De Novo Assembly of an Allotetraploid Artemisia argyi Genome
, Yanbin Liu 4, Feng Wu 4, Chuang Liu 4, Keya Wang 1,2, Hongjun Liu 5, Cheng Peng 1,2,6, Zhengfeng Wang 1,2, Long Wang 1,2, Zhanfeng Liu 1,2, Junhua Yan 1,2 and Wei Zhang 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the authors:
In the manuscript "De novo assembly of an allotetraploid Artemisia argyi genome" the authors engaged on the task to sequence, assemble and annotate a genomic reference of the allopoliplod A. argyi, an important medicinal herb from China and other parts of Asia. The high-quality assembly and annotation will be useful tool for functional genomics, specially those related to specialized metabolites.
The goal of the work is interesting and concrete. The manuscript is well written and overall scientifically sound. Material and Methods section are comprehensive and detailed.
My only concern that could be included is some functional characterization of selected genes of important metabolites synthesis pathways related to the medicinal properties described. If not, at least a more detailed description of some of those genes.
Minor comments:
1) Line 91: miss a space between Mecat2/with
2) 3d-dna on line 104 or 3d-DNA line 105?
3) Line 201: miss a space 9119/gene
4) Line 202: miss a space 401/were
5) Figure 1c is not described on the legend of the figure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) The paper "De Novo Assembly of an Allotetraploid Artemisia argyi Genome" is well written and highly fascinating, yet there are still some concerns that need to be addressed.
(2) The exact plant genome was published in 2022 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.13870) and 2023 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590346223000020?via%3Dihub) in plant journal of biotechnology and plant communications. There is no citation or information on previously published genomes in this article. The authors should cite these studies and compare their findings to earlier research.
(3) The number of genes and even the number of chromosomes vary among these assemblies. This article reported 32 chromosomes, when the preceding article reported 34 chromosomes.
(4) The WGD analysis produced results that differed from previously released data. The authors should go over the possible causes.
The authors have done a great research , but a comparative research should include previously published genomes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the suggested comments.
