Genetic Variation in Turkish Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties for Resistance to Common Bunt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Add the association analysis between SSR marker and the phenotypes in this germ plasm pool.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comment 1: Add the association analysis between SSR marker and the phenotypes in this germplasm pool.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. However, I think this data set is not suitable for association analysis. The fact that each variety has different genetic background and therefore the infection rates show high variation will not give the correct result as a result of association analysis. t-test was already applied to reveal the effect of resistance genes to common bunt (Lines 165-167).
Additionally, as suggested by you, the introduction and discussion parts were improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
A very interesting paper that significantly expands our knowledge of wheat's resistance to two dangerous pathogens Tilletia laevis and T. caries, and the possibilities of increasing it in breeding programs. Written clearly and understandably. What should be emphasized is the exceptionally wide research material (102 varieties) and the research conducted over 3 growing seasons, which in the case of agricultural research, in my opinion, is the absolute minimum, which is unfortunately being deviated from.
The only thing missing, which I believe is necessary for a thorough interpretation of the results, is the lack of meteorological data in the studied growing seasons. Maybe this would explain it better:
- lack of immunity of examined varieties in the 2020-2021 season and
- why the results obtained in the first growing season are so different from those obtained in the remaining seasons.
Overall, the work is interesting and I recommend that it be published after supplementing it with the data mentioned above.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Thank you for pointing this out. As you suggested, meteorological data for each growing season was given in Figure 3. Additionally, the results were discussed with meteorological data in detail (Lines 202-220).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments
Corrections/improvements to English made in text
M & M
No mention of the source of the inoculum ( i.e. what variety, resistant or susceptibility type ) ) and what species and pathotype was used
Should this be :
??=?????? ?? ???????? ??i???/????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ? 100
Conclusions :
Should consider that these tests were performed with one isolate/source of bunt and that other compared tests would have used a different isolate and may explain some differences in results .
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comment 1: Corrections/improvements to English made in text
Response 1: All suggestions were accepted.
Comment 2: No mention of the source of the inoculum ( i.e. what variety, resistant or susceptibility type ) ) and what species and pathotype was used
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The pathogen information was missing, sorry for this. As suggested by you, I added this information (Line 265). it was used a pathotype of T. laevis (syn: T. foedita) in this study. Additionally, virulence formula was added. On the other hand, the information about bread wheat varieties used in this study was already given in Table S1.
Comment 3:
Should this be :
??=?????? ?? ???????? ??i???/????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ? 100
Response 3: As suggested by you, the equation was corrected (Line 292).
Comment 4: Should consider that these tests were performed with one isolate/source of bunt and that other compared tests would have used a different isolate and may explain some differences in results .
Response 4: I agree with this comment. However, in Türkiye, there has been no race identification for a long time for T. laevis and so this is a preliminary study. I added a recommendation about this at the end of the conclusion as highlighted by you (Lines 347-349).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
