Mitochondrial Genomes of Distant Fish Hybrids Reveal Maternal Inheritance Patterns and Phylogenetic Relationships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that mitochondrial research on hybrids is necessary.

Q1. I think that the results on Ka/Ks and AT skew of 13 PCGs should be added. I also think that it is important to compare the parts such as purifying selection in the evolution process in hybrids.

Q2. I think that crossbreeds will also need to be compared to the original species based on the maternal genes of the crossbreeding target.

Q3. There is no disagreement about the mitochondrial analysis of the hybrids, but I think the results need to be solidified with additional analysis (Ka/Ks).

- Although the topic is original, further study expansion is needed with additional discussion.

- The study of hybrid mitochondria is important because it also involves comparisons of the maternal mitochondria, so a major revision is needed.

- The authors compared the mitochondrial genome sequences of simple hybrids, so the significance is lacking. Therefore, the significance should be sought through Ka/Ks and AT Skew analysis.

- Additional analysis requires additional references and additional tables and figures.

Author Response

Please see the attacahment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is comprehensive and data-rich study on distant hybridization in fish using mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) data. Below is a structured review highlighting strengths, areas for improvement, and specific suggestions.

• There are multiple grammar and syntax errors throughout the manuscript. For example:
• “...create of hybrid offspring...” → “...create hybrid offspring...”
• “...their adaptability, growth performance...” → “...due to their adaptability, growth performance...”
• “Hybrid fishes traditionally bred to combine...” → “Hybrid fishes are traditionally bred to combine...”

• The abstract is packed with information but could be better structured:
• First 1-2 lines should state the aim clearly.
• Highlight key results more concisely.
• End with a clear sentence on the broader implications.
• The introduction is informative but occasionally redundant. Sentences like "Fish distant hybridization, a prevalent breeding technique, involves fishes from different species..." repeat earlier content.

• Tool Use Clarity: While you list software/tools (MEGA, mVISTA, ETE3), some steps are hard to reproduce. For example:
• How were sequences aligned prior to MEGA analysis?
• Were bootstrap values used in PCA cluster validation?

• Figure Formatting: The figure legends (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 3) should be clearer and placed consistently.
• Table 2: It's valuable but hard to interpret in its current form. Too dense, and percentages should be grouped or color-coded by gene region.

• The discussion nicely connects findings to real-world applications. However:
• Expand on the significance of DUI (Doubly Uniparental Inheritance)—how might this impact future hybrid breeding programs?
• Provide clearer conservation policy recommendations—how can these findings influence hybrid management or stocking practices?

• In-text citations use inconsistent formats: "[1]" vs. "[20,21,22]". Ensure consistency (likely journal-specific).

Recommendation: Major revisions required before publication
Your work is novel and significant, but clarity, organization, and language quality need attention to ensure your findings are accessible and compelling to readers. Addressing these issues will greatly improve the paper’s impact and readability.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english needs to clearer grammatically.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on the publication of the revised edition.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.