Isolation and Molecular Identification of the Pure Culture of Morchella Collected from Türkiye and Its Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article " Isolation and Molecular Identification of the Pure Culture Morchella Collected from Türkiye and its Characteristics" is quite innovative. Unfortunately, despite having done a lot of work, the authors did not write the manuscript comprehensively. After reading the manuscript carefully, I found some errors in this article. Listed below:

1)    Title should be revised to be concise and focused.

2)    Abstract need revision too messy, rewrite it in scientific way, summarized and more attractive to understand by viewers easily. Back ground, material method, results and conclusion briefly.  

3)    Introduction section need revision, add the different substrates and cultivation method use for morels.

4)    In the end of introduction section clearly add the objective of the study

5)    For the potential applications that this study could have in the future, it is advisable to compare and discuss the results of this study with existing literature. This will better illustrate the contribution and significance of this study.

6)    Remove vapor from liquid nitrogen in result section,

7)    There are some grammatical and spelling errors in this document. Please double-check and correct them. English writing and expression need a step of revision and improvement.

 

8)    Discussion should be explaining more the benefit of this work and conclusion should be concise. English language edit is needed. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language edit is needed. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my manuscript. I tried to edit according to valuable opinions. 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am writing to review the manuscript entitled “Isolation and Molecular Identification of the Pure Culture of Morchella Collected from Türkiye and its Characteristics”.

This paper provides valuable insights into the isolation and molecular identification of Morchella spp., commonly known as morels, collected from Türkiye, a region with rich genetic diversity of these economically and medicinally important fungi. The study is significant due to the commercial and genetic importance of morels, particularly in Türkiye, which is home to nearly 40 Morchella spp., 22 of which have been molecularly identified.

The author successfully isolated and identified several Morchella species, including M. importuna, M. exima, M. exuberans, M. dunali, M. tridentina, M. crassipes, and M. esculenta using the ITS rDNA region, a standard method for fungal identification. The detailed phylogenetic analysis, including sequence alignment and dendrogram construction, provides robust evidence for the identification of these species. However, the study faced challenges with the clear identification of isolates 849-Kg027 and 966-Kg142 and found that M. vulgarius and M. spongiola were not distinctive based on the ITS region, highlighting the limitations of this method for certain species.

The paper also offers a thorough examination of the cultural characteristics of the identified species, describing variations in mycelial color and sclerotia formation across different growth stages. These observations contribute to the understanding of the phenotypic diversity within Morchella species, which may have implications for their cultivation and commercial use.

Overall, this study is a significant contribution to the field of mycology, particularly in the context of the genetic diversity and commercial potential of morels in Türkiye. The findings have practical implications for the cultivation and conservation of Morchella species and provide a foundation for further research in this area.

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and recommend it for publication following major revision. The author should address the questions and suggestions outlined in the PDF document, which contains comments instead of line numbers, as these were not provided in the manuscript, which is standard for a scientific paper.

 

Abstract:

Please check pdf document with comments.

Introduction:

English is not good through whole MS, please could you find some native speaker to check all document? Also, most of the sentences must be revised, rewritten and similar.

Results:

Tables 1 and 2 must be formatted based on the guide for authors.

References:

Additionally, please thoroughly check all references in the reference list and ensure that all Latin names are correctly written in italics.

For example this reference numbered as 1 should be cited as:

Akyüz, M.; Kireççi, A.D.O.; Gökce Z.; Kirbag, S.; Yılmaz, O. Biochemical constituents and antioxidant activities of some mushrooms from Turkey: Agaricus spp., Pleurotus spp., Morchella esculenta and Terfezia boudieri. Journal of Faculty Pharm Istanbul University[M1] . 2019, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.26650/IstanbulJPharm.2019.25896

All volumes should be written in italic while you must use abbreviated names of the journals.

 

 [M1]you should use abbreviated name of the Journal

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that this manuscript undergo a thorough review by a fluent English speaker to ensure the language is polished and clear.

Author Response

Thanks for your reviewing  my manuscript. I tried to editted according to your opinion. 

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on all your corrections in the revised version of the manuscript. I recommend acceptance in its current form.

Author Response

I edit and changed my manuscript. 

thanks