HPLC-DAD-APCI-MS as a Tool for Carotenoid Assessment of Wild and Cultivated Cherry Tomatoes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

The article is good, but lacks some emphasis, especially in formulating the aim of the study and summarizing the findings obtained.

At the end of Introduction section should be clear hypothesis and objectives of the designed study.

Methods

Please specify how many greenhouse replicates (n) was done for each accession of tomato; how many plots were arranged.

Provide a description of the tomato growing conditions

Describe the time and stage of tomato fruit picking.  

There is no description of commercial tomato.

The description of HPLC-DAD-MS is acceptable.

Results

„ANOVA was employed between accessions“(lines 158-159) should be modified.

Use the unify the use of capital or low letters in chromatograms and  title in Fig. 1.

In Table 3, do not use the Duncan test to indicate differences for ND and NQ.

Please specify the names of the compounds in 236 (-carotene) and 244 lines.

Correct the beginning of the sentence „[20] listed ten carotenoids in tomato..“ 282 line.

The Conclusions must be rewritten. Please provide the stronger description of findings.

First sentence is not conclusion.

Antioxidant properties have not been evaluated; therefore statements 374-376, 383 are inconsistent with the presented study.

What the difference was detected between wild and commercial tomato.

Use capital letters in the first columns and row of the tables to name the compounds.

Please write correctly the range: 4.3–51.2, not 4.30 – 51.2

In Tables 1 and 2, the column „compounds“  needs to be renamed more specifically.

Use italic font: all-trans-α-carotene, etc.

 

Author Response

The article is good, but lacks some emphasis, especially in formulating the aim of the study and summarizing the findings obtained.

At the end of Introduction section should be clear hypothesis and objectives of the designed study.

Response 1. Thank you for your appreciation. We rewrite the paragraph, please see in manuscript.

Methods

Please specify how many greenhouse replicates (n) was done for each accession of tomato; how many plots were arranged.

Response 2. In manuscript is specified that we used four replicates for each accession at greenhouse conditions. Tomatoes was picked up at same stage of each accession.

Provide a description of the tomato growing conditions. Describe the time and stage of tomato fruit picking.  

Response 3. We referenced a previously publication where there are more specifications of plant material analyzed.

There is no description of commercial tomato.

Response 4. We used a common cherry tomato, commercialized in market, with the specific purpose of comparing carotenoids available. We don’t have data available about the culture

The description of HPLC-DAD-MS is acceptable.

Response 5. Response: Thank you

Results

„ANOVA was employed between accessions“(lines 158-159) should be modified.

Response 6. The corrections are done.

Use the unify the use of capital or low letters in chromatograms and  title in Fig. 1.

Response 7. The corrections are done.

In Table 3, do not use the Duncan test to indicate differences for ND and NQ.

Response 8. The corrections are done.

Please specify the names of the compounds in 236 (-carotene) and 244 lines.

Response 9. The corrections are done.

Correct the beginning of the sentence „[20] listed ten carotenoids in tomato..“ 282 line.

Response 10. The corrections are done.

 

The Conclusions must be rewritten. Please provide the stronger description of findings.

Response 11. Response: the paragraph was rewritten.

First sentence is not conclusion.

Response 12: This sentence was made to contextualize the readers.

Antioxidant properties have not been evaluated; therefore statements 374-376, 383 are inconsistent with the presented study.

Response 13: the paragraph was rewritten.

What the difference was detected between wild and commercial tomato.

Response 14: Concentration of main carotenoids, and diversity in minor carotenoids.

Use capital letters in the first columns and row of the tables to name the compounds.

Response 15. The corrections are done.

Please write correctly the range: 4.3–51.2, not 4.30 – 51.2

Response 16. The corrections are done.

In Tables 1 and 2, the column „compounds“  needs to be renamed more specifically.

Response 17. The corrections are done.

Use italic font: all-trans-α-carotene, etc.

Response 18. The corrections are done.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well presented the study well designed and the results well presented. The content is important as the procedure of carrotenoids in tomatoes can be applied by others. The contents of carrotenoids are reported and this can be important for customers, breeders, farmers.

 

I wonder how linearity range was established. The values of upper linearity ranges are quite strange and this potentially needs explanation.

Author Response

 

The article is well presented the study well designed and the results well presented. The content is important as the procedure of carrotenoids in tomatoes can be applied by others. The contents of carrotenoids are reported and this can be important for customers, breeders, farmers.

I wonder how linearity range was established. The values of upper linearity ranges are quite strange and this potentially needs explanation.

Response 1: As is explained in the text “The linear regression equation and the correlation coefficient (r²) were then obtained plotting the concentration of the injected solutions versus the peak area (Table 1).” Graphics have been added below. Furthermore, to choose the correct linear range, the residuals obtained form the least square regression were studied.

The linear ranges are of one order of magnitude (very common ranges) except for all-trans-b-carotene which is of two magnitude orders. These linear ranges are in agreement with those previously found in the Foodomics research group. For example, Castro-Puyana et al. used linear ranges of one magnitude order and two magnitude order linear range for lutein and b-carotene, respectively (Anal Bioanal Chem,2013, 405:4607–4616).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors describe an interesting method to determine carotenoids via HPLC-DAD-APCI-MS coupled instruments.

The topic is of interest for the Researchers on the field, but the quality of methods and results presentation is quite low

The Authors are required to deeply revise the manuscript, particularly in terms of English language.

Here following just a few examples:

“Accession”… which is the meaning in this paper?

Line 47. There is a strange symbol

Apex and pedex are often not properly reorted (i.e. line 139, 145, …)

Table 1. Avoid the notation “10-1” this seems to me making confusion

Table 3. I strongly suggest to avoid the notation “10-x”. If necessary, I suggest to use mg/kg as unit instead of mg/g.

Also I suggest to report as “trace” the values < LOQ and correct ND and “< LOD”

Line 282. Please correct as

“Dzakovich and co-workers, listed ten…..”

Please, apply “Extensive editing of English language and style“ all over in the manuscript

 

Author Response

The Authors describe an interesting method to determine carotenoids via HPLC-DAD-APCI-MS coupled instruments.

The topic is of interest for the Researchers on the field, but the quality of methods and results presentation is quite low

Here following just a few examples:

“Accession”… which is the meaning in this paper?

Response 1: The plants analyzed are part of a big project of wild cherry tomatoes in south and America central. Hence, these germplasm are part of a big collection, and in this case each “accession” is the conservation unit that includes which is identified with an alphanumeric code, and which distinguishes it from the rest in a germplasm bank.

Line 47. There is a strange symbol

Response 2: The symbol was corrected

Apex and pedex are often not properly reorted (i.e. line 139, 145, …)

Response 3: corrections are done.

Table 1. Avoid the notation “10-1” this seems to me making confusion

Response 4: Next answer is related to this response

Table 3. I strongly suggest to avoid the notation “10-x”. If necessary, I suggest to use mg/kg as unit instead of mg/g.

Response 5: we used you suggestion for some carotenoids. Please see in Table 3.

Also I suggest to report as “trace” the values < LOQ and correct ND and “< LOD”

Response 6: we used you suggestion for some carotenoids. Please see in Table 3.

Line 282. Please correct as  “Dzakovich and co-workers, listed ten…..”

Response 7: corrections are done.

Please, apply “Extensive editing of English language and style“ all over in the manuscript

The Authors are required to deeply revise the manuscript, particularly in terms of English language.

Response 8. We made an exhaustive revision about this point

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx