Comparison of Wild and Introduced Dracocephalum jacutense P.: Significant Differences of Multicomponent Composition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The ms. “Comparison of Wild and Introduced Dracocephalum jacutense P.: Significant Differences of Multicomponent Composition” (Ms. Ref. No. horticulturae-2031715-v1) reports original results on the comparison of the phytochemicals from D. jacutense, grown in the controlled conditions of the Botanical Garden of Yakutia and the wild variety collected from the vicinity of the village of Sangar, Kobyaysky district of Yakutia. The methanolic extracts were separated through HPLC analysis and the detection and identification of compounds were done through MS.

 There is a lot of work involved and the ms. is of potential interest.

The topic falls within the aims and scopes of the Horticulturae journal.

References are relevant and correctly cited.

However, there are important issues that need to be addressed to improve the presentation of the results.

 

Major issues:

1.     Firstly, the ms should be continuously line-numbered to allow reviewers to specifically indicate where changes should be performed. Please consider this issue for the revised version.

2.     In the Introduction: The authors should also mention the Latin synonym Lallemantia of the Dracocephalum (Dragon’s head) genus, with sub-species L. iberica assimilated as D. moldavica. They should also mention that the species has spread to various geographical areas, being well adapted (for example, Dracocephalum moldavica L.).

3.     The authors should elaborate on the Introduction. They focused on presenting the antioxidant compounds of the aerial parts and totally ignored mentioning the seed composition, which is particularly interesting, with linolenic acid (C18:3) accounting for more than 60% and iodine value around 200 g I₂/100 g oil, rendering the oil even more siccative than linseed oil and suggesting the species as an attractive source of n-3 fatty acids (see https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-020-00790-w). Seeds should not be disregarded, especially since they are appealing for food applications due to their particular nutrient composition (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112967 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111099). Please revise.

4.     In the M&M section: Please indicate the development stage of the plants at the harvest. In the mentioned period, the seeds are already mature, therefore a discussion regarding their fatty acids composition should be dedicated in the Discussion section (see comment #3).

5.     First paragraph on line 4: I do not understand: potato??? Please rephrase.

6.     Section 2.4: There should be nm instead of ηm (when referring to the wavelengths). Please revise.

7.     Section 3 (first line): What do you mean by “The most consumed extracts”? This should be clarified.

8.     Abbreviations should be defined at their first mention in the text. Please define CID and check throughout the ms.

9.     Please revise (format) Table 1, so that each column be visible. In the current form, the last column is not entirely visible. Also, does this last column has a head? It is not visible. There are too many columns, I suggest maybe giving some of the information as a Supplementary Material. Moreover, for the compounds presented in Table 1, it would be more interesting to show their provenience (from the Botanical Garden or wild) with the same red-green manner as in Table 2. Please revise.

10.  The Discussion section should be considerably improved. In the current form, the authors elusively referred to “other groups of compounds”, while they should indicate specific compounds. Please avoid ambiguity. In addition, the authors should compare their results regarding the incidence of representative compounds firstly with previously reported papers within the same species (see the example regarding the fatty acids profile of Lallemantia and do the same for other compounds).

11.  In the Discussion section: While discussing the incidence of the fatty acids presented in Table 1, I suggest mentioning that these fatty acids occur from the plants’ seeds, and this shows that these seeds have reached maturity stage before harvest (see the paper Treatment of the oil of Lallemantia iberica with activated adsorbents).

12.  English should be extensively revised, as there are several grammar / style / syntax / typos (these could not be specifically indicated, since the ms. is not line-numbered).

 

 

Given the completed score sheet and the comments above, after careful evaluation, the ms. “Comparison of Wild and Introduced Dracocephalum jacutense P.: Significant Differences of Multicomponent Composition” (Ms. Ref. No. horticulturae-2031715-v1)  needs Major Revision according to comments to meet the standards for publication in Horticulturae journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for your work on the text.

№№1-3: Thank you very much for your comments and work on the text. All of these changes have been made to the text. Also an additional link scientific work about Lallemantia to the specified article was added to References [7].

№4. The Materials and Methods section has been modified and supplemented. The plant value of Dracocephalum jacutense is in its amazing healing properties and rarity. This plant is included in the Red Book of Plants of Yakutia. Therefore, it does not make sense to extract oil from seeds due to the very small size of the plant population.

№5 This is bug, it's been fixed.

№6. The Section 2.4 Liquid chromatography was rewritten.

№7 The phrase has been rewritten;

№8. CID-spectrum it is collision-induced dissociation spectrum. The phrase has been rewritten.

№9.  The table has been redone, the redundant column has been removed and the format is now readable. We moved this table to the Appendix. Dear Reviewer, many polyphenolic compounds are found in both plant populations, it is probably impossible to highlight by one color.

№№ 10-11 Thank you very much for your comments. The discussion Section has been significantly improved. Scientific work related to Lallemantia was mentioned in the Introduction section.

Sincerely yours.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. improve the title. 2. english needs extensive revision. 3. correct the abstract and keywords 4. correct introduction adn add missing references. 5. correct figure 2 6. correct material and methods title 7. put reagent part prior to plant material 8. the extraction fractionnation proces has not been described. 9. the HPLC analysis is not complete (add missing data) 10. resize the table 1 11. The results are not well presented, you should expose and interpret them. 12. correct the tables legends 13. reformulate the discussion 14. add missing data (names of polyphenols) 15. table two colors meaning have to be clarified 16. Reformulate the conclusions and try to sumarize your findings 17. conclusion last paragraph is similr to abstract delete or reformulate it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for your work on the text. We significantly redid the entire article and rewrote many chapters. We have taken into account all your comments. We also redesigned the table and placed it in the Appendix.

Sincerely yours

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper describes the chemical content of an endemic plant D. jacutense Peshkova cultivated in its wild original area and in a botanical garden. The results show significant differences in the content between both plants. 

This work is of a certain interest for scientists working on the description and characterization of endemic endangered species.  

English language could be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for your work on the text. We significantly redid the entire article and rewrote many chapters. We have taken into account all your comments. We also redesigned the table and placed it in the Appendix.

Sincerely yours

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

We tried to fix all the shortcomings and also found a number of blots. Also found some inaccuracies in the text. Please, see our article.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Mayya Razgonova

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is an improvement from the previous version. However, the English in some parts is still weak, we have marked the parts that need rectification, and we recommend on applying those modifications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

 

We did all improvements. Thank you for your patience.

 

I need to tell you and Editorial Office that we involved new coauthor – professor Sezai Ercisli from Ataturk University (Turkey).

He helped us to improve the paper.

 

All coauthors are agree with this addition.

 

 

Mayya P. Razgonova