Comparative Analysis of Grapevine Epiphytic Microbiomes among Different Varieties, Tissues, and Developmental Stages in the Same Terroir
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The method section can be a bit improved by giving details rather just mentioning as have described earlier ( Growth condition and DNA extraction).
The practical applications from the research can be explained in detail,as high throughput data has been generated
Author Response
Comment: The method section can be a bit improved by giving details rather just mentioning as have described earlier ( Growth condition and DNA extraction).
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The methods are now described in detail.
Comment: The practical applications from the research can be explained in detail, as high throughput data has been generated
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added suggestions of practical applications of this work in the discussion and conclusions
Reviewer 2 Report
The author investigated the comparative analysis of grapevine epiphytic microbiome among different varieties, tissues, and developmental stages. I think that the current format for a research paper is well-organized and good enough to be published in MDPI's journal of applied sciences. As a result, I feel the work, with minor revisions, might be accepted for publication in this journal. But first, let me offer some general and particular feedback to the authors.
General comments: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of grapevine genotypes on fungal and bacterial community assemblages, respectively, in the phyllosphere by exploiting NGS-based metagenomic analysis. The current study work style, in my opinion, is appropriate for publication in MDPI's journal of applied sciences. So, I think the work could be published in this journal with minor changes.
Specific comments:
- First of all, the author didn't put the line number in the text, and it is difficult to comment on the manuscript.
- Introduction: The author should fix this. "b) Does developmental stage and different tissue samples affect the formation of distinct microbial communities,"
- The author should follow the instructions of the journal. For example, they use Fig. 1 and Tab. 1 instead of Figure 1 and Table 1 throughout the text.
- The author added an unnecessary paragraph in the discussion part. They should focus on each result carefully. Please improve this part.
- Reference section: Please follow the style and instructions of the journal. For example, the author didn't put the journal name in reference 5.
- The language and style of English must be extensively adjusted.
Author Response
Comment: The author investigated the comparative analysis of grapevine epiphytic microbiome among different varieties, tissues, and developmental stages. I think that the current format for a research paper is well-organized and good enough to be published in MDPI's journal of applied sciences. As a result, I feel the work, with minor revisions, might be accepted for publication in this journal. But first, let me offer some general and particular feedback to the authors.
General comments: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of grapevine genotypes on fungal and bacterial community assemblages, respectively, in the phyllosphere by exploiting NGS-based metagenomic analysis. The current study work style, in my opinion, is appropriate for publication in MDPI's journal of applied sciences. So, I think the work could be published in this journal with minor changes.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments
Specific comments:
- First of all, the author didn't put the line number in the text, and it is difficult to comment on the manuscript.
Ans: Thank you for the comment, line numbering has been added.
2. Introduction: The author should fix this. "b) Does developmental stage and different tissue samples affect the formation of distinct microbial communities,"
Ans: The statement has been rephrased and elaborated according to reviewer’s suggestion. Now it is: b) does developmental stage and tissue type affect the composition of microbial communities
3. The author should follow the instructions of the journal. For example, they use Fig. 1 and Tab. 1 instead of Figure 1 and Table 1 throughout the text.
Ans: Thank you for the comment. Figure and Table indications were corrected throughout the manuscript, according to Journal’s instructions.
4. The author added an unnecessary paragraph in the discussion part. They should focus on each result carefully. Please improve this part.
Ans: Thank you for the suggestion to improve the Discussion section. The section was modified accordingly to improve the manuscript. All changes are shown as track changes, according to reviewers’ and the Journal’s instructions.
5. Reference section: Please follow the style and instructions of the journal. For example, the author didn't put the journal name in reference 5.
Ans: All references were checked for errors and corrected.
6. The language and style of English must be extensively adjusted.
Ans: Thank you for the comment to improve the readership of the manuscript. English language has been carefully checked and edited throughout the manuscript.
