Characterization of Lupin Cultivars Based on Phenotypical, Molecular and Metabolomic Analyses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors provide characterizations of lupin cultivars based on phenotypical, molecular and metabolomic analyses, including genetic diversity, the selection of yield and nutritive value. However, some flaws need be further addressed.

1. line 50: This part and the second paragraph are similar and can be combined into one paragraph. 

2. line 68: This paragraph describes three antinutritional factors, and I think it could be summarized before the paragraph to make the idea clearer.

3. line 69: “Among the main anti-nutritional 69 factors are the quinolizidine alkaloids, which account for the bitter taste of the seed.” This sentence does not cite the reference.

4. line 121: There are photos of seeds and fruit pods in Figure 1, but the chlorophyll phenotype is not represented. Which part of the material was taken at full anthesis stage?

5. line 265: The title does not refine the results of this section and has this problem throughout the results section of the title. 

6. line 282: Have these varieties been measured for yield before commercial use? I don't think the sample size here is sufficient to call it “yield”.

7. line 369: The first paragraph does not seem to be related to the results and could be written in the introduction section if necessary.

8. line 370: “Although white 370 lupin is generally considered self-pollinating …” This sentence can be combined with the previous one to reflect the cause-effect relationship, so that the high polymorphism can be more clearly reflected because of the hybridization.

9. line 408: Why were individuals with differences in alkaloid content selected? If the purpose is to verify the alkaloid differences between the four species, why not select the material with the highest or lowest total alkaloids?

10. line 416: Why the total alkaloid content of L7 and L8 differed greatly, but the metabolites PCA clustered together?

11. line 451. “the content of several beneficial metabolites for human and animal nutrition”. Are there any specific figures or can you give some examples? 

12. line 461. The total alkaloid content of Sulimo and Figaro differed significantly among these four samples, but the examples: 13-hydroxy-lupanine were both very low. The results for metabolites do not show where the significance of selecting samples with differences in total alkaloid content lies.

13. Table 6 and 7. The table format is not the same as the other tables. The font in the Figure2 seems to be inconsistent. Is it reasonable that the classification result of PCA is not consistent with the classification of line 266 in the previous section?

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your frutful comments. We hape we gave adequate answers to all all your comments.

Sincerely

The corrensponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The authors studied 8 commercial cultivars and 3 advanced breeding lines of L. albus by using phenotypical, molecular, and biochemical data in a pot experiment in order to be used in breeding projects.

 

The topic is very interesting and the manuscript is very well written. All parts of the research are well written and the introduction, results, and discussion are at a high level except for the part related to materials and methods, especially experimental design.

 

Despite the importance of the topic at the present time and the work and efforts done by researchers in both field and labs, I have some comments:

 

·         In page 1. Line 33, please add ‘and’ before ‘Sulimo’.

·         Page 3, line 97, you can use directly the word ’genotypes’ instead of word ‘cultivars’ . Lupin genotypes is better

·         Page 3, line 100, the subtitle of plant material should include the experimental set up as well. How many plants in the pots? What is type of irrigation system you applied?

·         Page 5, line 134, please use the ‘’seed’’ instead of ‘’ grain’’ in legumes.

·         Page 5, line 159, What is the reference that you used this way?

·         Again, in results part, please add ‘’and’’ before the last name ‘’ (LKAM, LKAU, and LKAP).

·         Page 11, line 315, (tables 6 and 7)

·         Page 13, line 386, (Figure 2, d) instead of figure 1

·         Page 14, please mention what the abbreviations of the heads of table 8 mean, do that below the table.

·         Page 15, in the figure 2, please put the subtitle of the cluster analysis (di and dii) below the cluster analysis.

·         Page 16, figure 3, the PC2 (32,9%) should be vertical

·         Page 18, the figure 6 is unclear

·         Page 18, line 448, the Lupinus albus should be italic

 

 

Best wishes

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your fruitful comments. We hope we gave adequate answers to all of your suggestions.

Sincerely

The corresponding editors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx