Nutritional and Antinutritional Potentials of Sorghum: A Comparative Study among Different Sorghum Landraces of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia
, Yemane Tsehaye 3, Lijalem Tareke 4, Ola T. Westengen 5 and Siri Fjellheim 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS with the title, "Nutritional And Antinutritional Potentials Of Sorghum: A Comparative Study Among Different Sorghum Landraces Of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia" is indeed an exhaustive effort to elucidate the concentrations of nutritional profiles of land races of sorghum. The authors initially used 358 land races from 20 different regions which were reduced to 21 accessions for further analyses. I have read the MS thoroughly and made some corrections in the running text.
I, however, have observed the following major shortcomings and suggest some amendments.
Short comings:
1 There is no mentioning of technical name of Sorghum. Kindly include it somewhere in the MS.
2 Table of complete collection may be included as supplementary materials
3 Try to include the climatic conditions prior to seed collection from the farmer's field because most of the nutrient profiles are under very high environmental conditions influence
4 I have failed to understand how many biological replicates were included for each analyses. It would be nice to add another table stating the element that you analyzes, number of replicates and method used for easy reading of the MS.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 comments
Point 1: Replace the word investigated to initiated
Response 1: The word investigated is replaced by the word ‘initiated’
Point 2: What does teff mean?
Response 2: Teff is a small cereal grain of Ethiopian origin
Point 3: Delete the phrase ‘in the dishes of Ethiopians, particularly’
Response 3: The phrase ‘in the dishes of Ethiopians, particularly’ is deleted
Point 4: Delete the sentence ‘the nutritional content and composition varies among its genotypes and the environment it grows; and replace by the sentence ‘its nutritional profile is highly genotype and environment dependent
Response 4: The sentence ‘the nutritional content and composition varies among its genotypes and the environment it grows is deleted and replaced by ‘its nutritional profile is highly genotype and environment dependent’
Point 5: Italics the word ‘in situ’
Response 5: The word ‘in situ’ is italicized
Point 6 and 7: Change the oC to oC
Response point 6 & 7: The superscript is corrected
Point 8: Reference for the sentence ‘NIR is most effective and non-destructive technique for the analysis of grain quality traits including protein and starch’
Response 8: The reference Brauteseth 2009) is added
Point 9: Delete the phrase ‘of the sorghum landraces’
Response 9. The phrase ‘of the sorghum landraces’ is deleted
Point 10: Change the oC to oC
Response 10: The superscript is corrected
Point 11: Change NaNO2 to NaNO2
Response 11: NaNO2 is changed to NaNO2
Points 12 & 13: Change AlCl3 to AlCl3
Response 12 & 13: AlCl3 is changed to AlCl3
Point 14: Delete the phrase ‘of mean’
Response 14: The phrase ‘of mean’ is deleted
Point 15: Change the oC to oC
Response 15: The superscript is corrected
Point 16: italicize the letter P
Response 16: P is italicized
Point 17: delete the word ‘was’
Response 17: The word ‘was’ is deleted
Point 18: In the conclusion part, remove the sentence ‘The overall result revealed that the examined sorghum landraces exhibited’ and add the word exists after antinutritional traits
Response 18: The sentence ‘The overall result revealed that the examined sorghum landraces exhibited’ deleted and the word exists is added after the phrase antinutritional traits
Point 19: In the conclusion part, remove the phrases ‘Depending on the breeding objective,’
Response 19: the phrase ‘Depending on the breeding objective,’ is deleted
Point 20: Remove the phrase ‘They can also be used’ and replace by the word ‘and’ and merge with the above sentence
Response 20: The phrase ‘They can also be used’ is deleted and replaced by the word ‘and’ and merged with the above sentence
Reviewer 2 Report
Please check the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Point 1: Line 70 (15, 20, 21, 22] Symbol error
Response 1: Symbol error corrected [15, 20, 21, 22]
Point 2: Line 107-109. This sentence was repeated.
Response 2: Actually, it not repeated. The second sentence (line 109) is explaining why the 21 landraces are selected for the analysis of the mentioned parameters
Point 3: Line 118 “The sun-dried samples” clarification on how to ascertain that the moisture content of these grains is in a desiccated state
Response 3: This is critical comment. We actually tested the moisture content to make sure the samples are in desiccated state for further analysis though the result is not included (Now, it is attached in supplementary data for further clarification)
Point 4: For the lines 120, 128, 135, information on model number, manufacturer, city, and country for the instruments and other analytical chemicals used should be mentioned
Response 4: All necessary information of the instruments and chemicals/reagents are added
Point 5: 4: Line 121: “ml” should be “mL” and correct this throughout the text
Response 5: All the ‘ml’ is changed to ‘mL’ throughout the text
Point 6: Line 122: “hours” should be ‘h’
Response 6: “hours” is changed to ‘h’
Point 7: Lines 123-124: change “oC” to oC
Response 7: “oC” is changed to ‘oC throughout the text
Point 8: Line 125: “the analysis of TFC, TTC, and antioxidant activities.” Rewrite as “used
Response 8: All are corrected with the exception of those within the tables just to minimize space in the table
Point 9: Line 138 “HCL-H2O” should be “HCl-H2O”
Response 9: The “HCL-H2O” is changed to “HCl-H2O” throughout the text
Point 10: The method in sections 2.3 and 2.4 required citations.
