We Would Like to Thank You and the Referees for the Careful Revision and Constructive

OF 035/14

DQB/IB- GPPL

Botucatu, May 28, 2014.

Dear Editor

We would like to thank you and the referees for the careful revision and constructive suggestions made in order to improve the content of our manuscript “Polyamines in tomato plants grown during an incidence of tospovirus exposure”

In this revised version, we introduced some modifications in the text and further explanations in order to reply all points and clarifications required by the referees. We appreciate very much the work of the Reviewers whose comments and remarks, raised during the critical assessment of the manuscript, certainly improved the current state of the manuscript both from scientific and formal viewpoints.

We respond to the Reviewers' remarks and criticisms and describe the changes which have been made in the manuscript in the point-by-point reply. In the manuscript, the changes are highlighted by red color.

We do hope that this revised version of the manuscript will be perceived as fully satisfactory, and could then become suitable for the acceptance.

Best regards

Prof. Giuseppina Pace Pereira Lima

Reviewer 1

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript deals with the assessment of the effect of a agrochemical mixture, Pyraclostrobin + Metiram, and Bacillus subtilis on polyamine contents and relationships with plant growth stages in tomato plants (cv. "Saladinha Plus"). Results evidenced that polyamine concentrations can be related with plant's resistance to stress, and demonstrating that the agrochemical mixture had great potential to protect tomato crop yields when applied during periods of high disease incidence. In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revisions.

At page 4 and 5 of the manuscript authors cited Figure 1, 2 and 3 for polyamine content, but Figures reporting those data are in Figure 2, 3 and 4. English language should be revised.

We performed the suggested modifications regarding the figures.

English language was be revised by Elsevier Language Editing at May 13th.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer #2: Methodology

Better description of chemicals (Boscalid was not cited in methodology),

The chemicals (Boscalid) were inserted in methodology (Lines 140-145).

description of seed treatments,

The descriptions of seed treatments was inserted in the methodology (Lines 140-145).

description of leaves collection for molecular analysis (was the same part of plant described to polyamines analysis? the plants showed virus symptoms?).

The description of samples was inserted (Line 166-167 for molecular analysis and Line 181 for polyamine analysis). The samples for both analyses were the same. We used the same leaves (shared content) with symptoms of virus for analysis of polyamines and molecular.

Results
Considering that the tested products were fungicides, was observed incidence of fungal deseases in experimental area, or specifically at control with Methamidophos?

We observed incidence of fungi in the treatment with Methamidophos. As we have not observed the symptoms in other fungal treatments, we imagine that it is not necessary to insert such observation.

Discussion/ Conclusion

The authors write about the possible growth promotion effect of Strobilurin related treatments, but at conclusion the polyamines are exclusively considered an biochemical marker of the resistance mechanism. Despite the viruses presence, could they be a biochemical markers related to bioestimulant effect induced by Strobilurin?

We modified the conclusion (Lines 346-354).

Instituto de Biociências – Departamento de Química e Bioquímica

Distrito de Rubião Júnior s/n CEP 18618-000 Botucatu SP Brasil

Tel/Fax 14 3811 6255