Evaluation of Quality Characteristics and Cultivar Candidate Potentials of Hybrid Genotypes Obtained from Different Vitis Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate your contribution to the field of grape breeding and cultivar evaluation. Your study provides valuable insights into the quality characteristics of hybrid grape genotypes. However, I have several suggestions for improvement to enhance the clarity, structure, and scientific precision of the manuscript.

Use sub-sections in the Results to group findings by category (e.g., Physical Properties, Chemical Composition, Sensory Analysis). This will improve readability and make it easier for readers to follow the data.

Tables 2 and 3 are difficult to interpret. The sorting method is unclear, and the large amount of data makes them hard to read. Consider breaking them into separate, one-page tables for each parameter.

Chapter 2.3 (Physical Properties of Berries) should be rewritten in a continuous text format, rather than as a numerical list. This would improve coherence.

Use consistent terminology: You use both “cultivars” and “varieties.” It is recommended to use "cultivars" throughout the manuscript for clarity.

The manuscript contains long and complex sentences that reduce clarity. Simplifying the sentence structure would improve readability.

Some sentences are wordy and redundant. Try to be more concise, especially in the introduction and discussion.

Italicize Vitis species names (e.g., V. vinifera).

Ensure correct spacing (e.g., V. vinifera, not V.vinifera). Delete extra spaces where unnecessary.

Degustation Panel: What were the qualifications of the panelists? Were they trained professionals or general consumers? This information is important for understanding the reliability of sensory analysis.

Phenolic and Antioxidant Assays: What solvent was used for extraction? Were skin, pulp, and seeds analyzed separately or together? This clarification is crucial, as different parts of the grape contain varying phenolic content.

Instead of just listing which genotypes performed best, explain why they had superior traits. Example: "The seedless hybrids 22BY-097, 14KS-03, 18BK-02, and 22BY-044 received the highest degustation scores due to their seedlessness, crisp texture, and balanced sweetness-acidity profile".

Include photos of the new hybrid cultivars. You present photos of the parent (well known) cultivars, but photos of the newly developed cultivars would add value to the study.

Discussion: Needs Critical Analysis. The discussion should compare your results with previous research, explaining similarities, differences, and potential reasons for these findings. E.g. instead of stating that "Previous studies found that larger berries are preferred", discuss how your results align or contrast with these findings.

Conclusion: The conclusion does not summarize the research findings but instead focuses on the study’s limitations. While acknowledging limitations is important, the primary focus should be on key findings and practical implications.

References: Can Be Improved. Some references are outdated. Consider including more recent studies (2015–2024). Several key claims lack citations (e.g., consumer demand for seedless grapes, disease resistance trends). Ensure that every important claim is supported by reference.

Your study is a valuable contribution to grape breeding research, but the manuscript would benefit from better structure, improved clarity, and deeper discussion of findings. Implementing these changes will strengthen the impact of your work and improve its readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-structured and understandable, but the quality of English can be improved in several areas. The text contains long and complex sentences that reduce clarity. Additionally, there are minor grammatical issues, including subject-verb agreement errors, inconsistent use of tenses, and occasional awkward phrasing. Some sentences are overly wordy and could be made more concise without losing meaning. The scientific tone is generally appropriate, but certain informal expressions should be refined for a more precise academic style. Formatting inconsistencies, such as the incorrect use of italics for Vitis species names and inconsistent spacing, should also be addressed. Furthermore, the manuscript inconsistently uses the terms "cultivar" and "variety"; selecting one term and using it consistently would improve clarity. Overall, while the manuscript is comprehensible, a thorough English language revision focusing on clarity, grammar, and conciseness would significantly enhance readability and scientific rigor.

Author Response

We appreciate your contribution to the field of grape breeding and cultivar evaluation. Your study provides valuable insights into the quality characteristics of hybrid grape genotypes. However, I have several suggestions for improvement to enhance the clarity, structure, and scientific precision of the manuscript.

• Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. I tried to make the corrections you requested in the text and I marked the corrected parts as red colour in the revised text.

Use sub-sections in the Results to group findings by category (e.g., Physical Properties, Chemical Composition, Sensory Analysis). This will improve readability and make it easier for readers to follow the data.

• As you requested, six subheadings were made in the revised text to make the results section better understandable and followable.

Tables 2 and 3 are difficult to interpret. The sorting method is unclear, and the large amount of data makes them hard to read. Consider breaking them into separate, one-page tables for each parameter.

• We thank the reviewer for this good suggestion. In accordance with the reviewer's request, we have divided the parameters we used in the study into separate tables and only provided the data related to colour (Lab) together. Thus, our total number of tables has reached 22 tables. We also made it much easier to understand by giving the data in the tables from the highest value to the lowest value. After revision we think following and understanding this new form is much easier.

Chapter 2.3 (Physical Properties of Berries) should be rewritten in a continuous text format, rather than as a numerical list. This would improve coherence.

• Suitable with continuous text format, numerical list of 2.3 and 2.4 subtitles are removed

Use consistent terminology: You use both “cultivars” and “varieties.” It is recommended to use "cultivars" throughout the manuscript for clarity.

• All words containing the word "variety" in the text, including the title, have been changed to "cultivar".

The manuscript contains long and complex sentences that reduce clarity. Simplifying the sentence structure would improve readability.

• Sentences that were too long and difficult to understand were reviewed again in the article, and these were changed with shorter and more understandable sentences in the revised article.

Some sentences are wordy and redundant. Try to be more concise, especially in the introduction and discussion.

• Simplifications were made in the revised article, especially in the introduction and discussion sections. Unnecessary words were removed also most of the long sentences are shortened

Italicize Vitis species names (e.g., V. vinifera).

• All places where the word "Vitis" is used have been corrected to italics.

Ensure correct spacing (e.g., V. vinifera, not V.vinifera). Delete extra spaces where unnecessary.

• The sections written vinifera and V. labrusca were corrected to leave only one space.

Degustation Panel: What were the qualifications of the panelists? Were they trained professionals or general consumers? This information is important for understanding the reliability of sensory analysis.

• The panellists who conducted the tasting tests comprised an expert team conducting breeding studies on hybrid grapes and tasting them for many years. In addition, an expert group from the food quality department, which has been conducting taste tests on fruits for many years, also participated in these studies as panellists. Explanatory sentences regarding the characteristics of the panellists have been added to the relevant place in the revised text.

Phenolic and Antioxidant Assays: What solvent was used for extraction? Were skin, pulp, and seeds analysed separately or together? This clarification is crucial, as different parts of the grape contain varying phenolic content.

• Methanol solution was used as solvent in the extraction of grapes. To extract hybrid genotypes, the berries of hybrid grapes were homogenized and crushed. This process was carried out so that all grape berries (skin, flesh, and seeds together) were thoroughly broken. Thus, the total phenol and antioxidant activity values ​​in all homogenized grapes were determine. In addition, explanatory statements have been added regarding the solvent used in the revised text and which parts of the grape berry were used for analysis.

Instead of just listing which genotypes performed best, explain why they had superior traits. Example: "The seedless hybrids 22BY-097, 14KS-03, 18BK-02, and 22BY-044 received the highest degustation scores due to their seedlessness, crisp texture, and balanced sweetness-acidity profile".

• Detailed explanations regarding the characteristics for which these hybrid genotypes were selected have been added to the last paragraph of the discussion section.

Include photos of the new hybrid cultivars. You present photos of the parent (well known) cultivars, but photos of the newly developed cultivars would add value to the study.

• Under the reviewer's request, photographs of the hybrid grape genotypes highlighted in the study were added to the revised text as Figure 5. They were also uploaded to the system as an additional file to be seen more clearly.

Discussion: Needs Critical Analysis. The discussion should compare your results with previous research, explaining similarities, differences, and potential reasons for these findings. E.g. instead of stating that "Previous studies found that larger berries are preferred", discuss how your results align or contrast with these findings.

• In the discussion section, we presented the results we obtained from our study by the reviewer's suggestions more comprehensively with the literature. We also made long and seemingly complex sentences simplified and more understandable. We think that this revised discussion section is much better than the previous version.

 

Conclusion: The conclusion does not summarize the research findings but instead focuses on the study’s limitations. While acknowledging limitations is important, the primary focus should be on key findings and practical implications.

• The conclusion section has been reorganized based on the reviewer's suggestions. In this section, the results obtained are given in a few sentences. Then, a few general sentences about the work that should be done from now on were added to this section. After these corrections, we think the conclusion section became suitable for the reviewer's request.

References: Can Be Improved. Some references are outdated. Consider including more recent studies (2015–2024). Several key claims lack citations (e.g., consumer demand for seedless grapes, disease resistance trends). Ensure that every important claim is supported by reference.

