Identification of Vitis vinifera L. Local Cultivars Recovered in Andalusia (Spain) by Using Microsatellite Markers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The Materials and Methods, part of 2.1. Plant Material is written a little unclearly. Maybe add the age of 49 varieties cultivated in the collection. Reword that part.

2.    The rows 123 and 124, “The values obtained from the statistical characterization of the 20 microsatellite loci used in this research study are similar to those obtained in other study”, is not understand. Explain “other study”.

3.       In the Results and Discussion, section 3.2. Genetic relationships among cultivars, could add a few comparison references with other works.

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the proposals they have indicated to us to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The following modifications are required

Abstract

This section is poorly written. The authors should summarize the most important results obtained in their study. The authors did not show any information about the diversity indices (He, Ho, r, PI). In addition, the authors should calculate the Shannon index and PIC for each primer. Furthermore, no information about the clustering or dendrogram is available in the abstract.

Keywords:

L23: The terms used to create the title should not be used as the keywords, hence the keywords' content needs to be changed.

Introduction

This section is generally poorly written. This section needs to be in-depth. The authors should include more details regarding the grape vine's production and growing areas in the Andalusia region.

L42: The study's methodology for determining the genetic diversity of grape vines should be described and some further material added by the authors. Additionally, the techniques of accession identification should be included.

L58: The authors should describe the problematic condition of this plant species under drought stress and mention the study's hypothesis.

L59: The aim of the study is not clearly and correctly written. The authors should improve it.

Materials and methods

L81: The protocol of PCR reaction should be described

Results and discussion

Some images of gels obtained from microsatellite should be inserted in this section

L111: The meaning of  highest and lowest values of He should be described by the authors

L118 (The 20 microsatellite loci used reflected a high discrimination power): The parameters that showed a significant degree of discriminating should be defined by the authors.

 

Table 1: The authors should update or modify this table so that it is presented in a clearer manner.

L189: The number of clusters on the dendrogram should be explained by the authors. Which criteria were considered in determining the number of clusters?

L202: The genetic distance under the dendrogram should be added

There is no discussion or interpretation of the findings. The authors don't interpret the results; they only support their findings.

Why did not the authors perform the AMOVA analysis?

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the proposals they have indicated to us to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have been addressed all comments