Genotype and Environment Effects on Phytosterol and Tocopherol Contents in Almond Kernel Oil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The thematic of your manuscript is quite interesting and the results obtained have a significant practical application.

I have some recommendations as follows:

1) Lines 118-120: Please, check the coordinates symbols (°, ',") and correct where needed. Also, replace "over sea level" with "above sea level"

2) Line 132: Please, correct the degree symbol (not underlined)

3) Line 198: Here you have to delete the number 29 which is not in brackets - " ...but 29 Egea et al. [29] ..."

4) Page 7, Lines 20-28: Here you have discussed the phytosterol content of several plant species but all of them are not trees as the almond is. Tree life cycle and physiology is quite different, so I would like to reconsider this part and to include some references for other kernels derived from trees.

5) I have noticed that sometimes you present the measurement units as "mg/kg" but also you have used "g kg^-1". So, choose one type and unify the whole text.

6) When regarding the reference list, there is only one publication from the last 5 years - [37]. The rest 42 references are quite old  - more than 20 years! Please, revise this list.

7) Do you think that the number of studied trees (3 individuals per genotype) and the sample size (20 almonds) is enough to make a conclusions ? How do you have assured the sufficient data for statistical evaluation?

Author Response

 

Dear Ms. Casey Zhang, Assistant Editor of Seeds,

According with the suggestions of the Reviewer 1 we have revised the manuscript incorporating the proposed revisions indicating these revisions with the control of changes of the WORD document. We deeply appreciate the efforts of the reviewer in the improvement of the manuscript for a future publication.

The thematic of your manuscript is quite interesting and the results obtained have a significant practical application.

We agree and thank the Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments about the revision of this work. In addition, all the suggestions and revisions of the reviewer have been incorporated indicating these revisions with the “Track Changes” of the WORD document.

I have some recommendations as follows:

1) Lines 118-120: Please, check the coordinates symbols (°, ',") and correct where needed. Also, replace "over sea level" with "above sea level"

Done

2) Line 132: Please, correct the degree symbol (not underlined)

Done

3) Line 198: Here you have to delete the number 29 which is not in brackets - " ...but 29 Egea et al. [29] ..."

Done

4) Page 7, Lines 20-28: Here you have discussed the phytosterol content of several plant species but all of them are not trees as the almond is. Tree life cycle and physiology is quite different, so I would like to reconsider this part and to include some references for other kernels derived from trees.

Yes, we agree with the reviewer concerning this point. Unfortunately, we don’t found studies carried out on the effect of location on phytosrerols in almond or in others fruit nut. However, we have added results of the effect of location of phytosterol in olive fruit tree.

5) I have noticed that sometimes you present the measurement units as "mg/kg" but also you have used "g kg^-1". So, choose one type and unify the whole text.

We have adopted the measurement units of each component (tocopherol and phytosterol) according to our ……

6) When regarding the reference list, there is only one publication from the last 5 years - [37]. The rest 42 references are quite old  - more than 20 years! Please, revise this list.

Yes we agree with the reviewer but we don’t found recent publications with new results than those cited in the present work.

 

 

7) Do you think that the number of studied trees (3 individuals per genotype) and the sample size (20 almonds) is enough to make a conclusions ? How do you have assured the sufficient data for statistical evaluation?

In the present study we have include three individual trees, from each tree with collect 1 kg of fruits and from this sample we have took 20 fruit for analysis. In previous experience we have analyzed more than 3 plants by varieties with different fruit sample size and we have obtained similar results than when we studied 3 plant by varieties and sample of 20 fruits. Based on these results we have decided to analyze just 20 fruits sampled from 1 kg of fruit from each plant.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Seeds-1966873” entitled “Genotype and environment effects on phytosterol and tocopherol contents in almond (Prunus dulcis L.) kernel oil” by Ossama et al. deals with an interesting subject, where the phytosterol and tocopherol contents of almond kernel oil were evaluated in three widely cultivated almond cultivars, including the Spanish cultivar ‘Marcona’ and the French cultivars ‘Ferragnès’ and ‘Ferraduel’, grown under two different agro-climatic conditions, Zaragoza (Spain) and Meknès (Morocco). The results revealed significant effects of the genotype on kernel phytosterol content, Δ5-Avenasterol, Δ7-Campesterol, Stigmasterol, and on the three tocopherol isomers. The highest value of kernel phytosterol content was detected in ‘Marcona’ (1.45 g kg^–1). Mean values of major phytosterol compounds were higher in ‘Ferragnès’ (81.57% of total phytosterol) for β-sitosterol and in ‘Marcona’ for Δ5-avenasterol (10.79% of total phytosterol). In addition, the location effect was significant on oil and kernel phytosterol contents, β-sitosterol, Δ5-avenasterol, Δ7-stigmastenol, Δ7-campesterol and α- and γ-tocopherol. The highest value of kernel and oil phytosterol contents were observed at Meknès (1.48 g kg^–1 and 2.54 g kg^–1, respectively), as compared to those obtained at Zaragoza (1.31 g kg^–1 and 2.54 g kg^–1, respectively). The highest values ofβ-sitosterol and Δ5-avenasterol were obtained at the Zaragoza location (81.93% and 10.55% of total phytosterols, respectively). Independently of the location, the highest values of α- and γ-tocopherol were detected in ‘Ferragnès’ (487 and 13.2 mg/kg oil, respectively). The highest value of α-tocopherol was observed in the Morocco location (496 mg kg^-1 oil).

