The Development of Forest Genetic Breeding and the Application of Genome Selection and CRISPR/Cas9 in Forest Breeding
Guy Costa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Comments
The manuscript “The development of forest genetic breeding and the application of gene selection and CRISPR/Cas9 in forest breeding” summarized the development of forest genetic breeding and focused on the application of current biotechnology in tree breeding, represented by gene selection and gene editing. The article is clear and easy to understand, but I think some of them need to be strengthened in the manuscript.
1. In the manuscript title, it is suggested to modify the “gene selection” to “genome selection”.
2. In the “4. In-depth development of forest genetic breeding” (line 165) part, it is suggested the author should add some new references. Since we want to reflect the development, we should have both landmark examples and references that can reflect the current research level. In addition, for transgenic research, the author is suggested to add the research status of transgenic forest. There have been cases of commercialization of transgenic forest trees, and the author is suggested to add explanations.
3. References seem to be necessary in the introduction section.
4. Please delete “began” in line 57.
5. In the line 83, it is wrong tense description.
6. In the line 84-86 and 105-109, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
7. In the line 137, “number” should be replaced by “quantity”.
8. In the line 150, “a number” should be replaced by “quite a few”.
9. In the line 210, “were carried out” is wrong tense description.
10. In the line 335-338, The author's description of CRISPR is vague and I can't fathom it from the current description.
11. In the line 381-384, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
12. In the table 2, “Eucalyptus” is a Latin name and should be italic.
13. In the line 424-426 and 458-460, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
14. References seem to be incomplete, such as 2, 3, 6, 10 and so on. Please check all references to ensure that the references are correct.
15. The language level of the manuscript seems to need to be further improved, especially some language tenses.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for the positive comments. We also appreciate your detailed comments and specific suggestions on our manuscript. We have incorporated the changes in this revised version.
Questions:
- In the manuscript title, it is suggested to modify the “gene selection” to “genome selection”.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested, we have changed title “gene selection” to “genome selection” in the manuscript title.
Questions:
- In the “4. In-depth development of forest genetic breeding” (line 165) part, it is suggested the author should add some new references. Since we want to reflect the development, we should have both landmark examples and references that can reflect the current research level. In addition, for transgenic research, the author is suggested to add the research status of transgenic forest. There have been cases of commercialization of transgenic forest trees, and the author is suggested to add explanations.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested, we have added new references in the “4. In-depth development of forest genetic breeding” part. In addition, the contents of organelle genome and single cell sequencing were added (in line 200-217 of the revised manuscript), and the research status of transgenic forest was further enriched (in line 228-234 of the revised manuscript).
Questions:
- References seem to be necessary in the introduction section.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We added references in line 30 of the revised manuscript, summarized sections 1-4 in Figure 1 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- Please delete “began” in line 57.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have deleted “began” in the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 83, it is wrong tense description.”
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “was” to “has been” in line 88 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 84-86 and 105-109, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “In 1935, the triploid P. tremula was discovered and became the starting point of polyploid breeding in forest trees [15].” to “The discovery of triploid black poplar is the starting point of forest tree polyploid breeding in 1935 [15].” in line 90-91 of the revised manuscript and changed “About 50 countries in five continents of the world have established nearly 90 seed orchards, involving Pinus radiata, Picea abies, Rhus typhina L., Cunninghamia lanceolata and other tree species, but mostly coniferous species, countries around the world rely on seed reproduction from the main way of afforestation began to seed orchards for change [20,21].” to “Nearly 90 seed orchards have been established in about 50 countries on five continents, involving Pinus radiata, Picea abies, Rhus typhina L., Cunninghamia lanceolata and other tree species, but most of them were coniferous species, countries around the world began to change from the main way of afforestation relying on seed reproduction to seed orchards [20,21]” in line 104-108 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 137, “number” should be replaced by “quantity”.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “number” to “quantity” in line 159 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 150, “a number” should be replaced by “quite a few”.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “a number” to “quite a few” in line 171 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 210, “were carried out” is wrong tense description.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have deleted this this sentence in the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 335-338, The author's description of CRISPR is vague and I can't fathom it from the current description.