Gene Expression Datasets for Two Versions of the Saccharum spontaneum AP85-441 Genome
, Mauricio Ramirez-Castrillon 2,†, Miguel Romero 1,2, Jorge Finke 1,2 and Camilo Rocha 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Validation studies/ data needs to be incorporated through systematic experimentation and results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Key achievement of your result in Abstract is missing.
2) Novelty and contribution should be clearly presented in the Introduction chapter which is currently missing.
3) More relevant current research works need to be reviewed and find the research gap from there. It could be a separate chapter, or you could include under Introduction
4) A general high level block diagram or framework of technical work with description in this paper is required to add at the beginning of chapter 2.
5) Axis titles of figure 1 is missing.
6) Please add snapshot of raw data under 3.1 and also snapshot under 3.2
7) Very limited content and limited technical depth and outcome are given. Intensive analysis with critical discussion and description with appropriate tables and figures are required.
Overall, I would recommend this paper is not suitable to publish in this journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There are many grammar and language/spacing issues that need to be fixed. I listed some of them in the title/abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction.
Line 2: Gene expression datasets for two versions of SaccharuM spontaneuM AP85-441 genome should be Gene expression datasets for two versions of sugarcan Saccharum spontaneum AP85-441 genome. Of note Genus and Species names should be italics and be careful throughout the MS.
Line 44 and 95: be careful with spacing
Line 130: Table 3. Metadata associated with the repository. Such as Exxpresion and Analisys
Line 107: as above and check throughout the MS.
Line 130: Figure 3. Schematic representation of the workflow, inputs, processes, and outputs (including data- bases and files. Figure 3 looks not clear please provide clear demonstration/legends.
Any recommendations?. The Data description section needs minor improvement please discuss and compare your results with previously published literature.
Arrange the references as per the guidelines of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments. I have no other comments.
