Photosynthetic Efficiency in Green Bean Plants through the Application of Omeprazole and Melatonin at Low Doses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitle: Does omeprazole and melatonin enhance photosynthetic efficiency in bean plants? is interesting in bring evidence of chemical signaling role in human/mammals may also impact plant growth. Indeed, I suggest that the authors explore in details this fact in both: introduction and discussion.

However, the major concerning is related to statistical analysis. I mean, many figures shown overlapping of standard deviation (e.g. fig4, fig 5 and 9). Therefore, I strong suggest a carefully look in ANOVA and statistical analysis of all figures. Although not usual, i recommend that authors provide ANOVA results (tables) in supplemental data.

Therefore, I have some reservation in accept the ms in current form.

Author Response

Dear Editor, Ms. Emeline Chen

 

Please find enclosed one copy of the review manuscript and the original version of paper entitled: “Does omeprazole and melatonin enhance photosynthetic efficiency in bean plants?”. (Manuscript ID: ijpb-2600331). First of all, I would like to thank reviewers 1, 2 and 3 for their constructive and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for having had the opportunity to submit the revised paper for reconsideration for publication. Below is a point-by-point response detailing the changes introduced in the new version of the paper.

 

Reviewer 1

Point 1. Following the suggestion of reviewer 1, the analysis of variance and the results of the mean separation tests were added as supplementary material, where the minimum significant value confirms the differences between treatments in Figures 4, 5 and 9.

 

Reviewer 2

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, the title was corrected to "Photosynthetic efficiency in green bean plants through the application of omeprazole and melatonin at low doses" to highlight the novelty and the main results obtained in the study.

Point 2. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, a brief sentence was added highlighting the importance of the bean crop in the study. Lines 14-15.

Point 3. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, two references were added about the importance of the cultivation of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and the reason why it is necessary to perform the research using this plant as a specimen. Lines 33-38.

Point 4. In line 13, environmental conditions were substituted to climate change.

Point 5. In line 20 "Non" was changed to "non".

Point 6. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, the keywords were reconsidered to important terms used in the paper. Lines 28-29.

Point 7. Information was added on the knowledge gap and on the reasons why the study was conducted on bean plants. In addition, a section was added for the beneficiaries of the results obtained. Lines 65-75.

Point 8. References were added to studies concerning the effects of melatonin application on the improvement of nutrient use efficiency, root structure, photosynthetic efficiency, and carbon metabolism. Lines 51 and 55.

Point 9. Crop management was replaced by plant materials and growing conditions. Line 78.

Point 10. Details were added about the size of the pots used, the name of the standard solution and the company from which the seeds used in the study were obtained. Lines 79-91.

Point 11. The use of fresh pods as a yield parameter was detailed. For this variety, it is common to consume the pod without extracting the grain, so expressing yield by fresh pod weight can be a good indicator of yield. Lines 123-124.

Point 12. Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 were combined in one section called Plant biomass and yield measurement. Line 113.

Point 13. Figures 6 and 9 were removed.

Point 14. The last sentence in the conclusion section was removed to the discussion section at the end.

Point 15. The redaction was reconsidered in the discussion attachment. Lines 428-438.

 

Reviewer 3

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, a citation was added to highlight the most recent work on the use of human neurotransmitters in plants. Lines 421-423.

 

Having made these corrections, we hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the International Journal of Plant Biology (ISSN 2311-7524). If you have any further suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr. Esteban Sánchez

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors studied the effects of foliar application of melatonin and omeprazole on photosynthetic efficiency of bean plants. In general, the study is interesting, relevant and the results will be of interest to readers. However, the paper presentation must be significantly improved.

Here are some suggestions to enhance the paper presentation:

Title. The title should be reconsidered. The Title should summarize and concisely describe the main (novel) result of your study. For example, in Figure 9, a graphical abstract is presented with a title that may also be suitable as the main title: 'Improving Photosynthetic Efficiency in Phaseolus vulgaris Plants through the Application of Omeprazole and Melatonin at Low Doses’.

Abstract. Firstly, the importance of Phaseolus vulgaris should be indicated in one sentence. Then, it is also should be indicated why it is so important to improve bean production? Also, it is not clear, what do you mean when you write environmental conditions? stresses? But in the current study, no experiments under stress conditions.