• All references were reviewed; in particular, many outdated literature were replaced with new ones. Only a few literatures that were very relevant to the subject and dated after 2000 were left. Besides, care was taken to ensure all literatures was from the last ten years. In addition, new supporting literatures were added by the referee's request.

Your study is a valuable contribution to grape breeding research, but the manuscript would benefit from better structure, improved clarity, and deeper discussion of findings. Implementing these changes will strengthen the impact of your work and improve its readability.

• We definitely agree with the reviewer's recommendations. We have tried to make all the changes requested in our revised article as much as we could so that the article can be better understood, followed, and the results are presented by discussing the literature comprehensively.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-structured and understandable, but the quality of English can be improved in several areas. The text contains long and complex sentences that reduce clarity. Additionally, there are minor grammatical issues, including subject-verb agreement errors, inconsistent use of tenses, and occasional awkward phrasing. Some sentences are overly wordy and could be made more concise without losing meaning. The scientific tone is generally appropriate, but certain informal expressions should be refined for a more precise academic style. Formatting inconsistencies, such as the incorrect use of italics for Vitis species names and inconsistent spacing, should also be addressed. Furthermore, the manuscript inconsistently uses the terms "cultivar" and "variety"; selecting one term and using it consistently would improve clarity. Overall, while the manuscript is comprehensible, a thorough English language revision focusing on clarity, grammar, and conciseness would significantly enhance readability and scientific rigor.

• First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for his comments and valuable contributions. The reviewer made valuable suggestions to improve our article scientifically and make it more understandable. We tried to make all the requested changes in the revised article by considering all these suggestions. We simplified many sentences that were very long and caused confusion and made them easier to understand. We tried to reduce the frequently repeated words and use a single type of word by removing different words that mean the same thing to prevent conceptual confusion. We checked the tense and verb harmony in the sentences. We tried to make academic-style revisions to improve our manuscript as much as possible. We seriously strengthened the scientific language of the article and made it much more suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research focuses on evaluating the quality characteristics of hybrid grape genotypes and identifying potential cultivar candidates. The study has some significances and practical implications, but there are areas that require further improvement.

1. Even though 89 hybrid genotypes were included in the study, the sample sizes for some crossing combinations were relatively small. This may limit the reliability and generalizability of the results. It is suggested to increase the sample sizes for all combinations, especially those with small samples, to ensure that the findings accurately represent the characteristics of different hybridizations.
2. The lack of clearly defined control varieties in the experiment makes it difficult to directly evaluate the superiority of the hybrid genotypes. The authors should select well - known local or representative grape cultivars as controls. 
3. Rich data was included in the tables and figures, but some of them lack readability. For instance, some tables have excessive data without sufficient annotations and explanations, making it hard for readers to quickly get the information. The authors should optimize the design of tables and figures, add necessary notes and clarifications, and highlight important data to improve data visualization.
4. The language is generally fluent, but there are some inaccuracies in the use of professional terms. For example, the names of some grape varieties. 

Author Response

Replies/Comments to Reviewer 2

This research focuses on evaluating the quality characteristics of hybrid grape genotypes and identifying potential cultivar candidates. The study has some significances and practical implications, but there are areas that require further improvement.

1. Even though 89 hybrid genotypes were included in the study, the sample sizes for some crossing combinations were relatively small. This may limit the reliability and generalizability of the results. It is suggested to increase the sample sizes for all combinations, especially those with small samples, to ensure that the findings accurately represent the characteristics of different hybridizations.

• We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. Hybrid breeding studies are very time-consuming and labour-intensive studies. In these studies, due to various reasons, the desired success rate and hybrid genotypes cannot always be obtained. In this study, while the desired number of hybrid genotypes was obtained in some combinations, a much more limited number of hybrid genotypes were obtained in some combinations. However, this number was used only in a very limited part of the study in calculating the seedlessness percentage, and the seedlessness rate of the combinations was given.

In this case, it has already been stated in the text. Apart from that, while evaluating all quality criteria, all clusters on the vine were taken into account to fully represent the genotype, and the results were obtained on the averages of these clusters. In fact, our main purpose in this study is to focus on the quality characteristics of the hybrid genotypes obtained and to determine those with the highest potential to become varieties. Therefore, although the number of hybrid genotypes obtained in some hybrid combinations is low, we think this situation does not pose a major problem for the study's main purpose.

