Sexually-Driven Combinatorial Diversity in Native Saccharomyces Wine Yeasts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Sexually-driven combinatorial diversity in natural Saccharomyces wine yeasts”, aims to study the genetic diversity of autochthonous Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeasts in the Aljarafe of Seville”.

The article is well written, with current references.

The methodology used was correct and the results are relevant and contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge.

So, the article can be published.

Author Response

We thank reviewer 1 for reviewing the article and for his/her endorsement of the publication of this article.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This article verified the diversity of natural Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and 150 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been isolated from natural fermentation. It is suggested that the author should further explore the potential research significance of this experiment. For example, what positive effect does the diversity of natural Saccharomyces cerevisiae bring to the development of the wine industry? How does this relate to the current global climate change? The background and research significance of the abstract part suggest to reorganize.

2. Line 27-32: suggests changing “Saccharomyces cerevisiae” to “natural Saccharomyces cerevisiae”.

3. Line 109-113 is not clearly stated, it is recommended to reorganize.

4. Line 119-123 I don’t find this result in Figure 1. What does the same mode mean?

5. Line 138-140 I do not find this result from Figure 1b.

6. Line 141-150 suggests adding a cohesive sentence at the beginning of the paragraph

7. Line 305-307 How to select ‘twenty characterized strains’.

8. YGF0-10 strain has excellent fermentation characteristics, which seems to be an important conclusion obtained in Section 2.3. Why is this part not mentioned in the abstract.

9. The quality of Figure 1 is poor, and the source of each DNA band is not shown in Figure 1a; Figure 1b is not understood. Is it three different fermentation stages?

10. Table 1 is not clearly stated.

11. Figure 3-Figure 5 is not clear enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Line 25-26, the end of the abstract is abrupt, which is not a complete ending.

 

2. Line 126-131 The authors still have not made the modification, and this conclusion cannot be drawn from Figure 1.

 

3. The font of the references in the introduction section was inconsistent with the others.

 

4. No significance analysis was performed in Fig.5.

 

5. Change “Fig 5” to “Fig. 5”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf