Novel Identification of the Collection of Pathogenic Fungal Species Verticillium with the Development of Species-Specific SSR Markers
, Jernej Jakše 1 and Nataša Štajner 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authore,
Thank for the nice article.
This manuscript is described about reclassification and identification fungi in Verticillium based on based on PCR Markers, SSR Marker analysis, and LAMP technique.
Minor correction and validation are required. Please check the attachment.
Best wishes,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you wery much for your positive opinion and suggestions over our manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Best wishes, Nataša Štajner
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Verticillium dahliae (Vd) is one of the most important soil-borne fungi which could cause about 400 crop species wilt. In this study, specific PCR markers, SSR marker analysis and LAMP technique was applied to identify the Verticillium species. Some details should be revised. Below some minor suggestions are listed:
1. Please include specific results in the summary section.
2. The background in Figure 2 is cluttered. It is suggested to replace the picture.
3. line 245, There are no concrete results.
4. Please add the length of marker to the Figure 2, 3 and 4.
5. In Figure 1, two branches are too far apart from the other branches. It is suggested to reconstruct the evolutionary tree after processing the sequence.
6. Please note the case of Latin names. For example, "verticillium" should be capitalized and italicized in line 66.
7. Please use punctuation accurately. For example, in line115, "0,8" should be changed to “0.8”.
8. The background of the protein electrophoresis figure is cluttered. Please process the image.
9. Please check the reference format carefully. “verticillium” is no italicization in line 575.
10. Please unify the units of the full text. For example, in line 86 “15 µl”, but line 219 is “2,5 µL”.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you wery much for your positive opinion and suggestions over our manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Best wishes, Nataša Štajner
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Now, the quality has been improved. However, two details must be revised.
1. The size of marker should be added in the figure 2-4, rather than legend.
2. line 146, "0.25µM" should be "0.25 µM".