Response 10: Citations included now
Point 11: Line 140 “grams” should be g
Response 11: gram is changed to g
Point 12: Line 147 “minutes” should be min.
Response 12: minute is changed to min throughout the text
Point 13: Line 154 italicize “w/v” throughout the text
Response 13: “w/v” italicized throughout the text
Point 14: Sections 2.5.1-2.6.3 “to the method of [29]…..
Response 14: Revision done according to the guidelines
Point 15: Deletion of lines 163-166 is recommend
Response 15: Comment accepted and deleted the paragraph (line 163-166)
Point 16: Section 2.6.1 the equation should be edited with a mathematical tool
Response 16: Equation is corrected accordingly
Point 17: Line 185 “PH” should be pH
Response 17: PH is changed to pH
Point 18: Sections 3.1-3.4 The descriptions needed to be clearer and please rewrite them
Response 18: The descriptions are re-written and hope should be clear now
Point 19: Line 283: “29.09μg/ml” should be “29.09 μg/mL”
Response 19: “μg/ml” is replaced by “μg/mL” throughout the text
Point 20: Line 291-304 Data Lack
Response 20: Yes, I agree. I just did not include all the data for the all samples just to save space. It was only mentioned in the descriptive statistics (Table 2) and graphs. However, now, data of all parameters for all landraces is put in supplementary data.
Point 21: Section 3.6: Explain why the you statistically analyzed these parameters?
Response 21: We used this analysis because we want to know the relationship among the nutritional and antinutritional parameters. But since, the relationship is very weak except phenolics with antioxidant, we removed this part because the relationship between the stongly related parameters (phenolics Vs antioxidant) is mentioned in other section of the paper like in section 3.5 and 4.3 (relationship of seed color with phenolics and antioxidants seed color).
Point 22: Line 349: In Table 4, the data were calculated after grouping but did not match with the authors as mentioned in section 2.7 (mean values ± standard error) and lacked statistical analysis.
Response 22: Yes, it doesn’t match as the mean values are incomparable. In section 2.7 (mean values ± standard error), the mean value is calculated based on the descriptive statistics that considers the value of each sample of each parameter. However, in the cluster analysis it calculates the mean of the parameters of the samples per each group that consists of different number of samples per cluster/group. So, it true that the two values to become different.
Point 23: line 350 Table 1?
Response 23: It is now corrected to Table 4.
Point 24: Overall, sections 3.1-3.7 were required to be rewritten, and the current layout of the manuscript so far needs to be clarified [Similar to suggestion #1: These correlations mentioned (sections 3.1-3.7) by the authors exploiting the models need more favorable evidence, which is currently weak and could consider swapping the article layout with existing supplementary material.]
Response 24: The very valuable comments considered and contents are revised. Correlation part is removed as it was very weak except the phenolic compound (flavonoid and tannin) with antioxidant. And some how the relationship between phenolics and antioxidants is mentioned in other parts of the paper (mainly with regard to seed color).
Point 25: Section 4. Discussion: It's too long and needs to be described concerning the findings in section 3. [Similar to suggestion #2: The discussion is lengthy and could be shortened to increase readability]
Response 25: We considered the valuable comment and tried to reduce it accordingly. Based on the comment, we only focused on the findings and we removed other additional information.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the authors have revised the manuscript sufficiently, but before publication, it still requires revisions, as follows:
L125 “t”able 2: capital letters
L134 Sigma-Aldrich “(Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany)” and L211 IBM-SPSS (Armonk, New York, USA): The equipment and software used in the manuscript still need complete information. Please refer to here for the city and country of the supplemental manufacturer.
L156: 150 μ“l” capital letters. Please correct this throughout the text.
L177 and L195: Thousand symbols missing.
L197: FeCl“3 ” subscript. Please correct this throughout the text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Point 1: L125 “t”able 2: capital letters
Response 1: The letter “t” in table 2 of line 125 and others is capitalized now
Point 2: L134 Sigma-Aldrich “(Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany)” and L211 IBM-SPSS (Armonk, New York, USA):
Response 2: Lines 134 and 211 corrected according to the comment
Point 3: L156: 150 μ “l” capital letters. Please correct this throughout the text. L177 and L195: Thousand symbols missing.
Response 3: The letter “l” is capitalized and all other missed chemical symbols are incorporated
Point 4: L197: FeCl“3 ” subscript. Please correct this throughout the text.
Response 4: Corrected
