This manuscript called "The modulation of auxin-responsive genes, phytohormone profile, and metabolomic signature in leaves of tomato cuttings is specifically modulated by different protein hydrolysates" is good for consideration of publication in Agronomy (ISSN 2073-4395). In this study, the authors theProtein hydrolysates (PHs) are employed in agriculture to increase the sustainability of farming systems, with positive results on crop productivity and response against environmental stressors. Nevertheless, the molecular mechanism(s) triggered by their specific activity is not clearly understood. In this work, five PHs obtained by enzymatic hydrolysis of different vegetal protein sources have been tested for their root-promoting activity on tomato cuttings. All the treatments improved both roots length and number, when compared to negative control. Distinctive metabolomic signatures were highlighted in response to treatments, indicating the triggering of different molecular processes in leaf tissues of tomato cuttings. PHs differentially modulated the biosynthesis of plant stress-protectants, like alkaloids and phenylpropanoids. Moreover, metabolites involved in phytohormones biosynthesis were significantly impacted. In this context, a clear modulation of several compounds related to auxin homeostasis was observed. On this latter point, the differential modulation of SlIAA2 and SlIAA9 genes, which are involved in the IAA signalling pathway, further corroborated the auxin-like activity elicited by the PHs tested. Here we provide evidence that PHs can impact plant molecular level, positively affecting root development, most likely by orchestrating the signalling cascades activated in leaf tissues. The biostimulant activity was sustained by PH-specific response at molecular level, underpinning their potential versatility that reflects their heterogeneous botanical ori-gins. The manuscript represent the opinion of authors, and confirmed that the findings did not point out a clear universal response to PHs and specific effects are rather to be investigated. not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions. This may be ambitious and interesting, but some important points need to be resolved. Importantly, a study must provide a critical analysis of the data. In other words, you must assess whether specific data published really stand up to scientific scrutiny. In order to achieve the above, you must clearly define your specific aims and objectives. So in your study you must develop a critical appraisal of the state of the art. This is an essential element of any article. There are important scientific questions (both conceptual and methodological) which need to be addressed with the primary studies. A study must highlight this. The introduction, which is written in clear language, covers a large number of relevant issues. Information are noteworthy, and are correct supported by similar results from the specialty (see Krebs cycle: activators, inhibitors and their roles in the modulation of carcinogenesis. Archives of Toxicology, 2021, 95(4), pp. 1161–1178/Tomato crop performances under chemical nutrients monitored by electric signal. Agronomy, 2020, 10(12), 1915/Microencapsulation of the allelochemical compounds and study of their release from different products. Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures, 2013, 8(3), pp. 945–953 ). Try to rewrite the abstract and conclusions, I also recommend the nuance of the introduction, the way of working is not very well explained, the procedure is tedious and unsustainable. For this reason, I recommend that the authors try to use more sustainable methodologies, the interpretation of the results can be improved/ reformulated

Accept in present form