Phytochemical Statistical Mapping of Red Grape Varieties Cultivated in Romanian Organic and Conventional Vineyards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article entitled “Phytochemical statistical mapping of red grapes varieties cultivated in Romanian organic and conventional vineyards” analyzed three grape anatomic parts (skin, pulp, seeds) of four grape varieties cultivated in Romania, in terms of their content of bioactive compounds (total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity). In this work, the independent factors of management culture system (organic vs. conventional) were also considered.

The document is well written, and the subject of the manuscript is interesting. The organization of this manuscript is proper, and the methodology is appropriate.

In my opinion, this manuscript can be considered after minor changes for publication in Plants journal.

I propose some changes in order to improve the manuscript:

Line 60: please, delete the point that appears before [6].

Lines 94-98: These affirmations could be considered as Reduction of disease risk claims, which must meet specific requirements according to the European Regulation. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 indicates that ‘reduction of disease risk claim’ means any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease. For this reason, it is suggested to rewrite them and avoid strong expressions by using terms as ‘potential’ or ‘possible’ (the potential health benefits…)

Line 115: please, change ‘pharmacological properties’ by ‘potential pharmacological properties’

Line 128: please, change ‘itis' by ‘it is’

Lines 157-160: please, include some bibliographic reference at the end of this paragraph.

Line 203: please, delete the term ‘of’ that appears before ‘(TPC)’

Lines 210-213: authors indicate that ‘the literature provides similar data referring to TPC, TFC, and AA’. However, none bibliographic reference is included to justify this fact. It is necessary to add some bibliographic reference.

Figures 6, 7 and 8: please, include the meaning of GA.

Line 235: please, change ‘organicMuscat Hamburg’ by ‘organic Muscat Hamburg’

Line 236: please, close the parenthesis (47.04 ± 1.87 mg GA-eq/g)

Line 273: please, change ‘which’ by ‘who’

Line 340: please, change the point that appears before ‘Feteasca Neagra’ by comma.

Line 429: Please, change ‘CTP, CTF’ by ‘TPC, TFC’

Figure 10: please, include the meaning of GA and AA. It is used the same acronym for ascorbic acid and antioxidant activity. Please, check it.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your feedback that contributed significantly to the improvement of our manuscript. We really appreciate your effort, and for your recent suggestions please find the answers below:

- Line 60: please, delete the point that appears before [6].

Correction done, as suggested.

- Lines 94-98: These affirmations could be considered as Reduction of disease risk claims, which must meet specific requirements according to the European Regulation. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 indicates that ‘reduction of disease risk claim’ means any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease. For this reason, it is suggested to rewrite them and avoid strong expressions by using terms as ‘potential’ or ‘possible’ (the potential health benefits…)

Correction done, as suggested.

- Line 115: please, change ‘pharmacological properties’ by ‘potential pharmacological properties’

Correction done, as suggested.

- Line 128: please, change ‘itis' by ‘it is’

Correction done, as suggested.

- Lines 157-160: please, include some bibliographic reference at the end of this paragraph.

References were added, as suggested, thank you! 

- Line 203: please, delete the term ‘of’ that appears before ‘(TPC)’

Correction done, as suggested.

- Lines 210-213: authors indicate that ‘the literature provides similar data referring to TPC, TFC, and AA’. However, none bibliographic reference is included to justify this fact. It is necessary to add some bibliographic reference.

References were added, as suggested, thank you! 

- Figures 6, 7 and 8: please, include the meaning of GA.

Figures were updated, with the correction suggested. 

- Line 235: please, change ‘organicMuscat Hamburg’ by ‘organic Muscat Hamburg’

References were added, as suggested, thank you! 

- Line 236: please, close the parenthesis (47.04 ± 1.87 mg GA-eq/g)

Correction done, as suggested.

- Line 273: please, change ‘which’ by ‘who’

Correction done, as suggested.

- Line 340: please, change the point that appears before ‘Feteasca Neagra’ by comma.

Correction done, as suggested.

- Line 429: Please, change ‘CTP, CTF’ by ‘TPC, TFC’

Correction done, as suggested.

- Figure 10: please, include the meaning of GA and AA. It is used the same acronym for ascorbic acid and antioxidant activity. Please, check it.

Figure was updated, with suggested correction. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors, 

The manuscript was greatly improved and therefore I recommend its publication in Plants journal. 

Best regards. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback, which contributed significantly to the improvement of our manuscript. We appreciate your effort and wish you all the best in your current activities.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback which contributed significantly to the improvement of our manuscript. We really appreciate your effort, and for your recent suggestions please find the answers below.

All the texts indicating the details with regard to spectrophotometric measurements were included as distinct paragraphs in the text, for each method (TPC, TFC, and AA).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

all indicated corrections have been resolved.

Thank you for your thorough analysis.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea to compare  conventional and organic viticolture on the polyphenolic content and antioxidant capacity of grape composition is interesting, anyway the research needs to be improved. 

The introduction is too long, confusing, poorly exposed.

table 1 must be redone, making it uniform in all parts

The results are supported by important statistical analysis, but too little data are processed. 

in particular, as reported in literature, to characterize the polyphenolic content and, above all, the antioxidant capacity is mandatory to use a multitechnique approach, in order to have correct information from a complex matrix.  (Isabelle Ky 1,2 and Pierre-Louis Teissedre, 2015, Motta et al., 2020, Magalhães et al., 2014). In this work only one test for antioxidant capacity was used, the author should support it with antioxidant test currently used for grapes material. 

The raman and IR results are not explained.