 

2. The lack of clearly defined control varieties in the experiment makes it difficult to directly evaluate the superiority of the hybrid genotypes. The authors should select well - known local or representative grape cultivars as controls. 

• We thank the reviewer for this very valuable comment and suggestion. In some studies, standard varieties or parents are used for control purposes, provided they have been grown under the same conditions. What is important here is that all varieties and hybrid genotypes have the same characteristics and can be compared in a healthy way. All hybrid genotypes are not grafted, that is, on their own roots and in their first productive years (approximately 6 years old). Since there are no standard varieties or parents in the trial area under the same conditions, that is, on their own roots. At these ages, we preferred not to use any of them to compare with the hybrids in this study to avoid giving rise to incorrect results or interpretations. Perhaps we could have found varieties with different ages and conditions and used them for comparison purposes in the study. However, we did not include them in the study because we thought these differences could lead us to incorrect interpretations.

 

3. Rich data was included in the tables and figures, but some of them lack readability. For instance, some tables have excessive data without sufficient annotations and explanations, making it hard for readers to quickly get the information. The authors should optimize the design of tables and figures, add necessary notes and clarifications, and highlight important data to improve data visualization.

• We thank the reviewer for this good suggestion. In accordance with the reviewer's request, we have divided the parameters we used in the study into separate tables and only provided the data related to colour (Lab) together. Thus, our total number of tables has reached 22 tables. We also made it much easier to understand by giving the data in the tables from the highest value to the lowest value. After revision we think following and understanding this new form is much easier.

 

4. The language is generally fluent, but there are some inaccuracies in the use of professional terms. For example, the names of some grape varieties. 

• Thank you very much for your suggestion. The terms in the article have been reviewed individually, and possible incorrect expressions have been corrected. All variety names have been checked from the “Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC)”, and corrections have been made, especially regarding the names of Turkish grape varieties, as suggested on this website. However, if any other technical terms or cultivar names are thought to be incorrect, please specify, and we will correct them as well.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the revisions made to the manuscript and acknowledge the significant improvements in structure, clarity, and methodology. The study provides valuable insights into grapevine breeding and cultivar evaluation, and your findings contribute to the development of new hybrid genotypes. However, there are still areas that require refinement to enhance clarity, consistency, and scientific rigor.

The structure of the manuscript is now more organized. However, there is an issue with numbering in section 2.4, as two subchapters share the same number. For consistency, please use subchapter numbering (e.g., 2.4.1 for total phenolics and 2.4.2 for antioxidant activity) instead of "1" and "2". In Table 18, the harvest date presentation is somewhat confusing. The use of Julian Dates or another clear format could improve clarity, as the current format appears similar to decimal numbers.

The language and formatting have improved, but further refinements are necessary. The manuscript still contains inconsistencies in the use of the terms "variety" and "cultivar." It is recommended to choose one term and use it consistently throughout the text, preferably "cultivar." Additionally, extra space characters should be removed, as only one space should be used between words. Unit formatting should also be standardized, such as using "g" instead of "gr" for grams and consistently choosing "L" or "l" for liter. For color parameters, such as L*, a*, and b*, italics should be used, to maintain consistency with scientific notation.

In terms of methodology, additional details on the degustation panel and phenolic extraction method have been included, which improves clarity. However, section 2.2 lacks information about the number of hybrid genotypes evaluated in this study. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly state the criteria used to determine the harvest date. Were the grapes harvested at their optimal ripeness stage? There is a large variation in the Maturation Index, which suggests that the timing of harvest could have been an influencing factor. Providing an explanation for how the harvest date was selected would strengthen the study's methodology.

The results section now provides more explanations for why certain genotypes performed better, which enhances interpretation. However, rather than simply listing the best-performing genotypes, it would be helpful to explain the specific characteristics that contributed to their superior performance. For example, instead of only stating that 22BY-097 had the highest degustation score, a discussion of the sensory attributes (e.g., balance of sweetness and acidity, crisp texture) that contributed to this result would be valuable. Additionally, in Figure 5, the caption should clarify why these specific grape pictures were chosen from the 48 evaluated genotypes. This would help the reader understand the significance of the images.

The discussion now includes comparisons with previous research, which is a step in the right direction. However, it still spends too much time summarizing past studies rather than critically analyzing how this study's results align or differ from them.

The conclusion has been improved by summarizing key findings rather than focusing only on study limitations. However, a brief mention of the next steps in breeding and commercialization would strengthen this section. For example, discussing plans for multi-location trials and the potential for future cultivar registration would emphasize the practical applications of this research.

