Profiling the Diversity of Sweet Pepper ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’ PDO (Capsicum annuum) through Multi-Phenomic Approaches and Sequencing-Based Genotyping
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is generally well written. It presents interesting original results on the assessment of the diversity existing for the sweet pepper local variety ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’. The obtained data can be very useful.
There are just a few minor comments:
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
How many seeds were collected?
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
line 130: How many fruits were used as a sample of representative fruits? line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
The results are described and discussed in detail.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank You for your attention to our work and for carefully reading our manuscript.
We have carefully considered comments and thoughtful suggestions, revising the manuscript accordingly. All amendments suggested have been included. Additional corrections through the text have been done. Changes in respect to the previous version are in track changes.
Below point by point response to concerns
Reviewer 1
The manuscript is generally well written. It presents interesting original results on the assessment of the diversity existing for the sweet pepper local variety ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’. The obtained data can be very useful.
#Answer: Again, we would like to thank You for your attention and for carefully reading the manuscript. We also thank you for the positive and encouraging comment.
There are just a few minor comments:
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
#Answer: We better clarified this in the method section (L101, L105-106). 2000 is the year of the establishment of Conservation and Safety Network. In this frame, seeds were collected and maintained in long term storage conditions by Arsial in the subsequent years.
How many seeds were collected?
#Answer: Between 8-10 grams (about 2000 seeds) we don’t think is a detail to insert in the manuscript.
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
#Answer: Yes, we clarified (L116).
line 130: How many fruits were used as a sample of representative fruits? line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
#Answer: We added these details (L132 and L136)
The results are described and discussed in detail.
#Answer: Thanks
We hope that these revisions successfully address the raised concerns, remaining available for any other requests regarding the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank You for your attention to our work and for carefully reading our manuscript.
We have carefully considered comments and thoughtful suggestions, revising the manuscript accordingly. All amendments suggested have been included. Additional corrections through the text have been done. Changes in respect to the previous version are in track changes.
Below point by point response to concerns
Reviewer 2
Tripodi et al., seeks to set a basis of authenticity of ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’ sweet pepper by using a combinatory approach of biochemical, genetic, and agronomic markers/traits. This work is quite interesting and is well-written.
#Answer: Again, we would like to thank You for your attention and for carefully reading the manuscript. We also thank you for the positive and encouraging comment.
I only have some minor comments.
1) The introduction part is a bit long, although it states the importance of this local variety of sweet pepper and of tracing its origin.
#Answer: We prefer to keep the introduction in order to give a broad overview to readers
2) In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green? Any explanation?
#Answer: The cluster analysis is based on phenotypic traits, this analysis revealed specific clusters of "Cornetto di Pontecorvo" and similar types, although they were not clearly separated at the hierarchical level. The genotyping analysis provided more in-depth insights. We addressed this in the discussions section (see L485 and subsequent).
Others:
Line 37: “products”
#Answer: Product is correct since refer to This crop (singular), we specify (as a food and non-food product)
Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here
#Answer: We agree and better positioned the table 3 after the sentence
Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure
#Answer: Figure 4 caption has been improved
Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops
#Answer: We agree and modified the sentence (see L439)
Line 468: “GBS”? Genotype by sequencing?
#Answer: We change referring to ddRAD seq (see L473)
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
#Answer: In order to answer to this question, we improved the conclusion (L524-529)
We hope that these revisions successfully address the raised concerns, remaining available for any other requests regarding the manuscript.