 

The topic and content are appropriate. The scientific content and the manuscript size are appropriate. The introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references. The novelty of the results is above the average of novelty knowledge. The conclusions of the article are well-proof. The title and the abstract of the manuscript are also appropriate. The editing and linguistic quality are good. The quality of citations is appropriate. However, there are some points that need attention in order for the article to be published. I would like to recommend a major revision is required for the reasons listed below:

 

·      The abstract is too long (267 words when the limit is about 200 words) and descriptive.

·      Keywords: Please change some keywords. The title and keywords must not contain the same words.

·      Lines 130-131: Authors should specify the model of the commercial fat-extractor (In the current status, they only refer to the manufacturer of the extractor).

·      Line 138: The correct is: “…using an HPLC chromatograph consisted of a Kontron model 360 autosampler (Kontron Instruments, Eching, Germany) connected with a Kontron 440 photodiode array detector …” 

·      Line 146: The correct is “…a Kontron 440 photodiode array detector ... ”

·      Line 174: Please check and improve the Equation according to journal style.

·      Line 198: The correct is: “…, but Egea et al. [29] …”

 

 

·      Table 2: In notes, the correct sentence is: “Values followed by different letters in the same line and variety are significantly different at P<0.05”. (As is seen from Δ7-Avenasterol). In addition, please compare the mean values of varieties. For this, you could use capital letters in your Table.

·      In addition, please check Table 1. There are several mistakes in comparison with Tables 2 and 3. For instance, in Δ7-Avenasterol, according to Table 1, there were no significant effects of Genotype and Location on this parameter. However, in Table 2, significant effects of the abovementioned factors can be found.

 

Finally, please provide the supplementary material as you mentioned in line 140 of the manuscript.

 

Thank you for your consideration

Author Response

Dear Ms. Casey Zhang, Assistant Editor of Seeds,

According with the suggestions of the Reviewer 2 we have revised the manuscript incorporating the proposed revisions indicating these revisions with the control of changes of the WORD document. We deeply appreciate the efforts of the reviewer in the improvement of the manuscript for a future publication.

The abstract is too long (267 words when the limit is about 200 words) and descriptive.

Done

• Keywords: Please change some keywords. The title and keywords must not contain the same words.

Done

• Lines 130-131: Authors should specify the model of the commercial fat-extractor (In the current status, they only refer to the manufacturer of the extractor).
• Line 138: The correct is: “…using an HPLC chromatograph consisted of a Kontron model 360 autosampler (Kontron Instruments, Eching, Germany) connected with a Kontron 440 photodiode array detector …” 

Done

• Line 146: The correct is “…a Kontron 440 photodiode array detector ... ”

Done

• Line 174: Please check and improve the Equation according to journal style.

Done

• Line 198: The correct is: “…, but Egea et al. [29] …”

 Done

 

• Table 2: In notes, the correct sentence is: “Values followed by different letters in the same line and variety are significantly different at P<0.05”. (As is seen from Δ7-Avenasterol). In addition, please compare the mean values of varieties. For this, you could use capital letters in your Table.

Done

• In addition, please check Table 1. There are several mistakesin comparison with Tables 2 and 3. For instance, in Δ7-Avenasterol, according to Table 1, there were no significant effects of Genotype and Location on this parameter. However, in Table 2, significant effects of the abovementioned factors can be found.

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Your manuscript still needs some corrections as follows:

1) Line 120 - above sea level, not over sea level

2) Please, check the whole text and add a space between words and [] where needed

3) Line 77-87, Page 9 - Please, check the units and unify (mg/kg or mg kg^-1)

4) Please, check the Reference section and correct the merged words (i.e. journal name and year)

 

Author Response

We agree and thank the Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments about the revision of this work. In addition, all the suggestions and revisions of the reviewer have been incorporated indicating these revisions with the “Track Changes” of the WORD document.

1) Line 120 - above sea level, not over sea level

Done

2) Please, check the whole text and add a space between words and [] where needed

Done

3) Line 77-87, Page 9 - Please, check the units and unify (mg/kg or mg kg^-1)

In this point we have adopted the conventional units allowing us to compare the results with previous work done in almond.

4) Please, check the Reference section and correct the merged words (i.e. journal name and year)

Done

Reviewer 2 Report

This revised paper manuscript accurately deals with an interesting subject, where the phytosterol and tocopherol contents of almond kernel oil were evaluated in three widely cultivated almond cultivars, including the Spanish cultivar ‘Marcona’ and the French cultivars ‘Ferragnès’ and ‘Ferraduel’, grown under two different agro-climatic conditions, Zaragoza (Spain) and Meknès (Morocco). The manuscript has improved a lot after revision. Some minor comments are included below.

 

Minor comments:

 

·      Please check the Tables of your manuscript (e.g., In Table 2, and especially in Δ7-Stigmastenol, when you use capital letters to compare the mean values of cultivars you use the letters A and AB; however, the letter B does not exist)

·      In addition, in Notes of Table 2, explain what the capital and lowercase letters compare, respectively.

·      Please double-check the language of the text and revise any mistakes.

 

 

Thank you for your consideration.

Author Response

We agree and thank the Reviewer 2 for their valuable comments about the revision of this work. In addition, all the suggestions and revisions of the reviewer have been incorporated indicating these revisions with the “Track Changes” of the WORD document.

• Please check the Tables of your manuscript (e.g., In Table 2, and especially in Δ7-Stigmastenol, when you use capital letters to compare the mean values of cultivars you use the letters A and AB; however, the letter B does not exist)

Done

• In addition, in Notes of Table 2, explain what the capital and lowercase letters compare, respectively.

Done

• Please double-check the language of the text and revise any mistakes.

 Done