Line 19. Change “Non-“ to “non”.

Keywords. Should be reconsidered.

Introduction. Introduction should also include information about Bean plants. Why did you used bean as a model plant? Provide a clear and concise overview of the importance and relevance of studying the effects of melatonin and omeprazole on photosynthetic efficiency in bean plants. Clearly state the research objectives and the gap in knowledge that the study aims to address.

Line 48. Include some references on MEL studies as well.

Line 50. Here, additionally should be included some reference regard to OMP studies.

Materials and Methods. The structure should be reconsidered.

Subsection 2.1. Instead of “Crop management “ use “Plant materials and growth conditions”.

Line 73. From where did you get the seeds? It should be indicated.

Line 74. Indicate size of pots (i.e., length, width and height in cm) (cm x cm x cm).

Line 76. Is there a common name for this standard solution? and what concentration?

Line 78. Use “pH 6.0 ± 0.1 “ instead of “6.0 ± 0.1 pH”.

Line 85. Why did you used exactly these concentrations of MEL and OMP?  it is necessary to justify the choice of these concentrations, or provide a reference to the literature with such justification, if any.

Line 91. Commercial tablets of what? MEL and OMP?  Give detailed information.

Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 can be combined in one common section Assessment of plant biomass and yield. Also, give a reference on the methods of plant weight and yield measurements.

Lines 114-115. Did you used plant fresh biomass as plant yield parameter? What about bean grains? Did you analyze how OMP and MEL treatments influence on bean grain yield? If you did not analyze grains, it is not exactly correct to use plants final fresh biomass as yield parameter? Reconsider please.

Results and Discussion. Figures 3-5, 7, 8. Check the word “Bioestimulant”

Lines 196-199. Grain yield? or final total fresh weight of plants? reconsider.

Figure 6 represented a commonly known information. In my opinion, this figure would be more suitable for a review article rather than an experimental one.

Figure 9. I recommend to use this Figure as graphical abstract of this paper.

Conclusion should be revised. It should be more concise and cover the main results. Summarize the main findings of the study and their significance. Emphasize the novelty and potential impact of the results.

Lines 437-441. This sentence may be replaced, and used for example, in the last paragraph of the results and discussion section (Line 421).

 

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor, Ms. Emeline Chen

 

Please find enclosed one copy of the review manuscript and the original version of paper entitled: “Does omeprazole and melatonin enhance photosynthetic efficiency in bean plants?”. (Manuscript ID: ijpb-2600331). First of all, I would like to thank reviewers 1, 2 and 3 for their constructive and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for having had the opportunity to submit the revised paper for reconsideration for publication. Below is a point-by-point response detailing the changes introduced in the new version of the paper.

 

Reviewer 1

Point 1. Following the suggestion of reviewer 1, the analysis of variance and the results of the mean separation tests were added as supplementary material, where the minimum significant value confirms the differences between treatments in Figures 4, 5 and 9.

 

Reviewer 2

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, the title was corrected to "Photosynthetic efficiency in green bean plants through the application of omeprazole and melatonin at low doses" to highlight the novelty and the main results obtained in the study.

Point 2. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, a brief sentence was added highlighting the importance of the bean crop in the study. Lines 14-15.

Point 3. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, two references were added about the importance of the cultivation of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and the reason why it is necessary to perform the research using this plant as a specimen. Lines 33-38.

Point 4. In line 13, environmental conditions were substituted to climate change.

Point 5. In line 20 "Non" was changed to "non".

Point 6. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, the keywords were reconsidered to important terms used in the paper. Lines 28-29.

Point 7. Information was added on the knowledge gap and on the reasons why the study was conducted on bean plants. In addition, a section was added for the beneficiaries of the results obtained. Lines 65-75.

Point 8. References were added to studies concerning the effects of melatonin application on the improvement of nutrient use efficiency, root structure, photosynthetic efficiency, and carbon metabolism. Lines 51 and 55.

Point 9. Crop management was replaced by plant materials and growing conditions. Line 78.

Point 10. Details were added about the size of the pots used, the name of the standard solution and the company from which the seeds used in the study were obtained. Lines 79-91.

