Ultrastructure, CO2 Assimilation and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Kinetics in Photosynthesizing Glycine max Callus and Leaf Mesophyll Tissues
, Vishnu D. Rajput 1, Vasiliy Chokheli 1, Elizaveta Chalenko 1, Olga Yadronova 1, Tatyana Varduny 1, Vladimir Krasnov 3 and Tatyana Karaseva 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: horticulturae-2672811 can be improved further to get it published in Horticulturae.
l The aims of the study are not clear, please write clearly in the paper that how the current study findings will benefit on a large scale.
l Please improve the title of the manuscript, it’s not clearly written and has grammatical errors.
l Please add concluding statement with practical application of work at the end of abstract.
l Keywords need to be revised; moreover, avoid repetition of words in the title as well as in keywords.
l Add the formula used to determine chlorophyll a and b levels.
l Experimental design and Statistical analysis have not been described adequately.
l Data analysis section does not show whether you repeated experiments? If yes, then how did the authors handle data from repeated experiments?
l In figures captions, “Clycine max” should be “Glycine max”.
l Please correct “semithin” as “semi- thin”
l Figure 4, please correct “CO2” as “CO2”.
l Discussion section needs to be observed very carefully. There is a lot of information that was repeated in the Results. Comparison with other studies should preferably be with articles related to the current study.
l L#268-273 need restructuring of the sentence.
l The statement “We previously observed (not shown) the two-step --------------Morusnigra, Ficus benjamina, Ailanthus altissima.” need to be revised.
l The statement “The authors proposed that it may be r-------------temporal activation of C3 cycle (fast) and C4 cycle (slow)” need more elaboration.
l Conclusion section failed to enlighten the spirit of the findings and is missing the results. Revise it precisely.
l It is suggested not to begin the sentence with the abbreviation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is an interesting read. It is a clear and concise presentation and interpretation of a well-planned set of experiments. I only have few minor comments listed below.
G. max appears first in line 88 but is introduced in line 100, please reverse this.
Please introduce PPFD.
Sleaf I mentioned in line 141, but is neither introduced, nor used anywhere else, please fix this.
Fig 3 A and B are not sufficiently good in resolution to support statements in lines 217-220. If the loss of resolution happened during image processing please provide original higher resolution images.
Line 222 should be respectively instead of accordingly.
Table 1: f should be in superscript.
Lines 271 and 273, please chose a different style for 1st and 2nd, unless the journal specifically requests this style.
Line 320 led -> lead?
Thank you for the nice work!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageG. max appears first in line 88 but is introduced in line 100, please reverse this.
Please introduce PPFD.
Sleaf I mentioned in line 141, but is neither introduced, nor used anywhere else, please fix this.
Fig 3 A and B are not sufficiently good in resolution to support statements in lines 217-220. If the loss of resolution happened during image processing please provide original higher resolution images.
Line 222 should be respectively instead of accordingly.
Table 1: f should be in superscript.
Lines 271 and 273, please chose a different style for 1st and 2nd, unless the journal specifically requests this style.
Line 320 led -> lead?
Author Response
Plese see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper "Ultrastructure, CO2 Assimilation and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Kinetics in the Photosynthesizing Glycine max Callus and Leaf Tissues" is well prepared, coherently written, with a good quality illustration.
In what follows, I will present some observations, which I ask the authors to take into account, in order to improve the quality of their manuscript.
In the introductory part, a short explanation must be included for the choice of the species on which the experiments were carried out - Glycine max; this is a crop plant, without horticultural interest. That's why the choice must be explained, in order to emphasize the connection with the aim of the journal, Horticulture.
Rows 13-15 - the statement is too general, it does not belong to the Abstract. It can be inserted in the Introduction.
Rows 18-22: please check this fragment "cytoplasm sequestration, rupture of the vacuolar membrane, delamination of the cytoplasm from the cell wall and targeting of organelles (including chloroplasts) into vacuoles." - it appears identically in Abstract, Results and Conclusions. The passage must be reformulated, the Abstract and the Conclusions must not take identical passages from the Results.
Rows 22-23 the same observation is valid for the fragment "Having a one-step CO2 assimilation kinetics, photosynthesis in calluses differed from photosynthesis in leaves, which had a two-step CO2 assimilation kinetics." It can be found identically in the Conclusions. The passage must be reformulated.
Rows 99-100: in the "Plant material and tissue culture" chapter, the origin and variety of soybean used in the experiment must be specified (especially in the case of this species, of which there are over 2,500 cultivated varieties, which certainly possess structural and functional peculiarities). Without these specifications, the reproducibility of the results cannot be ensured.
Rows 217-219: I noticed in the Results chapter clarifications related to the different number of thylakoids in the chloroplasts coming from the compact callus compared to those from the mesophyll. Can you discuss these differences? I also did not find any reference to the starch granules in the chloroplasts, which seems visible in the photos.
Row 234 - Also, in Figure 3 A and B, the plastid envelope is not visible (perhaps only weakly, in some places). How do you explain this?
Row 235 - "C, F, I – mesophyll cells" - please specify if it is palisade parenchyma cells (including in the explanations in the text). Analyzing the semithin sections, it seems that these are palisade cells, but it must be clearly stated in the text. A comparative analysis with cells from spongy parenchyma would have been useful, because there are ultrastructural differences at the level of chloroplasts from the 2 tissues. Considering the features of the callus, it is possible that the ultrastructure of the chloroplasts from this tissue to be closer to that of the chloroplasts in the spongy parenchyma than to those in the palisade parenchyma.
Rows 198, 201, 234, 250, 261 - Glycyne not Clycine
Row 257 - Glycine max - in italics; please check the entire manuscript in this regard.
References could be improved and updated - only 6 papers out of 37 are after 2020 (although there is literature available).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript mainly describes the comparison in the assimilation of CO2 and the fluorescence kinetics between callus and leaves in Glycine max. The research is properly addressed, and the conclusions correctly raised from the results obtained. There are some points that could improve the manuscript.
- I found the description related to Figure 1 and 2 very short in the text. Some additional information either in the text or Figure legend could be good for the manuscript.
- The chlorophyll value in line 221 (0.53) differs from that described in Table I (0.50). In addition, reference to Table I is missing in lines 221 and 222.
- The Table I could be more visible if is presented vertically instead of horizontally.
- Please check that letter “n” in Table 1 is correctly applied.
- Change in all the Figure legends Clicine for Glycine.
- The legend for Figure 4 is somehow confusing. Please try to improve it.
- The labelling for Figure 4 should correspond to parameters indicated in Table 1, to better understanding for readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have substantially improved the manuscript. Revisions are satisfactory and article can be processed further for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed corretly all my concerns.