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “The cleavage of the target DNA molecule causes double-strand breaks, and the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) in the cell causes mutations such as random in-sertion and deletion of the cleavage site, so that the target gene can be accurately edit-ed [141].” to “After sgRNA binds to Cas9 protein and targets to a specific genomic site, Cas9 is cleaved to produce double strand breaks (DSBs), which are repaired by cell-autonomous non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HR), resulting in base insertion or deletion at the target site, resulting in gene function inactivation [232].” in line 376-380 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the line 381-384, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder, we have changed the “Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) seeds can be refined biodiesel, is an emerging biomass energy tree species, using CRISPR/Cas9 to mutant JcCYP735, a rate-limiting enzyme gene for cytokinin synthesis in would lead to inhibition of mutant plant height [154].” to “Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) seeds can be refined into biodiesel, which is a new kind of biomass energy tree. JcCYP735, a rate-limiting enzyme gene for cytokinin synthesis in Jatropha, was edited by CRISPR/Cas, and the mutantshowed plant dwarfing [245].” in line 429-432 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- In the table 2, “Eucalyptus” is a Latin name and should be italic.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder, we have corrected this error,
Questions:
- In the line 424-426 and 458-460, the description is confusing, and rewriting is necessary.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have changed “Breeding and cultivation of high yield, high quality, strong resistance, is widely affected forest varieties and applied to production is still the development trend and focus of forest genetic breeding.” to “It is still the development trend and emphasis of forestry genetics and breeding to select forestry varieties with high yield, high quality, strong resistance and extensive in-fluence and apply them to production.” in line 487-489 of the revised manuscript and changed “Establishing more genetic transformation system of forest tree species, using transgenic, gene editing and other biotechnology for rapid integration of excellent traits, shorten the breeding period.” to “More genetic transformation systems of forest varieties should be established, and bio-technology such as transgenic and gene editing should be used to rapidly integrate superior traits and shorten the breeding cycle.” in line 509-511 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- References seem to be incomplete, such as 2, 3, 6, 10 and so on. Please check all references to ensure that the references are correct.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have checked all references and made corrections.
Questions:
- The language level of the manuscript seems to need to be further improved, especially some language tenses.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have revised the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
This review mainly summarized the 21 research history of forest tree genetics and breeding, and discussed the application of modern bioengineering technology represented by genome selection and gene editing in forest tree breeding, so as to provide better reference for forest tree breeding research. As a review article, the references are cited to show that the author keeps abreast of the latest research progress in this field. However, there are some suggestions for authors:
1 I suggest to add one Figure about the forest species and the development of forest tree breeding. Maybe the sections 2, 3, and 4 of this manuscript will be summarized in this figure.
2 Line253 “he genetic relationship between the reference population and the candidate……”, please check the sentence.
3 Line349, 353 and 355, “CRISPR/CAS” or “CRISPR/CAS 9”?
However, this minor remark does not diminish my high opinion of this manuscript. I give my recommendation to the authors and I do encourage them to continue their work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for the positive comments. We also appreciate your detailed comments and specific suggestions on our manuscript. We have incorporated the changes in this revised version.
Questions:
- I suggest to add one Figure about the forest species and the development of forest tree breeding. Maybe the sections 2, 3, and 4 of this manuscript will be summarized in this figure.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested, we have added Figure 1 which summarize sections 2, 3, and 4 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- Line253 “he genetic relationship between the reference population and the candidate……”, please check the sentence.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have corrected this sentence in line 322 of the revised manuscript.
Questions:
- Line349, 353 and 355, “CRISPR/CAS” or “CRISPR/CAS 9”?
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. We have unified as “CRISPR/CAS9” in line 457. 461, 463 of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper gives an overview of selection, genetic improvement applied to ligneous plants. If the data of the paper are correct I find that it lacks criticism on the potential disadvantages of certain techniques of selection with regard to the biological material: the trees and their speed of growth. Phenotyping is more conceptual than actually possible over reasonable time steps. A remark of detail, the bibliography is very "Asian" and leaves on the low side some relevant European and American works.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for the positive comments. We also appreciate your detailed comments and specific suggestions on our manuscript. We have incorporated the changes in this revised version.
Questions:
- The paper gives an overview of selection, genetic improvement applied to ligneous plants. If the data of the paper are correct I find that it lacks criticism on the potential disadvantages of certain techniques of selection with regard to the biological material: the trees and their speed of growth. Phenotyping is more conceptual than actually possible over reasonable time steps. A remark of detail, the bibliography is very "Asian" and leaves on the low side some relevant European and American works.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested, we added the disadvantages of GS and CRISPR/CAS9 in line 331-346 and 466-470 of the revised manuscript, respectively. In addition, a large number of new references on the status of European and American forest breeding were added.
