are listed below;
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors investigated the potential of two algal extracts (Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis) in different doses and proportions as alleviators of Cd stress and mechanisms involved in Cd toxicity and tolerance in Pak Choi. They assessed such parameters as: morphological parameters, chlorophyll a, b and carotenoid concentrations gas exchange as well as catalase, ascorbate peroxidase and peroxidase activities, malondialdehyde, proline and protein contents and others. I do find this work interesting and valuable. The Cd stress tolerance potential and mode of action of Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis extracts has not been widely researched, so this is new aspect in the paper. The manuscript is well written. There are only few issues which should be addressed before publishing.
- Line 278 – I believe there is a mistake in equation 4
√ The equation has been corrected.
- Line 298 – it should be capital letter at the beginning of the sentence
√ The word “preparation” has been corrected to “Preparation”.
- Line 373: I think it should be “There is no significant difference..”
√ The word “different” has been corrected to “difference”
- Line 377 – according to the Table 3 100SS does not have the highest root dry weight
√ Table 2 illustrated shoot dry weight while Table 3 illustrated root dry weight
- Line 387 – In this paragraph there is nothing about root dry weight, so the title should be changed
√ Root dry weight has been explained in previous paragraph. The title for this paragraph has been changed as recommended.
- Lines 392 – 394 are repeated twice
√ The repeated sentence has been deleted.
- Line 424 – rather „difference”
√ The word “different” has been corrected to “difference”
- Figure 3 and Figure 4 - Figure captions should be rather below figures (as in Figures 1 and 2)
√ The caption position has been changed below the figure.
- Figure 8 – the last picture is not described – I mean it should be probably 100SS
√ The description has been added
- Line 671 – should be „compared to…”
√ The sentence has been corrected
- Line 762 – should be „It often manifests…”
√ The sentence has been corrected. We apologize for the mistake.
- It seems to me that there are many unnecessary spacings in the beginning of new sentences: for example line 762, 776, 801……
√ All spacing has been checked and corrected
- Comments on the Quality of English Language English is fine, there are some small errors. Some of them I mentioned in my remarks
√ We already correct the minor mistakes. Thank you for your comments and support.
We resubmit the revised manuscript to the journal ‘horticulturae’. We look forward to your positive response.
Thank you & kind regards,
Corresponding author
Mohammad Moneruzzaman Khandaker, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Bioresources and Food Industry University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Campus Besut, Terengganu, Malaysia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please write the hypothesis of this manuscript in past tense.
Overall the manuscript is much improve and now it is suitable for publication
minor english editing is still required
Author Response
Responses to reviewer:
Horticulturae, MDPI
Manuscript title: Enhancing the Growth Performance, Cellular Structure and Rubisco Gene Expression of Cadmium Treated Brassica chinensis using Sargassum polycystum and Spirulina platensis Extracts
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We have made corrections to our manuscript, according to your comments and suggestions. All the corrections are highlighted with blue color on the revised manuscript. These are listed below
Reviewer 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please write the hypothesis of this manuscript in past tense.
√ We have rewritten the hypothesis in past tense.
Overall the manuscript is much improve and now it is suitable for publication
√ Thank you for your kind support.
Minor English editing is still required
√ We already edited our manuscript with a native English speaker.
We resubmit the revised manuscript to the journal ‘horticulturae’. We look forward to your positive response.
Thank you & kind regards,
Corresponding author
Mohammad Moneruzzaman Khandaker, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Bioresources and Food Industry University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Campus Besut, Terengganu, Malaysia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
