Study on the Resistance of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Grapevine with Different Rootstocks to Colomerus vitis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear colleagues,
I believe your manuscript may be useful and interesting, because the problem of changing interactions between a plant immune system and pest species are very important, however, I am sure, there are some serious problems in the text.
(1) line 2 and so on — grape > grapevine (actually a grape is a berry but not a plant)
(2) lines 30–32 — "During the 19th century, wild grape (virtis) was discovered in North America with resistance to root aphid [1], which consequently prompted the beginning of research on grape resistant rootstock [2]". — please, re-write carefully this sentence, because, first, the serious problems with the common grapevine started when some American grapevines were introduced in Europe with root forms of the grape phylloxera (these insects are not aphids per se!); as a result, the phylloxera epidemic destroyed a lot of vineyards, especially in South Europe. Second, in the end of the 19th century, entomologists found identity of two pest species (the European and the American ones) and understood that the several American species of Vitis could be used to solve the problem. Third, there were (and are) two different approaches to solve it with the American varieties, namely hybridization and grafting. The main parts of the resistant rootstocks were produced in the last century as a result of selection and hybridization of the American species.
(3) line 32 — Xinjiang > Xinjiang (NW China)
(4) lines 55–56 — their physical or chemical barriers are activated for protection. > their disease resistance systems start to respond.
Section 2 — please, split the Subsection into several subsections
(for instance)
2.1. Field experiments — please, also include some general information about rootstock varieties (including main taxonomic data, e.g., 3309C — Vitis riparia x V. rupestris)
2.2. Infestation evaluation
2.3. Biochemistry methods
2.4. Data analysis — and to include short, but explicit explanation of all mathematical/statistical methods used.
(5) There is some general problem with quantitative data. I mean accuracy of numbers. The accuracy may be determined by either the accuracy of equipment (commonly we can find these values in technical documents) or parameters of sampling, or both.
For instance, the modern hand-held navigators may show its position with accuracy about 0.2–0.3 m, but really their accuracy is about only 10 m, in the best cases – around 3 m.
If someone collect 49 specimens of a species, and 15 specimens were green and 34 — red, real percentage values will be 31 and 68% (not 30.61 and 69.39%), because the number of specimens is less than 100.
(6) Figure 3 — please, merge all parts of the Figure 3 (or split it into four different figures)
(7) Generally speaking, the Pearson correlation may be used for normally distributed data... Did you check normality?
(8) line 366–371 — too trivial
(9) Please, arrange your references according the Journal rules and add doi where it's possible.
(10) Please, check all situations when en-dashes should be used (e.g., for ranges, between years etc.).
Besides, there are a lot of problems with English constructions and words, e.g.,
lines 11–12 — In recent years, the harm of Colomerus vitis in Xinjiang is serious, causing economic losses to grape production. > In Xinjiang, in recent years, Colomerus vitis causes serious economic loss of grape production
lines 16–18 — Artificial inoculation of scions with Colomerus vitis. Investigate the infestation rate, injury index and insect-resistant types of scions damaged by Colomerus vitis. —??? - please, re-write
line 20 — Analysis > The analysis
lines 86–87 — In order to find out the difference of GEM resistance of different rootstock-spike combinations and the reasons for the difference. — please, re-write.
line 133 — and below (Upper morphology) — please, check!
lines 165–177 — this paragraph looks like as a result of machine translation. Please, re-write all sentences.
Please, check your text very carefully.
Some technical comments:
lines 145–147 — please, remove
lines 148–151 — should be after the line 161.
lines 272 and 275 — why do you use the different font for 'infestation'?
Figure 6 — Disease index — cf. line 160 (injury index)
lines 428, 433, 444 — all Latin genera/species names should be in italics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the current study, Authors concentrate on Colomerus vitis causing economic losses to grape production. The study explored the influence of Cabernet Sauvignon with 13 different rootstocks on the resistance of Colomerus vitis. Authors studied activities of peroxidase (POD), polyphenol oxidase (PPO), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), the content of resveratrol (Res) and the gene expres-19 sion of resveratrol synthase (RS) in the leaves of each rootstock grape . The manuscript addresses important aspects of grape production and meets the conditions for publication, but should be improved and cleared. In the text some numbers appear, they should be removed. Also english should check spelled and improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors reported the biological and metabolic responses of Cabernet Sauvignon' grafted with different rootstocks to Colomerus vitis. The rootstocks appear to affect the scion in mite responses. This aspect has already been reported previously for other pathogens and stresses in grapevine and therefore I suggest the authors to report this information and these works in the introduction and discussion.
In some sections of the manuscript the language is unclear and confused (lines 16-17, 43, etc). I suggest a comprehensive and extensive revision of English.
The authors use incorrect terms, for example rootstock-spike instead of rootstock-scion, grape instead of grapevine, gray Pi Nuo virus????, please review and modify throughout the manuscript.
In the materials and methods, please indicate the name of all rootstocks.
Please normalize the gene expression analyzed by qPCR using two housekeeping genes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents interesting and detailed results.
Manuscript is well structured and written in clear and concise manner.
In general, I do not have major remarks.
There are some issues listed below that should be resolved
Abstract
Page 1
Lines 16-17
Please rewrite these two sentences to connect them to the rest of the text.
Materials and Methods
Page 3
Lines 118-120
Written in too much details
Page 4
Lines 165-176 – rewrite in a scientific style. Use past tense
Lines 188 – was instead of is, write in a past tense
Results
Page 5
Line 202 and afterwards in the text
rootstock-spike - You mean rootstock-scion?
