The Effect of Rootstock on the Activity of Key Enzymes in Acid Metabolism and the Expression of Related Genes in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Grapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review:

The Effect of Rootstock on the Activity of Key Enzymes in Acid Metabolism and the Expression of Related Genes in Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes

 

Overall:

In this study different rootstocks were combined with Cabernet Sauvignon scion to evaluate their effect on organic acids in grapes under Xinjiang climatic conditions. The text is comprehensive for the objectives. The text requires additional details describing cultivation conditions, location, year, and growing season description. Beyond this, the text requires revisions for consistency in naming of treatments in text and figures (ex. Kangan3/Kangzhen3) and description of rootstock-scion combination. There are frequent instances of incorrect word choice (panicle/ spike to describe scion); however, these can be quickly fixed with attention to detail. Cummulatively, the work provides an important step forward for rootstock selection for Xinjiang growers concerned with low acidity in Cabernet Sauvignon grapes; this has important implications in a changing climate and greater discussion of Xinjiang/the specific growing seasons climate may place this in perspective.

 

Main Notes

·      Please consistently capitalize treatments in figures/ maintain similar nomenclature for treatments

o   Ex. Fig. 5 Kangan3 vs. Fig. 13 Kangzhen3

·      The text needs to maintain consistency when referring to cultivars.

o   Cabernet Sauvignon appears without ‘ ‘ throughout the text, yet ‘Red Muscat’ and ‘Huangguan’ appear within apostrophes throughout the discussion.

·      In future work berry mass should be recorded along with berry pH simultaneous with soluble solid content, this is another important factor in rootstock selection. Likewise, for rootstock work delving into tartaric acid content in grapes, potassium might aid in implications of ripening and fermentation (although not directly linked to metabolic pathways assessed herein).

 

Line by line:

Page 2; line 84:

·      In describing the test location, please provide geographic coordinates of plot.

 

Page 3; line 97:

·      Please be consistent in Cabernet Sauvignon clone naming. Is it You 169 or Superior Line 169?

Page 3; line 103:

·      Do you mean self-rooted cuttings or seedlings throughout the plant materials section? If seedlings, this research is very different from self-rooted cuttings.

Page 3; line 109:

·      “three ears of fruit…” Is ears used in place of clusters?

Page 3; line 111:

·      “fruit particles devoid of….” Are fruit particles berries?

Page 3: line 126:

·      The description of balance, spectrophotometer, etc. likely belongs in the instruments and equipment section after removal of duplicate text.

Page 3; line 142:

·      “Fruit grains”= berries?

Page 6; line 244 and throughout:

·      “Panicle”= scion?

Page 7; line 275 and throughout:

·      “Panicle”/ “Spike”= scion?

The general language is acceptable.

There is a vast need for consistency in naming, but that can be rapidly fixed with greater attention to detail.

Author Response

I am very grateful for your recognition of my paper, where I have seen all your comments. I have responded in the file, please check it out.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: agronomy-2529064

Manuscript Title: The Effect of Rootstock on the Activity of Key Enzymes in Acid

Metabolism and the Expression of Related Genes in Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes.

The title and subject of the manuscript are very interesting from the methodological and practical point of view, suitable and adequate. The scientific content contributes to the space in which it develops.

The abstract of the paper is factual concrete, realistic, and understandable.

The introduction provides a good understanding of the subject and its importance, with a significant quantity of information. Theoretical and practical reasons for the experiments are very reasonable.

The materials and methods are written clearly and in detail, for the reader to understand.

The results were described and discussed nicely and accurately.

 

There are some minor corrections that I have noticed that may improve the standard of the manuscript in the attached file.

 

I hope my comments improve the quality of your manuscript

 

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I am very grateful for your recognition of my paper, where I have seen all your comments. I have compiled your comments into the following points and have responded. I have responded in the file, please check it out

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf