Table 1 compares transformation methods. Several entries raise concerns:
1. “Pollen tube pathway” row: The reference given is Wang et al. 2013; Ali et al. 2015. However, the Ali et al. 2015 paper (in the reference list) is titled “Plant transformation via pollen tube-mediated gene transfer” and explicitly states that the method has “low efficiency”, yet the table lists only “Low efficiency” as a limitation, while the advantage column is empty. This is misleading.
2. “Plant virus” row: The entry claims “Easy to manipulate, higher transient expression, high gene editing efficiency” as advantages. However, the references cited (Scholthof et al. 1996; Mahmood et al. 2023) do not collectively support “high gene editing efficiency” as a general advantage; viral vectors for gene editing have well-known limitations (e.g., cargo size, off-target effects, tissue specificity) that are not mentioned.
3. “NPs mediated” row: The limitation “Low efficiency” is listed, but the main text (Introduction) claims nanoparticles have “high transformation efficiency.” This is a direct contradiction between the table and the text. Which is it?
My question is: How do the authors reconcile the claim of “high transformation efficiency” for nanoparticles in the main text (Page 2) with the entry “Low efficiency” as a limitation for “NPs mediated” in Table 1?