Regarding references, newer studies have been included, which improves the relevance of literature. However, some claims about market trends and consumer preferences still lack citations and should be supported by references. Additionally, a few older references could be replaced with more recent studies.

Overall, the manuscript has improved significantly, but minor refinements in clarity, formatting, discussion depth, and reference completeness will further enhance its quality. I recommend accepting after minor revisions to address these final points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version, with clearer sentences and better readability. However, further refinements are needed to enhance clarity and consistency. Some sentences remain long and complex, making certain sections difficult to follow. Simplifying them would improve overall comprehension. There are also minor grammatical issues, including inconsistencies in article usage (a/the), subject-verb agreement, and prepositions. Some phrases sound awkward and could be rewritten for better flow. A final language review is recommended before publication to ensure grammatical accuracy, clarity, and scientific precision. While the manuscript is understandable, careful editing for conciseness, consistency, and fluency would further enhance its readability and quality.

Author Response

Replies/Comments to Reviewer 1

I appreciate the revisions made to the manuscript and acknowledge the significant improvements in structure, clarity, and methodology. The study provides valuable insights into grapevine breeding and cultivar evaluation, and your findings contribute to the development of new hybrid genotypes. However, there are still areas that require refinement to enhance clarity, consistency, and scientific rigor.

We thank both reviewers for their comprehensive evaluations and suggestions for improving our article. We believe that with their invaluable contributions, our article is much more suitable for acceptance after this second revision.

Question: The structure of the manuscript is now more organized. However, there is an issue with numbering in section 2.4, as two subchapters share the same number. For consistency, please use subchapter numbering (e.g., 2.4.1 for total phenolics and 2.4.2 for antioxidant activity) instead of "1" and "2". In Table 18, the harvest date presentation is somewhat confusing. The use of Julian Dates or another clear format could improve clarity, as the current format appears similar to decimal numbers.

Answer: Based on the reviewer's suggestion, the "2.4 Chemical Properties of Berries" section was divided into the following subheadings in the second revision.

2.4 Chemical Properties of Berries

2.4.1 Total soluble solids, acidity, maturity index, flavour and harvesting time

2.4.2 Total phenol and antioxidant activity

In Table 18, the month names of the harvest dates are written in words rather than numbers, making them more understandable.

Question: The language and formatting have improved, but further refinements are necessary. The manuscript still contains inconsistencies in the use of the terms "variety" and "cultivar." It is recommended to choose one term and use it consistently throughout the text, preferably "cultivar." Additionally, extra space characters should be removed, as only one space should be used between words. Unit formatting should also be standardized, such as using "g" instead of "gr" for grams and consistently choosing "L" or "l" for liter. For color parameters, such as L*, a*, and b*, italics should be used, to maintain consistency with scientific notation.

Answer: The places where "variety" was used were changed to "cultivar/cultivars". Many corrections were made in the first revision, but some were probably overlooked during the revisions. In the second revision, only the term cultivar was used throughout the text.

All units related to gram were corrected to be abbreviated as g.

All units where liter was abbreviated were changed to L.

All places where L*, a*, and b were used were made italic.

Question: In terms of methodology, additional details on the degustation panel and phenolic extraction method have been included, which improves clarity. However, section 2.2 lacks information about the number of hybrid genotypes evaluated in this study. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly state the criteria used to determine the harvest date. Were the grapes harvested at their optimal ripeness stage? There is a large variation in the Maturation Index, which suggests that the timing of harvest could have been an influencing factor. Providing an explanation for how the harvest date was selected would strengthen the study's methodology.

Answer: Information requested by Reviewer has been added to section 2.2. Also includes information about harvest date.

The requested explanation has been added to the section regarding the harvesting date.

Question: The results section now provides more explanations for why certain genotypes performed better, which enhances interpretation. However, rather than simply listing the best-performing genotypes, it would be helpful to explain the specific characteristics that contributed to their superior performance. For example, instead of only stating that 22BY-097 had the highest degustation score, a discussion of the sensory attributes (e.g., balance of sweetness and acidity, crisp texture) that contributed to this result would be valuable. Additionally, in Figure 5, the caption should clarify why these specific grape pictures were chosen from the 48 evaluated genotypes. This would help the reader understand the significance of the images.

Additional explanations about why the selected hybrid genotypes were chosen have been added to the results section.

