Next Article in Journal
Epidemiological Role of Dictyophara europaea (Hemiptera: Dictyopharidae) in the Transmission of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma solani’
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Relative Expression of Key Enzyme Genes and Enzyme Activity in Nitrogen Metabolic Pathway of Two Genotypes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under Different Nitrogen Supply Levels
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Pattern Analysis of the TCP Gene Family in Radish (Raphanus sativus L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Recent Advances in DNA Methylation and Their Potential Breeding Applications in Plants
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Cell Division Controls Final Fruit Size in Three Apple (Malus x domestica) Cultivars

Horticulturae 2022, 8(7), 657; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8070657
by Siti Khadijah A. Karim 1,*, Andrew C. Allan 2,3, Robert J. Schaffer 2,3 and Karine M. David 2
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Horticulturae 2022, 8(7), 657; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8070657
Submission received: 24 June 2022 / Revised: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 15 July 2022 / Published: 19 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is prepared on the current topic, but contains errors of a formal characters and methodological shortcomings (in the description of methods). I present my comments below:

Why are there already images of one's own material in the Introduction and actually the design of the experiment? Illogical!

- I have fundamental comments on the methodology. Isn't the stated age of the trees? Why are the specific times of the individual seasons not listed and are they anonymized? Why the first season of 3x less pollinated flowers (was there any technical problem that could skew the results?)? Chapter 2.3 provides a detailed description of RNA isolation, but isn't that true of qPCR itself? Is essential information about primers missing, whether own or foreign? Has a reaction efficiency test or product sequencing been performed to verify the target area? These are essential things without which the presented results of the study cannot be adequately evaluated.

- The actual structure of the results is also special, because a discussion chapter on the evaluation of the sequences of target areas is inserted, for example, but nothing is stated in the methodology, i.e. custom sequencing or data analysis procedure from database authors? This part must be discarded or complied with the methodology. Mainly not to discuss the results in the section when the discussion starts afterwards.

- The presentation of graphs is also problematic, e.g. Figure 3 deserves to be converted to some one SI unit on the Y-axis than the authors state. In the case of tracking the timeline, it would be better to present the trends of individual genotypes separately as a whole during all sampling days, this way you can see some trends, but it is more difficult to navigate!

- References section - pay attention to the correct writing of uppercase and lowercase letters of journals. In a similar way, writing uppercase and lowercase letters in the text. It is advisable to make a minor (careful) correction of the English to unify and to remove minor typos.

I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication after major revision and second review.

Author Response

Greetings,

I have done the corrections as per requested. Thank you for the help..

regards

Siti

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors compliments on a fascinating and very well-written manuscript.

I have only a few questions/suggestions.

'Pollen obtained from Granny Smith was used to hand-pollinate the flowers' why did you opt for this pollinator? Please add the information hereafter. 

'All pollination was performed before 11 a.m.' due to UV radiation I suppose? Also, add this information to explain this critical point further. 

'A total of 108 flowers were pollinated during Season 1, and 300 during Season 2.' why is there such discrepancy in flower number?

'RNA was extracted from frozen samples according to a protocol previously described for pine needles' Why this one, is there any closer related study for other fruit species, if not apples?

Please rename this chapter to fit results section:

3.1. Similar cell coverage area at before full bloom and at maturity suggest cell number influence in fruit size control

Lines 242-245 please rephrase to fit the results section, in the current form it is discussion. 

3.4. Phylogenetic analysis of CDK genes - a significant part of this section should be placed in the M&M section, and only presented as major results, in the corresponding section. Exclude all the references from the results section.

Please correct the conclusion section to be readable on a stand-alone basis... Which genes, in which phases, etc. 

Author Response

Greetings,

I have done the corrections as per requested. Thank you for the help..

regards

Siti

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors accepted most of the comments. The manuscript can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the manuscript improvements. 

Back to TopTop