Sensory Analyses and Nutritional Qualities of Wheat Population Varieties Developed by Participatory Breeding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to expose the mistakes and modifications that I would appreciate if they were changed throughout the manuscript:

Introduction section:

In the line 47 you have written “mortality attributed to nutrient”, I think it would be better if you add “lack of nutrients or unbalanced diet”.

Always in the second paragraph, when you speak about the “unique final quality of bread”, it would be interesting to add a paragraph speaking about the role of proteins in the bread-making quality.

Results section:

In general, this section should be rewritten in a clearer way, for example:

- Line 268: technological must be capitalized.

-The “technological characterization” section should be rewritten to make it more understandable and I also advice to improve English (legend of Figure 2 included).

- Line 299: correct the French word “et”.

- Paragraph from lines 337 to 342: the way you have written this paragraph leads to confusion. Table 2 shows that the differences between varieties Saint-Priest and MèlangeSO are not significant and it is indicated by the letter “b”. However, the differences between both MèlangeSO and StPriest, in comparison with Hendrix are significant for both Mg and Zn.

- Lines from 343 to 358; from 379 to 383; from 390 to 392; from 396 to 404; and from 437 to 441 should be moved to “Discussion section”.

-you have to unify acronyms. Sometimes you use PCA, other times APC; the same thing for AFM and MFA.

Author Response

Point 1 :

in the line 47 you have written “mortality attributed to nutrient”, I think it would be better if you add “lack of nutrients or unbalanced diet”

Response: please see the attachment, modification in green

point 2: Always in the second paragraph, when you speak about the “unique final quality of bread”, it would be interesting to add a paragraph speaking about the role of proteins in the bread-making quality.

Response: please see the attachment, modification in green

Point 3: 

Line 268: technological must be capitalized.The “technological characterization” section should be rewritten to make it more understandable and I also advice to improve English (legend of Figure 2 included). Line 299: correct the French word “et”. Paragraph from lines 337 to 342: the way you have written this paragraph leads to confusion. Table 2 shows that the differences between varieties Saint-Priest and MèlangeSO are not significant and it is indicated by the letter “b”. However, the differences between both MèlangeSO and StPriest, in comparison with Hendrix are significant for both Mg and Zn.

Response: please see the attachment, modification in green

Point 4: Lines from 343 to 358; from 379 to 383; from 390 to 392; from 396 to 404; and from 437 to 441 should be moved to “Discussion section”.

Response: please see the attachment, modification in green

Point 5: you have to unify acronyms. Sometimes you use PCA, other times APC; the same thing for AFM and MFA.

Acronyms has been homogenized, please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript submitted by Vindras-Fouillet et al. mainly dealt with sensory analyses and nutritional qualities of wheat population varieties developed by participatory breeding. Authors investigated the sensory and nutritional quality of nine populations varieties resulting from a ten-years participatory plant breeding process compared to two commercial pure line varieties. They found that there were positive correlation between plant height, pedoncule height and nutrient content. They also found that genetic diversity affected the diverse nutritional intake and sensory properties. The paper was well written and logistically organized. Before it was fully considered for publication, the following errors and problems need to be elucified one by one.

Abstract:
line 15 to 21, please simplify these sentences. Background introduction was too much to tedious. 
After I finished reading the abstract, I didn't get a clear conclusion. please make a good conclusion in the abstract.

Introduction
line 108 to 116, I suggest you'd better delete this part, I think the content is irrelevant with this manuscript.

Materials and methods
line 186 to 187, please give the commercial manufacturing information of ICP-AES
Line 190 to 191, please give the commercial manufacturing information of HPLC
line 195 to 196, please give the commercial manufacturing information of three enzymes.
line 228, the panel was composed of 32 native people..., what's the sex ratio of these people, and average ages, are they familiar with sensory evaluation? Did they sign the informed consent form ? Did authors have an ethics approval from the local organization ?

Results
Please improve the layout and resolution of Figure 2 and 4.
In Figure 3, Se (μk/kg) ?

Discussion
line 474, what's on the earth the relationship between population varieties and bread making process ?

