Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and well illustrated. The methods used are adequate as well as the conclusions. This is a valuable addition to the growing mount of full mitogenomes. I have few very minor comcerns:

1. Somewhat more detailed information on the ecology and life history of the species studies would be interesting

2. It is interestimg to have the details on the partitions amd patition-specific models  used 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an analyses of mitogenomic variation of Conus species which is mostly descriptive. The English can be improved and there are some repetitions in the text.

Introduction, - page 1: "are of significant in medical ... application"  - rephrase

Introduction, - page 2 4th line: "with single molecular markers ... "

mitogenome is a single molecular marker. It is true that the whole

mitogenome can be more informative than a single gene (or a framgment

of it) in the mtDNA but as it is non-recombining it just presents a

single marker. Thus, although the mitogenome can provide valuable

information, assessment of other independent markers are needed in

order to reconstruct the phylogeny of the speceis and to evaluate the

patterns obtained with the mtDNA. This should be clarified here and

elsewhere in the paper.

 

Introduction, - page 2, second paragraph: "is circular" <- "are ..."

 

Introduction, - page 2, third paragraph: "were found" <- have been described ...

"species were included" <- are

 

mitogenomes. we sequenced <- ". W"

 

Results page 2 last line: PCGs and RNA were <- RNA genes ...

 

page 3 First paragraph - rewrite. Information in third sentence already described in the paragraph above. Some sentences are describing what is obvious.

 

page 3 Second paragraph. "composed of CR " explain here or "composed of control region (CR) "

delete: "which is commonly referred to as CR "

140 bp in C. marmoreus 140 bp  chnage to "on average in C. marmoreus"?

 

page 4 ", and indicated that the appearance ..." clumsy, the statistic shows this 

page 4 "that a bias towards" - rephrase

page 5 - first two lines are repeated from what had been stated earlier

page 5 line 4 - delete in [] "but [there was] a truncated stop co[n]don T was detected ..."

page 5 second paragraph.  Finish or rewrite the first sentence, add space before (Fig. 3)

page 5 second paragraph. Rewrite the last sentence.

What about the Ka/Ks ratio? Could indicate positiive or negative selection.

page 5 2.3. add "and" in  front of "C. virgo"

page 7 2.4. descrebe briefly the ISS vslue and ISS.c method

Fig. 5 Does the tree support the status of these species? What about C. hybridus, C. unifasciatus and C. guanche?

 

Discussion

page 8 "have more phylogenetic signals" - rewrite

page 8 last paragraph starting with "Compared ..." rewrite first sentences and also the last paragraph.

complete Mitogenome < complete mitogenome

 

Materials and Methods

Buffer I .. and Buffer II - these buffers from a specific kit?

page 10

Add concentrations of several solutions (prt K, NaCL) are missing or reference to to kit, also in subsection 4.2 i.e. primer, template of DNA etc

"PCR on the complete length " <- rewrite

4.4Phylo... <- add space

Conclusion (page 11)

Secomd sentence repeats what is in the first sentence.

"studies Conus" <- add "on"

"we consider it supported by our result" - rewrite

Last sentence - it would be more important to add independent nuclear markers

Several sentences should be improved as pointed out above

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx