A Metagenetic Insight into Microbial Diversity of Spontaneously Fermented Polish Red Wines and an Analysis of Selected Physicochemical Properties
, Monika Pytka 1, Anna Stój 1, Agnieszka Kubik-Komar 2, Jakub Wyrostek 3 and Adam Waśko 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the results on the investigation of microbial diversity in selected red wines in Poland. Content of sugars, ethanol, acids and antioxidant capacity was analysed as well. The topic is an interesting one, especially in the regard of the growing wine production, and the presented results could be beneficial for the optimization of production processes. The manuscript is well organized and written. Methods are described in detail and the results are well presented and discussed. There are several minor corrections that should be made before accepting the manuscript for publication.
In the abstract, line 22 and 23, the sentence should be rewritten to make it more which bacteria is most abundant in which wine.
Figure 2. is missing, or rather, it ended up under the table 2 and cannot be seen.
Table 3. units for fermentation time should be given.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the manuscript gives an interesting insight into the diversity of the microorganisms available in the red wine samples of the selected regions in Poland. Surely, global weather changes and warming affect this ongoing transformation of agricultural products in that region. Therefore, it is an ongoing process during time.
The manuscript is well-written, the used methods and results are sound.
The Figure 1 and 2 are not very clear, they need improvement. In Figure 1, the clarity is a problem. Figure 2 needs to be rearranged on the left side of the panel.
The references section contains many old references, which may need updating.
The analytical part is missing the classical methods of UV-vis, FTIR, HPLC, which makes the characterization limited. The authors are advised to include these methods as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the manuscript according to the comments. The paper is fit for publication.
Good luck.
