Evaluation of Biocontrol Potential of Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas fluorescens UM270 against Postharvest Fungal Pathogens
, Ignacio A. Barajas-Barrera 1, Fannie I. Parra-Cota 2, Valeria Valenzuela-Ruiz 3, Sergio de los Santos-Villalobos 3, Pedro D. Loeza-Lara 4, Alejandra Herrera-Pérez 5, Ma. del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda 5,* and Gustavo Santoyo 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I believe that the authors responded to all comments and significantly improved the article. There are still some negligence in the design of the work, but they do not affect the overall level of the article
Author Response
R: Thank you very much for your comments. We have made some additional changes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I see that the authors improve the article than the previously version
Please added title for statistical analysis
all title of the table need to improve to reflect the results
do not add citation in the results e.g line 249-252
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and suggestions. We are answering as follows:
I see that the authors improve the article than the previously version
R: Thank you very much for your comments.
Please added title for statistical analysis
R: Thanl you for your suggestion. The title was added as suggested.
all title of the table need to improve to reflect the results
R: Thank you for your observation, ALL titles were improved accordingly. Changes are highlighted in the document.
do not add citation in the results e.g line 249-252
R: These references are important to highlight that these results were previously analyzed in an individual way. So, we would like to leave them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, Luzmaria R. Morales-Cedeño et al. evaluated in vitro four well-known PGPB strains (Pseudomonas fluorescens UM270, Bacillus toyonensis COPE52, Bacillus sp. E25, and B. thuringiensis CR71) for their biocontrol against nineteen postharvest fungal pathogens. By analysising of effect of PGPB diffusible compounds on fungal mycelial growth, effect of VOCs on the fungal mycelial growth, biocontrol assay on strawberries and grapes, and comparative analysis of the secondary metabolite biosynthesis gene clusters and produced VOCs, they found that the biocontrol activity of PGPB like Bacillus toyonensis COPE52, B. thuringiensis CR71, Bacillus sp. E25 and Pseudomonas fluorescens UM270 can be used to inhibit postharvest fungal pathogens. In all, this study is well designated and the potential PGPB strains and their metabolisms are natural biocontrol reagents to inhibit postharvest fungal pathogens. This article is valuable to be published in this journal, though some minor issues shoule be revised before acception.
1. Line 21, the full genus name of "B. thuringiensis CR71" should be given for the first time.
2. Line 89, the "201" should be deleted?
3. Line 181, what is XXX?
4. Line 185, grape s should be revised to grapes
Reviewer 2 Report
In Material and methods you need to write more detiales about the methods
What the source of the pathogen and how you identified it?
How many replicate you used ?
what the source of bioagents?
discussion part need to improve
you should added some results in abstract
Reviewer 3 Report
An article authored by Morales-Cedeño et al. is devoted to the investigation of the role of four bacterial strains in inhibiting the growth of pathogenic fungi on fruits after harvest. The relevance and practical significance of the work are great and detailed in the introduction and are not in doubt. However, there are a number of remarks about the work itself.
1. The title of the article "Biocontrol potential of plant growth-promoting bacteria against postharvest fungal pathogens" is very general and would be more appropriate for a review article.
2. Section 3.4 does not contain the results obtained by the authors in the course of this work, and should not be given in the Results section.
3. L. 181. “In addition, XXX” – you did not write the end of this section.
In addition, there are a number of minor remarks to the article.
L.89. Hernandez-Salmeron et. al., 201[13], - There is a mistake in the year of publication here.
L. 94. in vitro and in vivo should be written without a hyphen
L.101. May be it is better to say “the draft-genome” instead of “the draft of the genome”
The whole section Materials and Methods. Do not use points in the end of subtitle and use numbers.
L.132-134. This information is for introduction or discussion, not for Materials and Methods.
L. 185. Delete the space in the word “grapes”
L. 203. grapefruits or grapes?
L. 240. “and” between fungi genera should not be written in italic.
In general, I think that the article needs serious revision.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I have thoroughly reviewed your paper titled "Biocontrol potential of plant growth-promoting bacteria against postharvest fungal pathogens" and find the research topic emerges as a timely and significant subject that needs more attention. However, I would like to highlight an area that needs improvement in terms of clarity: Material and Methods section.
To enhance the overall clarity of your paper, and to make it suitable for publication, I recommend the following:
1. Provide a more comprehensive step-by-step description of the experimental procedures. This would help readers to visualize each stage of the study better and follow the methods with greater ease.
2. If you're building upon previous methodologies, be sure to reference them properly and explain any modifications or adaptations you've made for your study.
3. Clarity regarding the origins of the isolates, and strains of antagonistic fungi and pathogens employed in this study are required. Molecular characterization of pathogenic fungi isolated from fruits is needed.
4. I noticed that there is a paragraph, "Comparison of secondary metabolites biosynthesis gene clusters and VOCs", that discusses data originating from various works and articles. While I appreciate the intention behind its inclusion, I would like to suggest a reconsideration of its placement within this section.
5. A succinct yet informative introduction can effectively set the stage for your work while dedicating more space to the "Materials and Methods" and "Results" sections will allow readers to better understand the nuances of your experimental procedures and the significance of your outcomes.
I believe that refining the "Materials and Methods" will help to bring more clarity and strength to your paper.
Best regards,
To enhance the overall readability and impact of your paper, I recommend enlisting the assistance of a native English speaker who can help polish the text. This will not only improve the linguistic quality but also reinforce the professionalism and credibility of your research.
