Dear Editor in chief
Thank you for your letter with the comments on our manuscript. All suggestions were taken into account. The itemized list of changes and responses to the reviewer comments is the following:
The manuscript deals with the evaluation of the efficacy of protein extracts from Solanum tuberosum tubers against two citrus pathogens, i.e. Geotrichum candidum and Penicillium digitatum.
The experimental design is well-organized, also regarding the planning of tests connected with a future possible application (i.e. extract mutagenicity); trials are accurately performed and good results were reached.
Nevertheless, some remarks have to be moved to the manuscript.
1- It is appreciable the author's effort in demonstrating the in vivo efficacy of extracts through the trials performed on P. digitatum artificially inoculated citrus fruits. However, for completeness of the whole study, it might be interesting to test the in vivo efficacy of extracts also against the other considered pathogen, i.e. G. candidum, given they showed an in vitro activity greater than against P. digitatum.
Answer: The in vivo assay using G. candidum was realized.
2- "Results" section, paragraph 3.3.3. Please, describe better the results obtained in in vivo tests, also in relation to Fig 6 A and B.
Answer: The results obtained in vivo test were described better
3- "Discussion" section, comment to the Fig 2. It would be useful to better comment the SDS PAGE profile, for example explaining the very intense band at about 34 kDa present in extract n. 3 (IF50). If the hemagglutinating activity is related to the presence of the similar low MW protein profile in all purified extracts, how can authors explain the higher activity of IF25 considering it protein profile? I suggest to better exploit the electrophoretic profile in the discussion, otherwise to eliminate Fig. 2.
Answer: The suggestion was taken into account
4- "Discussion" section, line 12. Incorrectly, you asserted that "IF25 showed the maximal inhibitory effect on G. candidum polygalacturonase"; that is not evident from Table 1, in which you showed SF25 and IF50 as the best polygalacturonase inhibitors. Please, correct the mistake in the text.
Answer: The text was corrected. IF25, SF25 and SF50 showed the higher activity on polygalacturonase activity. IF 50 showed low activity on polygalacturonase (93.26± 3.8 % of residual activity).
5- "Discussion" section, line 59. In my opinion, the experimental protocol proposed by authors consists in a series of operations leading to a far from "easy, fast and economical methodology". I suggest to revise this sentence.
The suggestion was taken into account
6- Legends of figures have to be implemented to make them self-explaining (in particular for Fig. 4, 5 and 6).
- Fig. 3, 4, and 5. Move the sentence "Means with the same …….." in the relative legend.
Answer: The suggestions were taken into account
7- "References" section. If authors agree, it could be useful to add the above reported reference to a paper concerning the effect of plant extracts to control postharvest diseases of fruit and vegetables. I suggest to add this reference in the "Introduction" section, at the end of line 28 ("….. ..control of postharvest diseases."), also moving on this position the two citations Sayago et al. 2012 and Sukorini et al. 2013, two papers that, as the proposed one, are dealing with the same matter, i.e. the control of postharvest diseases by using natural plant extracts.
The proposed reference is:
"Gatto M.A., Ippolito A., Linsalata V., Cascarano N.A, Nigro F., Vanadia S., Di Venere D., 2011. Activity of extracts from wild edible herbs against postharvest fungal diseases of fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol., 61, 72-82.
Answer: The suggestions were taken into account. The reference was included
In my opinion, it will be possible to consider the manuscript for publication in EJPP after a major revision.
Associate Editor
I agree with the reviewers' comments. In particular, I think that formatting (according to EJPP guidelines), English and style need to be improved.
Answer: The English and style was improved