The requested explanations have been added in detail to the "3.4. Degustation Test (Sensory Analysis)" section.

Explanations regarding the selection of 48 hybrid genotypes have been added to the last part of section 2.2.

Question: The discussion now includes comparisons with previous research, which is a step in the right direction. However, it still spends too much time summarizing past studies rather than critically analyzing how this study's results align or differ from them.

Answer: Our results were discussed in more detail with the literature in the discussion section. Additional explanations were added to this section.

Question: The conclusion has been improved by summarizing key findings rather than focusing only on study limitations. However, a brief mention of the next steps in breeding and commercialization would strengthen this section. For example, discussing plans for multi-location trials and the potential for future cultivar registration would emphasize the practical applications of this research.

Answer: The desired additions have been made to improve the conclusion section.

Question: Regarding references, newer studies have been included, which improves the relevance of literature. However, some claims about market trends and consumer preferences still lack citations and should be supported by references. Additionally, a few older references could be replaced with more recent studies.

Answer: The requested current literature regarding the literature has been added to the relevant section.

Overall, the manuscript has improved significantly, but minor refinements in clarity, formatting, discussion depth, and reference completeness will further enhance its quality. I recommend accepting after minor revisions to address these final points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version, with clearer sentences and better readability. However, further refinements are needed to enhance clarity and consistency. Some sentences remain long and complex, making certain sections difficult to follow. Simplifying them would improve overall comprehension. There are also minor grammatical issues, including inconsistencies in article usage (a/the), subject-verb agreement, and prepositions. Some phrases sound awkward and could be rewritten for better flow. A final language review is recommended before publication to ensure grammatical accuracy, clarity, and scientific precision. While the manuscript is understandable, careful editing for conciseness, consistency, and fluency would further enhance its readability and quality.

We thank the reviewer for his/her comprehensive and detailed review and also for very pertinent suggestions. His/her contributions to the improvement of our article are truly invaluable to us.

 After the corrections were made, the revised MS was reviewed again with the help of a special language program and some corrections were made, thus making it understandable and clear, suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluates the quality traits of 89 hybrid grape genotypes to identify promising cultivars for commercialization. The research addresses a critical gap in Turkish viticulture by focusing on developing competitive table grape varieties. The results provide valuable insights for breeding programs. The study is well-conducted but requires targeted refinements to elevate its impact.

1. Replace Figure 3 with a matrix showing significant correlations (p < 0.05) and coefficients.
2. Clarify why 41 genotypes were excluded from phenolic analyses and ensure representativeness.

Author Response

Replies/Comments to Reviewer 2

This study evaluates the quality traits of 89 hybrid grape genotypes to identify promising cultivars for commercialization. The research addresses a critical gap in Turkish viticulture by focusing on developing competitive table grape varieties. The results provide valuable insights for breeding programs. The study is well-conducted but requires targeted refinements to elevate its impact.

We thank the reviewer for their valuable contribution to our manuscript. We tried to express the results and focus points we wanted to reach in the text, but there may be points that were missed. Therefore, we added additional explanations to these focus points in the revised text.

Our main goal in this study was to determine potential large-berry seedless grape cultivars that could compete with foreign cultivars. However, if there were hybrid genotypes that had additional characteristics such as firm flesh, unique aroma, and uniformity, which are sought in some markets in addition to large-berry and seedless, they were also intended to be evaluated. In addition, it is aimed to select hybrids that are not seedless but have other superior characteristics (such as very large berry size, very early or late harvest, and special aroma) as potential cultivar candidates.

 

Question: Replace Figure 3 with a matrix showing significant correlations (p < 0.05) and coefficients.

Answer: The correlation matrix, which includes all the quality criteria we examined in our study and in which significant negative/positive relationships are coloured differently, has been added as a table as an additional file. Since the table is large and difficult to read, it has been uploaded to the system as an additional file instead of the main text.

 

Question: Clarify why 41 genotypes were excluded from phenolic analyses and ensure representativeness.

Answer: When planning the study, it was planned to perform basic quality analyses on all hybrids. Still, since later total phenol and antioxidant activity analyses are particularly costly, these analyses were planned to be performed mainly on the first stage analyses and especially on those with the potential to become a registered cultivar as a result of the degustation test. Since it would not be very meaningful to perform these analyses on hybrids that do not have the potential to become a registered cultivar in the future, hybrids were eliminated at different stages and their analyses were performed.