Discussion
Page 11
Line 373 – grape is not a fruit!
Page 12
Line 428 M. incognita – in italic
Line 433
Arabidopsis thaliana – italic
Figures 3, 4 and 5
Rootstock-scion and disease should be: Rootstock-scion and disease damage degree
Figure 6
Analysis of correlation. Unnecessary sentence. Repeated later in the caption.
(b) incorrect caption.
Throughout the manuscript
Uniform ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ in apostrophe
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
INTRODUCTION
This article explains the problems that led to the search for resistant rootstocks. Even the solutions are expressed quite clearly so that they can be used as a theoretical basis for the study of resistance not only for aphids and root nematodes, but also for the screening of rootstocks resistant to other stresses to which the plant can be subjected such as frosts or drought. This article also explains the symptoms that the plant shows after the attack by GEM, a common gallbladder mite in wine grape plantations in Xinjiang.
With a greater magnifying glass, clear references are made to all those biochemical compounds that trigger defense mechanisms in plants, clearly explaining their functioning.
Finally, the objectives to be achieved with this scientific study also appear clear.
Only lines 87 to 93 could be moved to the materials and methods section.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This section of the study begins with a precise geolocation of the place where the study was carried out and the origin of the rootstocks used. With an adequate lexicon for a scientific study, it is clearly explained how the GEM was artificially inoculated in the field, but first of all the mechanisms of preparation and selection of the plants that will then be used as vectors for inoculation. The greater understanding of a topic that might appear difficult at first is also given by the clear explanation of the types of resistance and the different degrees of injury to which a numerical value is associated.
The quantification protocol of enzymatic activities is described with great accuracy, as well as the methods for determining them and the tools used for detecting the infection.
There are no changes or moves to make.
RESULTS
The creation of a subsection to show figuratively the analysis of the different enzymatic activities and the effects of the different rootstocks in Cabernet Sauvignon leaves at different levels of GEM lesion makes the presentation of the research results much clearer and simpler.
In addition, in each subsection the correlation between the degree of infestation of the plant and the lesion index makes it possible to easily highlight which of the different rootstocks compared to the control shows higher or lower values ​​for each enzymatic activity.
DISCUSSIONS
What was explained graphically in the results is unequivocally discussed in this section, focusing attention on the difference between the different rootstocks, thus highlighting which of the six different types led to the best results reaching the goal. In this study, it was also found that the activities of four protective enzymes increased rapidly after being injured by GEM, but there were significant differences in the enzymatic activities at different stages of injury. Furthermore, the strong correlation between the lesion index and enzymatic activities also explains the presence of another important element: reactive oxygen species (ROS), closely related to the initial defense response of plants.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of this article appear uniform and consistent with the rest of the text. It offers not only an overview of what has been studied regarding the resistance of plants to GEM but also what could still be done.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The bibliography researched and used for the drafting of the article is appropriate and relevant. However, the references given in the bibliography number: 12 - 13- 14 - 31 are missing in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear colleagues,
My guess is that you improved your text significantly, but some problems remained.
lines 31–32 — The widespread use of grape (virtis)resistant rootstocks began in the 19th century during the fight against grape phylloxera [1]. > The widespread use of resistant rootstocks of grapevines (Vitis spp.) began in the 19th century during the fight against the grape phylloxera [1].
line 51 — rust > rusts
line 66 and so on — Please, check all situations when en-dashes should be used (e.g., for ranges, between years etc.).
line 112 — citic guoan > CITIC Guoan
line 133 — cm2 > cm2
line 161 and so on — Photoshop cc > Photoshop CC
lines 165–168 — you try to use some letter combinations for the injury index, but in the main text and over figures you continue to use digits... — Please, unify designations across your text
line 172 — were determined according to The Saeid Javadi Khederi method[28]. > were determined according to [28].
line 176 — in Japan > of Japan
line 186 — elutiom > elution
line 221 and so on — actually, if I understand that right, you used relatively limited numbers of samples for counting, thus, there is no sense in the digits after a dot. (9.33% is really 9%, 128.61% — 129% etc.)
Figures 2A–D — this is not good idea to use the same number for different figures on different pages. Please, re-numerate them!
Figure 4 — Please, unify the style (cf. Figure 3)
line 372 — 0.96 > –0.96 (?)
line 381–384 — too trivial and slightly incorrect — please, remove
line 386 — Grapevine is an important economic berry > Grape is an important economic berry
line 403 — juice > sap
+ all Latin generic/species names should be in italics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved the text as required. However, I would ask you to never use the term "spike" and replace it with "scion". Please double check the bibliography, some references show the names of the authors and not the surnames !!!!
Kamila, K.; Karol, P.; Magdalena, K.; Marek, K. Evaluation of the Influence of Rootstock Type on the Yield Parameters of Vines Using a Mathematical Model in Nontraditional Wine-Growing Conditions. Applied Sciences 2022, 12, doi:10.3390/ 516 app12147293.http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ app12147293 517
Abdelhameed, M.; Fabio, Q.; Monica, F.; Flavio, S.; Sara, T.; Niccolò, M.; Alessandro, P.; Paola, C.; Nicola, M. Grafting of recovered shoots reduces bois noir disease incidence in vineyard. Crop Protection 2022, 161, 519 doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106058.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106058
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf