Changes in Fruit Quality and Sugar Components of Wild Actinidia eriantha of Different Varieties (Lines) at the Ripening Stage
and Chunhui Huang 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did great job for the purpose to understand the changes of physiological quality and soluble sugar components of wild Actinidia eriantha at the soft ripening stage. In my opinion, this is interesting and insightful work that can be a good addition to the field. However, there is still some major concerns that should be taken into consideration before this manuscript can be suggested for publication.
Please explain what is the soft ripening stage throughout the manuscript
Lines 90-95. In order to better explore the fruit quality characteristics and sugar metabolism characteristics of different varieties (lines) of A. eriantha, and to select new varieties of A. eriantha with excellent comprehensive traits, this study intends to take ‘Ganlv 1’ as the control to further study the fruit quality characteristics, sugar content, sucrose metabolism-related enzyme activities and related gene expression patterns of different varieties (lines) of wild A. eriantha at soft ripening stage. Please revise this sentence. It is too long and you can split it into 2 sentences.
It is not clear how to select new varieties of A. eriantha with excellent comprehensive traits. You already mention that you investigated the dynamic changes of fruit quality and sugar component content during fruit development in A. eriantha ‘Ganlv 1’ with high sucrose content. what is the significant addition of this study to the previous work???
I suggest to evaluate the other chemical composition such as phenolics and proximate analysis as well as minerals and amino acids for the aim to determine the best quality. It is not easy to draw the conclusion of the best quality based on the studied parameters
Line 191 and throughout the manuscript; the SSC ranged from 7.12%±1.11% (M6) to 16.31%±0.47% (CK). Please do not repeat the unit. just mention for the mean or the end when there is the same one involved.
In Table 1 and Figures please mention the alphabet and statistics in the legend
please present the Principal Component Analysis data in score and loading plots for better visualization and understanding. It can be also shown in biplot
What is the variation percentage explained by each principal component. Mostly the first 2 PCs are enough to explain the differences among samples.
Please write the method of Principal Component Analysis and elaborate on the factors and variables
You mention that Ganlv 1 was the control and we cannot see that you are comparing it with other samples
In conclusion the sentence about the accumulation and composition of soluble sugar in wild A. eriantha fruits of different varieties (lines) were different (in terms of what), is too general and it should be revised to answer the objective
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study, which appears to be in continuation of a previous published manuscript in Horticulturae (doi:10.3390/horticul-584 turae8060529). I am positive in recommending publication, however there are a few comments below that should be addressed by the authors:
Title: 'Physiological quality' doesn't exist as a term. Weight and size are not physiological quality components for example.
L89: Is 'Ganlv 1' a commercial variety?
L117: How was firmness determined?
L158: Duncan's test is related to mean comparisons and not in PCA analyses.
L167: The St. Dev. values shouldn't be included in the manuscript. Indeed, as long as mean comparisons were performed, the ST. DEVs should also be omitted from the tables and the figures, as well. The letters are enough to indicated statistical differences.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting study, which appears to be in continuation of a previous published manuscript in Horticulturae (doi:10.3390/horticul-584 turae8060529). I am positive in recommending publication, however there are a few comments below that should be addressed by the authors:
Title: 'Physiological quality' doesn't exist as a term. Weight and size are not physiological quality components for example.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The ‘physiological quality’ has been revised to ‘fruit quality’.
L89: Is 'Ganlv 1' a commercial variety?
Response: ‘Ganlv 1’ is a new variety of A. eriantha with excellent characters recently selected from the wild A. eriantha germplasm resources, of which it has not been commercially cultivated at present.
L117: How was firmness determined?
Response: Fruit firmness was determined using a TA-XT Plus texture analyzer. And the sentence has been added to the revised manuscript.
L158: Duncan's test is related to mean comparisons and not in PCA analyses.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The expression of L158 has been revised: Analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s new complex range method) and principal component analysis were performed using SPSS software.
L167: The St. Dev. values shouldn't be included in the manuscript. Indeed, as long as mean comparisons were performed, the ST. DEVs should also be omitted from the tables and the figures, as well. The letters are enough to indicated statistical differences.
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. The St. Dev. values have been omitted from the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors. I’m satisfied with most of the correction done. However for the below comment, I’m still not convinced.
please present the Principal Component Analysis data in score and loading plots for better visualization and understanding. It can be also shown in biplot
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The main results of the principal component analysis in the manuscript were presented in the form of two tables. Although it is more intuitive to display the results in the form of pictures, we think it is also appropriate to use tables in the manuscript to display the results, so as to avoid too many repeated graphs and tables to display the same results, and also to avoid the problem of too many pictures in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear authors. I’m satisfied with most of the correction done. However for the below comment, I’m still not convinced.
Response: Thanks for your comments. I tried to draw score plots and loading plots according to your suggestion, but failed. To be honest, I do not know how to use SPSS to draw score plots and loading plots. Maybe I should learn more about the use of the software. I’m sorry.