Point 11. The use of fresh pods as a yield parameter was detailed. For this variety, it is common to consume the pod without extracting the grain, so expressing yield by fresh pod weight can be a good indicator of yield. Lines 123-124.

Point 12. Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 were combined in one section called Plant biomass and yield measurement. Line 113.

Point 13. Figures 6 and 9 were removed.

Point 14. The last sentence in the conclusion section was removed to the discussion section at the end.

Point 15. The redaction was reconsidered in the discussion attachment. Lines 428-438.

 

Reviewer 3

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, a citation was added to highlight the most recent work on the use of human neurotransmitters in plants. Lines 421-423.

 

Having made these corrections, we hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the International Journal of Plant Biology (ISSN 2311-7524). If you have any further suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr. Esteban Sánchez

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is  conscienttious work in traditional style  for plant regulations. It may be published in the journal. In the end of the discussion one may recommend to include references on some publications from collective book "Neurotransmitters in Plants: Problems and Perspectives" CRC Press, 2019, where are  more complete literature  dealt with melatonin functions : Erland L. and Saxena P,; Arnao M.D. and  Hernandez-Ruiz; Pelagio-Flores R et al. It helps to widen  the problem look, does not limit only  the crop significance.

Is it  possible ( even in few references at the end shortly) to compare the melatonin effects on photosynthetic activity with other neurotransmitters ? 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor, Ms. Emeline Chen

 

Please find enclosed one copy of the review manuscript and the original version of paper entitled: “Does omeprazole and melatonin enhance photosynthetic efficiency in bean plants?”. (Manuscript ID: ijpb-2600331). First of all, I would like to thank reviewers 1, 2 and 3 for their constructive and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for having had the opportunity to submit the revised paper for reconsideration for publication. Below is a point-by-point response detailing the changes introduced in the new version of the paper.

 

Reviewer 1

Point 1. Following the suggestion of reviewer 1, the analysis of variance and the results of the mean separation tests were added as supplementary material, where the minimum significant value confirms the differences between treatments in Figures 4, 5 and 9.

 

Reviewer 2

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, the title was corrected to "Photosynthetic efficiency in green bean plants through the application of omeprazole and melatonin at low doses" to highlight the novelty and the main results obtained in the study.

Point 2. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, a brief sentence was added highlighting the importance of the bean crop in the study. Lines 14-15.

Point 3. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, two references were added about the importance of the cultivation of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and the reason why it is necessary to perform the research using this plant as a specimen. Lines 33-38.

Point 4. In line 13, environmental conditions were substituted to climate change.

Point 5. In line 20 "Non" was changed to "non".

Point 6. As a suggestion of reviewer 2, the keywords were reconsidered to important terms used in the paper. Lines 28-29.

Point 7. Information was added on the knowledge gap and on the reasons why the study was conducted on bean plants. In addition, a section was added for the beneficiaries of the results obtained. Lines 65-75.

Point 8. References were added to studies concerning the effects of melatonin application on the improvement of nutrient use efficiency, root structure, photosynthetic efficiency, and carbon metabolism. Lines 51 and 55.

Point 9. Crop management was replaced by plant materials and growing conditions. Line 78.

Point 10. Details were added about the size of the pots used, the name of the standard solution and the company from which the seeds used in the study were obtained. Lines 79-91.

Point 11. The use of fresh pods as a yield parameter was detailed. For this variety, it is common to consume the pod without extracting the grain, so expressing yield by fresh pod weight can be a good indicator of yield. Lines 123-124.

Point 12. Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 were combined in one section called Plant biomass and yield measurement. Line 113.

Point 13. Figures 6 and 9 were removed.

Point 14. The last sentence in the conclusion section was removed to the discussion section at the end.

Point 15. The redaction was reconsidered in the discussion attachment. Lines 428-438.

 

Reviewer 3

Point 1. As suggested by reviewer 3, a citation was added to highlight the most recent work on the use of human neurotransmitters in plants. Lines 421-423.

 

Having made these corrections, we hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the International Journal of Plant Biology (ISSN 2311-7524). If you have any further suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr. Esteban Sánchez

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made all nesessary modifications and improved the paper presentation.