Yeast Mixtures for Postharvest Biocontrol of Diverse Fungal Rots on Citrus limon var Eureka

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction provides a clear and concise overview of the importance of postharvest diseases in citrus species, the limitations of current chemical control methods, and the potential for biological control using yeasts. It presents the specific yeasts that have been identified as potential antagonists, as well as the advantages of using yeasts as biocontrol agents. It also highlights the importance of initial microbial antagonist concentrations and compatibility when developing mixed cultures. Additionally, the authors provided a brief review of the limited research on mixed microorganisms as biocontrol agents for citrus fruits. Finally, the introduction states the specific objectives of the research presented in the paper, which is to explore the use of different yeast genera in a lemon-based formulation and test their potential as a postharvest biocontrol product for Italian lemon fruits.

The methods employed in this experiment were sound and rigorous, ensuring both accuracy and precision in the data collected. The experiment was designed with careful consideration of potential confounding variables, and appropriate controls were implemented to minimize their impact on the results. Furthermore, the chosen statistical analyses were appropriate and robust, allowing for valid conclusions to be drawn from the data. Overall, the high quality of the experimental design and execution supports the reliability and validity of the findings presented.

The figures presented in the manuscript are of high quality and clarity, effectively conveying the data to the reader. The authors have employed appropriate statistical methods and analytical tools to interpret the data, resulting in logically sound and robust conclusions. The conclusions are fully supported by the evidence and arguments presented, and the authors have provided a thorough and comprehensive discussion of their findings. Overall, the data presentation and interpretation in this manuscript demonstrate a high level of rigor and scientific merit.

 

The current scientific literature regarding Citrus sp. and yeast mixtures is notably limited, and further investigation is warranted. The lack of research in this area presents an opportunity to advance our state of knowledge. 

 

The present article aligns well with the scope of this journal. It is likely to be of interest to readers of the journal. As such, this article represents a valuable contribution to the field and is a strong fit for publication.

 

While the article represents a valuable contribution to the field, the manuscript would benefit from further refinement of the English language. Addressing these language issues will improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. Therefore, once the necessary improvements have been made to the language, the manuscript will be well-suited for publication in this journal.

The manuscript could be further improved by enhancing the overall style and flow of the English language. It is recommended that the authors consider having the manuscript reviewed by a native speaker or a specialized language agency to enhance its fluency and ensure that it adheres to the standard conventions of academic writing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The research topic is very interesting, however manuscript scaffold such as English language is not enough to be published in the Journal. One of the main issues concerns selected isolates of both fungal pathogens and yeast antagonists; these were not fully identified at species level. Within each genus, species differ in secondary metabolites produced or in sensibility to compounds, therefore it would be needed identification at species level. “Materials and methods” are not fully described making protocol unclear, especially sections 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6. References are conformed each other’s, however, are not enough; few steps are lacking in references, particularly in the “Discussion”, where some claims are unsubstantiated. Concerning “Results”, these are roughly described, hence I suggest improving them both in the text and in the graphs, these last lack in standard deviation bars too. Generally, the whole manuscript discloses several oversights and English language is not consistent with Journal request, so I suggest major mother tongue revision. In my opinion the manuscript could be strongly improved to be suitable for publication, indeed I encourage authors to resubmit the paper after additional trials needed to fill the gaps. Hoping suggestions might be useful you can find them in the attached file.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language is not consistent with Journal request, it is poor and badly organized making difficult comprehension; hence I suggest major mother tongue revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes biocontrol effects of some yeast’s mixtures on post-harvest fungal rots of lemon. Even if, from my point of view, scientific impact is not so high, the work has interesting practical applications in post-harvest biocontrol of lemon since it identifies some yeasts mixtures that seem very effective in controlling post-harvest pathogenic fungi. Moreover, a lot of works tested single microorganisms for biocontrol but few works report studies on yeast mixtures.

The research design is correctly performed but I find that strains tested are few.

Statistical analyses have been performed but exposed in a superficial way (for example: Data showed a maximum standard deviation of 10% or less), to check if it is compatible with the journal policy.