Conclusion
please add one or two sentences to compensate the limit and further plan of this manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Allmost all point have been reviewed in the paper in attachment (please see the attachment). Modified sequences are hightlighted in yellow.

Point abstract: line 15 to 21, please simplify these sentences. Background introduction was too much to tedious. After I finished reading the abstract, I didn't get a clear conclusion. please make a good conclusion in the abstract.

Response : Please see the attachment, modification in yellow

Point introduction: line 108 to 116, I suggest you'd better delete this part, I think the content is irrelevant with this manuscript.

Response : Please see the attachment, modification in yellow.  Paragaph has been delete

Point MandM: please give the commercial manufacturing information of ICP-AES, HPLC, three enzyme

Response: information has been asked to the provider laboratory. If informations come back after the reply deadline, I will add it as soon as obtained.

Point line 228: line 228, the panel was composed of 32 native people..., what's the sex ratio of these people, and average ages, are they familiar with sensory evaluation? Did they sign the informed consent form ? Did authors have an ethics approval from the local organization ?

Response: it does not concerned native people but naïve people. It is a term used in sensory analysis to describe people that do not have been trained to evaluate product on sensory properties. As it is an objective sensory method, gender and ages characterization are not necessary. Panel was orally informed at the beginning of the test that it was an experiment conduct in the frame of an european project, they was free to do not the test at this moment. Local organization was informed on the purpose of the test as it was integrated in the event organization.

Point results: improve layout and resolution of figure 2 and 4

Response: figures has been modified, please see the attachment

Point Discussion : line 474, what's on the earth the relationship between population varieties and bread making process ?

Response: paragraph has been delete, please see the attachment, modification in yellow

Point Conclusion: please add one or two sentences to compensate the limit and further plan of this manuscript.

Response: please see the attachment, modification in yellow

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The context should be better introduced;particularly the  authors should describe better the nutritional profile and bioactive components of wheats and related derived products and related references added such as:

Durazzo et al. Lignan content in cereals,buckwheat and derived foods, Foods, 2013, 2,53-63.

Tian et al. Functional properties of polyphenols in grains.Journal of Food Quality, 2019.

A graphical scheme of study approach should be inserted.

Introductory lines should be inserted in section Results 

Data in Figure 2 should be better described in the text

Section Discussion should be implemented 

Limits, advantages, peactical applications and future directions shoild be added in Conclusion 

Author Response

Point introduction: The context should be better introduced;particularly the  authors should describe better the nutritional profile and bioactive components of wheats and related derived products and related references added

Response: Please see the attachment, modifications in blue

Point MandM: A graphical scheme of study approach should be inserted.

Response: Please see the attachment, modifications in blue

Point Results 1: Introductory lines should be inserted in section Results 

Response: Please see the attachment, modifications in blue

Point Results 2 : Data in Figure 2 should be better described in the text

Response: Please see the attachment, modifications in blue, figure2 became figure 3, as a scheme on research approach has been add

Point Discussion : Section Discussion should be implemented

Response: The discussion section has been implemented modifications in green as it was part of modification asked by another reviewer,

Point Conclusion: Limits, advantages, peactical applications and future directions should be added in Conclusion 

Response: Please see the attachment, modifications in blue

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am still not satisfied with the sensory panel recruitment and methods introduction. Even if you used the naive people, I think you should have the basic knowledge on the standard management of sensory panel. They have the standards at ASTM or ISO. Please revise them. 

Author Response

Napping is a recent method of sensory metrology, first introduce as projective mapping by Risvik et al. 1994. Then Pagès and colleagues (2005) adapted method from consumer science to combine descriptive sensory approach to projective methods and introduced the use of Multiple Factor Analysis to analyze the data. There is no ISO standard for this method but scientific literature has demonstrated the efficiency to measure global sensory perception so that this method is fonded on bibliography. Please see the articles attached that describe napping method. You will see that panel is never gender and ages characterized.  I can nevertheless give the proportion of male/female as the name of tasters have been recorded. I add it in the article in the results section Napping method: Panel was composed of 12 females and 20 males. I could not attached several filed so that I just join reference article on napping method.

Hope this will convince you from the relevance of the sensory methodology.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf