Gene Locus Mapping and Candidate Gene Screening for Branched Spike and Its Associated Traits of the Ynbs Mutant in Barley
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Over all comment about this article
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is pleasure to review manuscript entitled “Gene locus mapping and candidate gene screening for branched spike and its associated traits in Ynbs mutant of barley” submitted to agriculture. Authors of this manuscript mapped several loci for branched-spike, triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike, degenerated triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike and floret number per triplet/multiple spikelet using cross pollination of Ynbs mutant with Baobarley8. Moreover, fine mapped by molecular markers and detected the genetic distance of the loci from the marker. Further detected candidate gene and mutant point in the Ynbs mutant. Overall, the experiments, they performed, are well and the results are convincing. Thus, the presented results take up an important topic consistent with the profile of the Journal.
However, it needs some improvements. The authors can take help from a native English-speaking person. After this improvement, the article will have a better version for the publication.
Title: Suggestion: Gene locus mapping and candidate gene screening for branched spike and its associated traits of Ynbs mutant in barley
Abstract: Better first provide full description of Ynbs. May be like “Yunnan branched-spike (Ynbs)”
L17: The genetic distance of the branched-spike locus to the HVSSR20 locus, and the locus of triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike (floret number per triplet/multiple spikelet) and degenerated triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike is 1.86cM, 0.27cM, 0.73cM, respectively.------This sentence is unclear for easily understand
Is it like this---- The genetic distances of the branched-spike locus to HVSSR20, triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike (floret number per triplet/multiple spikelet) and degenerated triplet/multiple spikelet number per spike are 1.86cM, 0.27cM,and 0.73cM, respectively.
Or all loci distances from the marker?
---Write centiMorgan (cM) in first time use.
Is it possible to shortened the locus name? it is very complex
1. Introduction:
Nicely presented. It’s an important part; author should consider the most update information as well as references in this section with rationale why this research is necessary.
L13: Ynbs mutant was crossed with Baobarley8
L74: from the cross (the Ynbs mutant/ Baodamai8)
Which one is correct?
--Why used “detected (or mapped)” it should be one fixed solution
2. Materials and Methods:
Nicely presented.
L149: ---and then the amplified products were sequenced by Sangon------how the products were amplified?? Describe in the text
--Supplementary table: some tables do not have title. Add title
---What about table of primers of candidate genes
---You have sequencing chromatogram figure. Why don’t you present them?
3. Result:
3.1. Differences of target trait phenotypic between different materials---------grammatically not sound
L158: branched-rachis node(Fig. 1-A~F)—correct it. This (Fig. 1-A~F) style is not journal style
L174: “Note:” ----it is not necessary. Just continue. ---Use “respectively” after Baodamai8
Fig. 1 E and F----------this spikelet size differences is morphological differences or figure size difference????
-L 179 marge to L178.
-Follow some similar correction for all fig.
4. Discussion: discussion should be 4, not 3.
Need extensive correction
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Enclosed
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have been improved the manuscript according to comments. However, further comment is, chromatogram is the important evidence for basic research for the gene identification. I suggest, use chromatogram fig. in the main text with mutant point indication.
English needs further improvement
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have made significant improvement in the manuscript as per the suggestions. The manuscript therefore can be accepted for publication.