I suggest that paper can be accepted after major revision of English that is sometimes hard to read. I highlight in the text major English criticism, but language must be revised by an English expert!

More comments and suggestions are given in the file attached.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I suggest that paper can be accepted after major revision of English that is sometimes hard to read. I highlight in the text major English criticisms, but language must be revised by an English expert!

More comments and suggestions are given in the file attached.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The work is interesting, but it is better to improve and clarify many important points as follows:

ABSTRACT:

L16: please mention as the other diseases the pathogen of Fusarium rot

L22: add parenthesis for H3A

Abstract should be improved, you can develop more your results in vitro and in vivo, and you finish your abstract with clear conclusion

Keyword: eleven keywords is too many, you can reduce and choose those that are representative

Introduction

L33: clear rot? Which is the pathogen?

For the pathogen Epicoccum sorghinum, the authors should explain more details in the introduction about this disease and why they isolated this pathogen from other crop and then they inoculated on citrus fruits did you do the pathogenicity test before?

Material and methods

L73: please mention the country

L78-84 explain well the method with temperature of incubation, the concentration applied for all fungi? why you choose this concentration 1x10⁵ spores/mL for all fungi?

Statistical analysis: please add the software used

For the figure 1 and table 2 you should add the standard deviation (very important)

Table 2: Radial growth rate inhibition (%) please add the analysis statistic and in the bottom of the table explain more the test of statistic used and number of replication

Days of storage change with days of incubation, and 180 day of incubation? Why? When were your control plates completely covered by the mycelia?

Discussion

In the discussion we should not details the results (e.g. not mention fig 1, table 2….). you should just discuss your main results

Conclusion

Please improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer # 4

We included your suggestions and corrections in the manuscript, you will find the specific changes highlighted in green in the corrected manuscript. The abstract and conclusion sections are verified that they contained all relevant information in a succinct and clear way, as we are aware that our work still requires the mechanistic/molecular explanation of the biocontrol and yeast interaction phenomena observed. Standard deviation bars were added to Fig. 1, and for Table 2, the standard deviation is so low, that we consider that explicitly including all the values in the rows will only make it harder to read without changing the relevance of the results.  Also in this table, we expanded the heading, for the reader to be certain of the shelf live data presented. 

We thank you for your meticulous review and the suggestions of information that we had omitted in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

As previously requested, all manuscript sections have been enhanced and a mother tongue review has been carried out, but there are still minor flaws (please see attached version). In my opinion the manuscript could be refine. All comments are available in the attached pdf.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2, thank you for providing us with very specific suggestions to improve our manuscript, you will find out the corrections made to the word document in review mode uploaded, and some are marked in yellow.

As for Fig. 1, we do agree that it was hard to read, so it was redrawn, as well as its caption, we hope that now it is clear and straightforward to interpret.

For the question about the meaning of Pichia/Meyerozyma, it was stated that way because recently the genus Pichia was allocated to Meyerozyma, but most of the literature about biocontrol can be found as Pichia guilliermondii.

About the use of italics, as a Spanish speaker, I agree with you, but the English language reviewer changed it, which is why the manuscript appeared that way, but I have reverted such suggestion to italics, as well as for the phrase "at al" 

Finally, for the figure of the lemons, we consider that adding an extra column to the figure will make it too hard to be seen, without adding further information, which is why we did not include it since the beginning.

We thank your suggestions and comments and hope that the reviewed manuscript is now clear, useful and interesting.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors made some corrections but they did not follow the majority of the corrections suggested, as in the abstract discussion and the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer # 4

We included your suggestions and corrections in the manuscript, you will find the specific changes highlighted in green in the corrected manuscript. The abstract and conclusion sections are verified that they contained all relevant information in a succinct and clear way, as we are aware that our work still requires the mechanistic/molecular explanation of the biocontrol and yeast interaction phenomena observed. Standard deviation bars were added to Fig. 1, and for Table 2, the standard deviation is so low, that we consider that explicitly including all the values in the rows will only make it harder to read without changing the relevance of the results.  Also in this table, we expanded the heading, for the reader to be certain of the shelf live data presented. 

We thank you for your meticulous review and the suggestions of information that we had omitted in the text.