Regulation, Biosynthesis, and Extraction of Bacillus-Derived Lipopeptides and Its Implications in Biological Control of Phytopathogens
, Fannie Isela Parra-Cota 4, Gustavo Santoyo 5, Lorena Jacqueline Gómez-GodÃnez 6, Luis A. Cira Chávez 1 and Sergio de los Santos-Villalobos 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Hope this email finds you well. Attached you can find the reply to your valuable comments.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review “Bacillus-derived lipopeptides as a sustainable strategy for controlling phytopathogens: regulation, biosynthesis, and production” is very interesting. The manuscript is well written, and the text is clear for the reader. Some points need to be improved:
· Please put the keywords in order alphabetical
· L49: remove ‘while’
· L52: add animal with human health.
· L62: please put in italic all the scientific names
· Figure 1 and figure 4 please detail more the caption
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Hope this email finds you well. Attached you can find the reply to your valuable comments.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting review of Bacillus-derived lipopeptides, specifically surfactins, fengycins and iturins. But major problems with this manuscript require a major revision before it may be accepted for publication.
First of all, the title does not make much sense. What is the difference between “biosynthesis” and “production” in this context? So far as I can tell, the only production of lipopeptides described here is by the Bacilli themselves, which is biosynthesis.
Nor does the manuscript live up to its title. Very little attention (only lines 141-8, 300-4 and 485-8 as far as I can see) is paid to actual data about the activity of these lipopeptides (or strains producing them) against phytopathogens. This is never assessed in the context of chemical pesticides or other biopesticides such as toxin-producing strains B. thuringiensis. Much less is any “sustainable strategy” proposed. It is never even made clear under what form these lipopeptides will be used, the compounds themselves or the strains that produce them (presumably the latter, but it should be made clear).
Much the greatest part of the manuscript is dedicated to the biosynthesis of surfactins, fengycins and iturins, especially the molecular mechanisms for regulation of the gene expression. This sounds like a different review. At least to me it is not clear what all this has to do with the pesticidal potential of bacterial lipopeptides. Such an extensive discussion would be justified if you could show many studies of genetic and metabolic engineering in Bacilli in order to improve their lipopeptide production. Are there any such studies in the literature? If yes, include and discuss them at length. If no, most of section 2 is irrelevant and should go.
Several minor issues also need some attention:
- Lines 37-55: make clear these are chemical pesticides (organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates), mostly synthetic (as you have rightly pointed out in line 148) and highly persistent.
- Lines 56-70: even the briefest discussion of Bacillus spp. as biopesticides must mention B. thuringiensis and crystal (cry) toxins, a vast area of research that goes back for almost a century and continues to develop.
- Lines 131-132: around this point it might be useful to have a figure showing the basic structure of surfactins, fengycins and iturins, especially these “cyclic peptides” mentioned here for the first time.
- Figure 2: A, B and C are superfluous; do keep the names of the master regulators in the legend, though.
- Figure 3. A, B and C again unnecessary; merely crowd a figure quite clear enough without them.
- Figure 3: Mark in some way, in the legend or in the figure itself, that A to E are histidine kinases.
- Line 500: strange reference; unnumbered and missing in the bibliography.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is acceptable, but a number of minor issues, including some verbose and repetitious passages, need to be addressed. For instance:
- Lines 37-38: rephrase this to make clearer that “a substantial increase” refers to the use of pesticides.
- Line 85: “Filo” should be “Phylum”.
- Line 136: “for a wide range” would look better as “against a wide range”.
- Lines 145, 149, 289: italicize “Bacillus”.
- Line 160: either remove the comma, or put it before “in addition”.
- Lines 177-178: rephrase; for instance, “ComP, a membrane kinase that phosphorylates ComA and induces the pathway for the production...”.
- Line 220: “Phr y”?
- Line 228: “and”, not “y”.
- Lines 313, 324, 326, 331-332, 351-352, 405-406, 410, 476-477: italicize gene names.
- Lines 333-342: redundant passage; please revise and clarify, e.g. “cyclic peptide structure” is pretty much the same as “a ring of amino acids residues”, the amphiphilic nature of iturins is twice explained with the cyclic structure, etc.
- Lines 354-359: repetitious; you’ve said the same thing in the end of the previous paragraph.
- Figure 4, legend: redundant; in this case “biosynthesis” and “production” are the same thing.
- Line 405: “Figure 4” should be “Figure 5”.
- Lines 421, 426, 434, 441: no need to mention “Figure 5” in each paragraph!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Hope this email finds you well. Attached you can find the reply to your valuable comments.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors on their work in the revised version. The manuscript has been improved considerably. The colour code is somewhat confusing; I don't think some of the corrections in blue (in Section 3, for instance) were requested by me, while most of those in yellow seem more to the point. Anyway, I've read them all with interest. In my opinion, the manuscript may now be accepted for publication.
