Next Article in Journal
Evolutionary Trajectories of Primary and Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Based on Genomic Variations
Previous Article in Journal
Up-Regulation of Interleukin-10 in Splenic Immune Response Induced by Serotype A Pasteurellamultocida
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mitochondrial Genome of Strophopteryx fasciata (Plecoptera: Taeniopterygidae), with a Phylogenetic Analysis of Nemouroidea
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Spirobolus bungii (Diplopoda, Spirobolidae): The First Sequence for the Genus Spirobolus

Genes 2022, 13(9), 1587; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13091587
by Hanmei Xu 1,†, Yu Fang 1,†, Guohua Cao 2, Caiqin Shen 2, Hongyi Liu 1 and Honghua Ruan 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Genes 2022, 13(9), 1587; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13091587
Submission received: 22 July 2022 / Revised: 14 August 2022 / Accepted: 1 September 2022 / Published: 3 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phylogeny and Genetic Diversity of Insects)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for your submission. Article is overall of interests, but needs to improve the introduction and discussion section. 

Introduction is not very organized, i will suggest to add some more data relevant to the study. 

Discussion is almost absent in the article. I am suggesting to make separate section for it. If authors is interested to combine it with results, please make it coherence with your findings.

Results and M&M section are almost better. 

Improve abstract and conclusion as well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor;

Although the paper written about the complete mitochondrial genome of Spirobolus bungii is based on an original  molecular hypothesis, some items  still need to be proved.

The resolution of Figure 3,4 and 6 should be increased.

Studies carried out in 2020 and beyond should be added to the reference part.

The article is written using a very good and understandable language. Apart from these few minor errors, the article is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

No substantial changes has been found in the revised manuscript as suggested. 

Back to TopTop