Identifying New Resistance to Cassava Mosaic Disease and Validating Markers for the CMD2 Locus
, Nguyen Anh Vu 3, Nguyen Huu Hy 4, Pham Thi Nhan 4, Hernan Ceballos 2,†, Jonathan Newby 5, Nguyen Ba Tung 4, Nguyen Trong Hien 6, Le Ngoc Tuan 3, Nguyen Hung 3, Nguyen Thi Hanh 3, Do Thi Trang 3, Pham Thi Thu Ha 6, Le Huy Ham 3,7, Xuan Hoi Pham 3, Do Thi Nhu Quynh 3, Ismail Y. Rabbi 8, Peter A. Kulakow 8 and Xiaofei Zhang 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript provided CMV (cassava mosaic virus) resistance information by using two different cassava populations. SNP markers were utilized for screening and field trials were also conduced to evaluate the disease rating.
There are several prospects from this manuscript can be improved. Please see the suggestion and comments below.
- The article title mentioned about “new” resistance to CMV, but the results did not provide a convincing evidence and explanation about it.
- There are lots of different populations from different institutes and each populations includes lots of clones/varieties. Suggest to provide a table to summarize them.
- Line 25: what is mite introduced? The term “mite” appears several times in the article.
- The introduction should provide more information about CMV. The disease symptom, estimated loss etc.
- For VNM142 populations, “varieties” is not an accurate term. Accessions or landrace should be more accurate.
- Line 96, 98: CMD2 is located on two different chromosomes? Line 121: Are CMD2 markers on the chips too? Should provide 96 SNP markers information.
- Any possible agronomic traits information? It is difficult to convince people without any agronomic traits data.
- Line 170: There is no citation about BLUP formula and models. Also, on introduction, there is no literature related to BLUP. Table 1 just came out from nowhere. BLUP is highly related to pedigree (genetic structure). I have concern about Table 1 for lacking of the information.
- The disease ratings were conducted on different MAP, but why only used 3 MAP for almost all the results (all the figures).
- Line 256: I don’t understand the sentence “the family name was the part in front of the dash in the clone name”. Please explain.
- Line 365, line459: the same fingerprinting implys they might be the same cultivars/clone, so the disease resistance source is the same. There is no “new” resistance at all.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes the screening of Cassava populations for resistance to cassava mosaic disease. They also used markers linked to the resistance in other populations to verify their usefulness in different genetic backgrounds. The manuscript is well written and easy to read. I have some minor comments below that I hope will help improving the manuscript.
1- Line 41 - replace "feeding" with "feeds"
2- Line 69 - replace "has" with "have" in " Two types of CMD resistance have..."
3- Was the CMD epidemic in Africa caused by Sri Lanka Cassava Mosaic Virus?
4- Could the high rate of co-segregation of the two loci be due to selection?
5- Could you look at other markers in chromosomes 12 and 14 of these populations to add more data to the assumption they were wrongly mapped?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I do not have any questions/comments after the revision.
