PONE-D-22-25649Isolation and identification of Bacillus velezensis  FX-6 and its biocontrol activity on  Botrytis cinerea and tomato plant growthPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================Dear Author, Reviewer’s comments on the manuscript have now been received. Having considered these comments alongside your paper there is need of major revisions. If you feel that the manuscript could be significantly revised based on the reviewer’s comments, you could consider resubmitting the manuscript after through revisions.  See detailed comments and suggestions on your manuscripts received from the potential reviewers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Raees Ahmed, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract The abstract of the manuscript is very poorly written with less clarity. I suggest improving it and make it technically strong. The promising results must be briefly explained in the abstract.

Introduction

Line 25 B. cinerea write its full name when using first time.

Line 29 - 30 This statement is not clear.

Line 37 (Army of attention) what does it mean?

Line 40 - 41 Statement is very confusing.

Line 49 - 52 This part is not clearly written.

Line 55 - 57 Add complete address of fungal collection Bank.

Line 58 - 60 Have you confirmed the pathogenicity of the collected fungal agents?

Line 55 - 64 The sentences are very confusing. Re-write them.

Line 72 - 73 Which fungal strains were used in this screening test?

Line 75 At what temperature the plates were incubated and for how many days?

Line 83 How bacterial characters were directly observed? At what lens power cell size and morphology was studied?

Line 101 - 105 Why was this test done for FX – 6 when screening test was already done? Furthermore, there is no information on the No. of replications and how inhibition zone was measured?

Line 106 - 115 The given information is very confusing. Why fermentation time finding related test was only performed against B. cinerea only?

Line 116 - 122 Was it a detached leave assay? Why only B. cinerea was selected for this study? Where were the leaves cultured? If it was a detached leaf assay, then how leaves were not wilted up to 5 days?

Line 144 What was the incubation period? It indicates that it has phosphorous solubility …….. Delete it.

Line 148 Write down the full name of DF salt minimal medium.

Line 152 - 160 How same sized tomato seeds were selected? Where were the treated seeds placed before measuring germination percentage etc.? What was the size of the pot used and quantity of the soil? Was it a replicated trial?

Line 166 - 174 Why only FX – 6 was selected for further studies whereas many other strains were almost equally effective against B. cinerea. Mention there antagonistic activity against other fungal isolates as well.

Line 183 - 188 The results are not properly explained. Why only FX – 6 was selected to test against other pathogenic fungal agents?

Line 189 Table 2 Inhibition rates of strain F3A against seven pathogenic fungi ….. It should be cross checked.

Line 199 - 206 The results are not properly explained. Thins are very confusing.

Line 218 - 223 The results are not properly explained.

Line 233 Table 4. Fresh weight（cm）…… Cross check the Unit. What is CK in the table?

Discussion Discussion portion is very poor. The results are not properly discussed with already published literature.

Line 280 The study does not reflect claim to identify a new bacteria agent as an antagonist. This objective is not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript.

Conclusion Conclusion needs to be more eye catching and logical.

Reviewer #2: I have completed my review of the submission “Isolation and identification of Bacillus velezensis FX-6 and its biocontrol activity 1 on Botrytis cinerea and tomato plant growth”. The authors have evaluated the effect of Bacillus strain on growth promotion of tomato plants. They have conducted several experiments to support their hypothesis. The study presents the results of original research and the results reported have not been published elsewhere. However, the manuscript needs improvements.

My comments on the manuscript are as under

1. The title can be modified as “Bacillus velezensis FX-6 suppresses the infection of Botrytis cinerea and increases the biomass of tomato plants”

2. Line 9: Replace “Botrytis cinerea-caused tomato gray” with “Botrytis cinerea causing tomato gray”

3. Line 11: While mentioning the code of the strain for 1st time please write the name of the species

4. Line 25: Replace “is one of the countries with the largest area of production worldwide” with “is one of the countries with the largest cultivated area worldwide”

5. Line 36-37: Replace “Bacillus strains have received an army of attention as biocontrol agents” with “Bacillus strains have received a huge attention as biocontrol agents”

6. Line 40-41: Replace “Up to now, there are just several reports on the control of tomato gray mold by B. velezensis” with “There are several reports on the control of tomato gray mold by B. velezensis”

7. It is better to replace the word biocontrol fungicide with biopesticide

8. Language needs improvement throughout the manuscript

9. The result representation is very weak. The tables should be replaced with high resolution graphs

10. Discussion must be improved and supported with more references and logical reasoning.

11. Manuscript needs formatting according to journal’s format

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Naveed Aslam

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Bacillus velezensis  FX-6 suppresses the infection of   Botrytis cinerea and increases the biomass of tomato plants

PONE-D-22-25649R1

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Durgesh Kumar Jaiswal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for successfully, address the all reviewers comments and improved the manuscript. therefore, I have recommended the manuscript for publication

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********