There are no information reported as regards the number of grapes and the number of berries sampled, important information to understand if the sample is rappresentative.

Furthermore, to eliminate the vintage effect, the trial should be repeated at least for two vintages.

It is already wellknown that polyphenols are mainly found in seeds and skins, so what's new?

Since the work regards a comparison between conventional and organic cultivar, it would be interesting to investigate the differences between the two crops  in terms of pesticide and metals content.

The conclusions should be improved. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the english is good, just needs minor editing

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article entitled “Phytochemical statistical mapping of red grapes varieties cultivated in Romanian organic and conventional vineyards” analyzed three grape anatomic parts (skin, pulp, seeds) of four grape varieties cultivated in Romania, in terms of their content of bioactive compounds (total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity). In this work, the independent factors of management culture system (organic vs. conventional) were also considered.

The document is well written and the subject of the manuscript is interesting. The organization of this manuscript is proper, and the methodology is appropriate.

In my opinion, this manuscript can be considered after minor changes for publication in Plants journal.

I propose some changes in order to improve the manuscript:

Line 19: please, insert comma between ‘pulp’ and ‘and’

Line 33: please, insert comma between ‘Principal Component analysis' and 'and’

Line 35: please, change (organic / conventional) by (organic/conventional), as it is shown previously.

Line 50: ‘the Vitis genus’ is repeated. Please, check it.

Line 52, line 54: please, check that numbers 21 045 – 12 250 – 600012 are well written.

Lines 102-106: please, insert cites that support the different health benefits associated to flavonoids.

Line 132: please, insert full stop after [36]

Table 1: please, insert full stop after [39]

Figure 2 is not cited along the text. Please, check it.

Feteasca Neagra is not homogeneous written all over the manuscript. Please, revise it and write it properly (Feteasca Neagra, Feteasca Neagră, or Fetească Neagră).

Line 196: please, insert comma between ‘(TFC)’ and ‘and’

Line 200: please, insert comma between ‘seeds’ and ‘and’

Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8. Please, change CTP by TPC, and CTF by TFC. Include a footnote that indicates the meaning of GA.

Line 227-235. The values of average ± sd must be written in the same form that appears in other parts of the text (media±sd). Please, apply this recommendation all over the manuscript.

Line 231. Please, change ‘ml’ by ‘mL’

Line 238: please, revise the sentence ‘Very far from these values. the group of the extracts obtained…’ and write it properly.

Line 281: please, insert comma between ‘flavonols’ and ‘resveratrol’, and between ‘resveratrol’ and ‘and’

Line 302: please, delete the full stop that appears after ‘content’

Line 371: please, change ‘skin. pulp and seeds’ by ‘skin, pulp, and seeds’

Lines 374 – 403. In these paragraphs there are various orthographic mistakes (phytochemicals content of the hydroalcoholic extracts of skin. pulp and seeds respectively; high values of the antioxidant activity. regardless of the type of vineyard; Excepting Muscat Hamburg variety. the parameters of interest; the higher amounts of phenolics and flavonoids. being characterized through a high antioxidant activity, etc.). Please check it carefully and correct all the typos.

Line 393. Please, change ‘acid ascorbic’ by ‘ascorbic acid’

Lines 407- 433. In these paragraphs there are various orthographic mistakes ((total phenolics. total flavonoids). the antioxidant activity of grapes seeds; coming from organic vineyards. in terms; etc.). Please check it carefully and correct all the typos.

Line 444: Please, rewrite as follows: ‘…correlation within the set of the observed variables. In this case the observed variables…’

Lines 442 – 458. In these paragraphs there are various orthographic mistakes. Most of them consist in put full stop when correspond comma (the values of the antioxidant activity. total phenolics content; skin. seeds and pulp respectively; that can explain the observed variance. but can be used; the experimental data to identify. if exists. factors). Please check it carefully and correct all the typos.

Lines 475 – 495. In these paragraphs there are various orthographic mistakes. Most of them consist in put full stop when correspond comma. Please check it carefully and correct all the typos.

Line 511. This figure is Figure 11 (Figure 11. Dendogram of variables of interest (using Ward linkage)). Please, correct it.

Lines 595 – 600. In these paragraphs there are various orthographic mistakes. Most of them consist in put full stop when correspond comma. Please check it carefully and correct all the typos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleagues, 

 

The manuscript (MS) contains some new and important data on antioxidant activity in grape varieties grown in Romania. The MS needs a serious revision to be receommended for publication in plants. Here are my comments and suggestions to improve the MS:

 

1-English must be checked and revised carefully,

 

2-Table 4 and lines, before 443-458,  there is confusion between principal component analysis and factorial analysis. Please fix the mistake throughout the text, 

 

3- Fig. 10, variance of each component must be added, 

 

4-Fig. is repeated twice, for PCA analysis and cluster analysis, please fix the mistake, 

 

5-In general, statistical analyses contain a lot of unprecisions, fig. of cluster analysis, distance is an Euclidean distance ?. Here are some references to inspire from (maybe cited) for a better statistical analysis and revision: (https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9362366; https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2022002)

 

6-In the Material and Methods section, the authors say that samling was done from connvetional and organic systems, but in the Results, there is no comparison between both systems. Redearship will expects a comprison with appropriate statistical tool/test. Please revise accoridngly,

 

7-For sampling, several other points must be indicated, e.g.: ripening stage at which sampling was done, how many replicates, soil type of sampling area, variety name and the main agronomic characteristics, etc,

 

8-Fig. and table captions must be seflexplanatory, 

 

Best regards. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf