Influence of Suboptimal Temperature on Flower Quality and Floral Organ Development in Spray-Type Cut Rose ‘Pink Shine’
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS entitled “Influence of Sub-temperature on Flower Quality and Floral Organ Development in Spray-type Cut Rose ‘Pink Shine’ ” by Shin et al. reports the effects of sub-optimal temperatures (SOTs) on flower quality and floral organ development, taking the spray-type cut rose ‘Pink Shine’ as an example. The study presents that temperatures below 25/20°C could enhance flower quality through long and heavy stems, large- and thick colored petals and identifies that SOTs could increase the reproductive organs, especially the number of stamen and carpel, with the alterations in transcript level of genes related to floral organ development. The study first reports evidence of the positive influence of SOTs on quantity accumulation and floral organogenesis in spray-type cut rose.
Followings are my suggestions.
1. It is not entirely obvious to readers what the differences between standard-type and spray-type cut rose. Authors have to explain it better in the Introduction.
2. The significance of this study is not stated clearly in the Abstract.
3. The choice of keywords is not very accurate. For example, “low temperature” and “spray-type cut rose” should be listed among keywords.
4. The rationale for the choice of temperature for the four treatment groups needs to be elucidated in Materials and Methods.
5. Line 48, the citation format of literature is inconsistent.
6. The Introduction should include necessary background knowledge relevant to the experimental design. In this study, ABC genes seem to play vital roles during floral organ formation while spray-type cut rose suffering from low temperature environment. But the functions of these genes have not been fully described in Introduction.
7. Line 112, first word “The” might need to be deleted.
8. Line 130, please check whether “p = 0.05” should be changed to “p＜0.05”.
9. The figure notes of Figure 1 are not accurate enough. For example, “separated floral organs” need to specify which flower organs are.
10. Line 159, the use of word “Consequently” is confusing. Did the authors originally want to use the word “Consistently”?
11. The figure notes of Figure 3 are unclear statement. For example, full names of “DW” and “KK” need to be indicated. What x and y axes represent is not stated distinctly.
12. Line 210, the word “Espression” is misspelled.
13. The figure notes of Figure 4 are not accurate. For example, “temperature condition” need to be stated concretely. And in statistical analysis, description of “***” can be deleted.
14. Line 229, please check whether the word “Authors” is misplaced.
15. The delayed flowering caused by low temperature treatment causes a decline in annual productivity and brings challenges to the year-round supply of spray-type cut rose. How does this study contribute to this issue needs to be specifically discussed in the part of Discussion?
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
It was a pleasure to read your manuscript. "Influence of Sub-temperature on Flower Quality and Floral 2 Organ Development in Spray-type Cut Rose 'Pink Shine'".
I feel the manuscript should need a few changes as minor revisions based on the suggestions of the qRT-PCR and Figures in a clear presentation.
The manuscript is clear and well written with support of previous literature on the floral development of roses and the genes responsible for the development and also presented in a well-structured manner. All the citations are relevant and support the study. The manuscript is scientifically sound and contributes to the improvement of rose development and genetic engineering aspects. The work was designed well and executed with a scientific approach, all the results presented in reproducible, and the details given in the methods sections are appropriate. English writing is very clear and scientific understanding.
There are some areas for a few minor changes/suggestions to be considered.
Query 1:
Page 2: Lines 47-49
Already related work has been reported. What is the significance of your findings? and mention the importance of this work in your target rose variety.
Query 2:
Page no 3: Line no 116
RNA should be mentioned in ng or ug (microgram) as concentration, not uL.
The authors only mentioned the amount of RNA taken for the cDNA synthesis. Instead, RNA should be mentioned in ng or µg.
Query 3:
Page no 3: Line no 123-124
Clearly written, for QRT-PCR analysis, what's considered and calculated relative expression? CT / delta CT values? Also, mention here how the relative expression was calculated.
Query 4:
Page no 4: Figure 1
Figure 1 can be split and arranged one after another. Fig. A-E as 1a, B-F as 1b, C-G as 1c, D-H as 1d. In the present view, there is a lack of self-explanatory, and the rose petals were not clear in E-H.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Shin and his (her) colleagues evaluated the impact of SOTs (sub-optimal temperatures) on flower quality of cut Rose ‘Pink Shine’, moreover, the expressions of MADS-box genes involved in floral organ development were detected. The results introduced an interesting story about the reproductive strategy resulted from SOTs. I suggest to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
In scientific aspects, I have some comments:
1 The B-class gene RhAP3 was proved to be involved in petal and stamen development in Rose by Liu. Moreover, RhAP3 works together with RhPI to regulate floral development and organogenesis (Liu et al., 2018, Hortic Res. 5:25 ). Why the RhPI expression decreased, but the RhAP3 expression were unchanged even with the stamens numbers increased under SOTs. The authors should discuss more intensively in the discussion part.
2 The C-class MADS-box gene RhAG plays a key role involved in carpel development suggested by previous study (Kitahara K and Matsumoto S. 2000, Plant Sci. 151(2):121-134. ). Another paper suggested that low temperature induced the RhAG expression decreased and then resulted in petal number increased in rose with the petal number through an increased production of petaloid stamens (Ma et al., 2015, BMC Plant Biol. 15:237.). Why the RhAG expression was unchanged when the stamens and carpels increased significantly. The author should discuss intensively in the discussion part.
In language aspect:
1.Make sure that the Latin names of species are in italic format and Latin names of genus in the paper should be in abbreviation except the word first appeared in the paper.( Lines 274-275). There are only the examples. Please check the whole manuscript and correct them.
2. The underlines on the reference1, 2 and 5 should be deleted (Lines 324, 326, 332). Please check.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
