Genetic Diversity of Selective Breeding Populations of Giant Freshwater Prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) Based on SSR and Mitochondrial D-Loop Gene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed the genetic diversity of different selective breeding populations of
giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) using microsatellites and mitochondrial D-loop sequences for 202 samples. The manuscript is generally well designed and written clearly. It is interesting to the readers of Diversity. It needs some improvement before being considered for publication. I have provided some major comments here and also annotated the PDF. 

Abstract: It is basically well written; however, the authors' use of abbreviations is rampant. I suggest they avoid using abbreviations for the subpopulations in the abstract section. The abstract should be able to stand alone. 

Introduction: This section is well written. I suggest the authors to add the hypotheses on which this study was designed. 

Materials and methods: Please add a map showing the sampling localities and distribution range of the subpopulations with demarcations. 

Results: 

1. Please include a median joining haplotype network showing the source populations and sample size for each haplotype.
2. Line 244-247: Write a single meaningful sentence and cite table 4. 
3. Line 253: NJ is a distance-based phylogenetic analysis and has so many demerits. I suggest that authors run Maximum Likelihood or Bayesian Inference trees among the haplotypes to get a more reliable tree. Current tree has a low bootstrap support values and lacks clear demarcations in the tree topology except defining the two clades. 
4. Figure 3: Remove sample labeling from the tree leaves. Add a neighbor joining haplotype network showing the source population and sample size belonging to each haplotype. You may use PopART or other software to construct the network. It will be more meaningful.

Discussion: The Discussion needs to be rewritten, highlighting the major findings of the study. 

Please discuss the limitations of the study in the discussion section. 

Find the annotated PDF. All the best!

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer  1 Comments

 

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Herein, we provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, with all corresponding revisions systematically implemented in the resubmitted main text using track changes for clear documentation of modifications.

 

Comments 1: Please include a median joining haplotype network showing the source populations and sample size for each haplotype.

 

Response 1: Thank you for suggestion. We did contructed median joining haplotype network using popart as suggested.

 

Comments 2: Line 244-247: Write a single meaningful sentence and cite table 4.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your correction. This segement has been revised to a single sentence. Line 248-249.

 

Comments 3: Line 253: NJ is a distance-based phylogenetic analysis and has so many demerits. I suggest that authors run Maximum Likelihood or Bayesian Inference trees among the haplotypes to get a more reliable tree. Current tree has a low bootstrap support values and lacks clear demarcations in the tree topology except defining the two clades.

 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We recostructed the phylogenetic three by Maximum Likelihood method.

 

Comments 4: Figure 3: Remove sample labeling from the tree leaves. Add a neighbor joining haplotype network showing the source population and sample size belonging to each haplotype. You may use PopART or other software to construct the network. It will be more meaningful.

 

Response 4: Thank you for the correction. We recostructed the phylogenetic three by Maximum Likelihood method. And a median joining haplotype network using popart has been added.

 

 

Comments 5: Discussion: The Discussion needs to be rewritten, highlighting the major findings of the study.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your correction. The discussion has been rewritten as sugessted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents significant scientific information on the genetics of M. rosenbergii populations. This species is of great importance in global aquaculture.

As a suggestion for enriching the manuscript, it would be of great importance to be able to include a projection of stages that could help increase the values ​​of the species in aquaculture. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer  2 Comments

 

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Herein, we provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, with all corresponding revisions systematically implemented in the resubmitted main text using track changes for clear documentation of modifications.

 

Comments 1: As a suggestion for enriching the manuscript, it would be of great importance to be able to include a projection of stages that could help increase the value of the species in aquaculture.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, we didn’t understand what you meant. Could you please make it clearer?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript by incorporating the comments and suggestions from the previous round of review. The manuscript seems much improved. I believe it is considerable for publication with the following minor improvements:

• The word 'different' is not necessary in the title.
• In Figure 1, there is no need to show the entire Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces when only the sampling localities are shown. It appears that the sampling was conducted in the northern part of Zhejiang, specifically in Huzhou and Jiaxing, and a similar case has been reported in Jiangsu. Just use those areas in enlarged maps. 
• See if the visualization of Figure 5 can be improved by rearranging the circles representing the haplotypes.
• In the conclusion section, do not use the abbreviations for the sampling localities. 

All the best!

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Herein, we provide point-by-point responses to your comments, with all corresponding revisions systematically implemented in the resubmitted main text, using track changes for clear documentation of modifications.

 

Comment 1: The word 'different' is not necessary in the title.

 

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The word 'different' has been deleted from title.

 

Comment 2: In Figure 1, there is no need to show the entire Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces when only the sampling localities are shown. It appears that the sampling was conducted in the northern part of Zhejiang, specifically in Huzhou and Jiaxing, and a similar case has been reported in Jiangsu. Just use those areas in enlarged maps.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We redrew the map according to your suggestion.

 

Comment 3: See if the visualization in Figure 5 can be improved by rearranging the circles representing the haplotypes.

 

Response 3:  Thank you for your suggestion. Figure 5 is re-sketched with improved visualization, and we hope that the visualization meets the journal standards.

 

Comment 4: In the conclusion section, do not use the abbreviations for the sampling localities.

 

Response 4:  Thank you for the correction. Names of sampling localities have been rewritten in full in the conclusion section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx