Assessment of Heterosis Based on Genetic Distance Estimated Using SNP in Common Wheat
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The methods employed and data are sound and the discussion and conclusions are based on the data.
I make the following minor comments/suggestions.
The following table titles;
Table 2. Analysis of yield performance and general combining ability of hybrid combination F1.
Table 3. Analysis of heterosis of yield-related traits and yield in hybrid cross F1.
Table 4. Analysis of mid and high-parental heterosis in F1 hybrid yield.
Table 6. Correlation analysis between GD and MPH and HPH of yield and yield related traits.
Should be changed to;
Table 2.Yield performance and general combining ability of F1 hybrid combinations.
Table 3. Heterosis of yield-related traits and yield in F1 hybrids.
Table 4. Mid and high-parental heterosis in F1 hybrid yield.
Table 6. Correlation between GD and MPH and HPH of yield and yield related traits.
The actual hybrid combinations should be explicitly referred to and the male and female lines should be identified. Both these needs could be satisfied by referring to Table 2 and Table 4 which identify the hybrid combinations and then grouping the females or males across the top down side, or vice versa, of each table.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment of heterosis based on genetic distance estimated using SNP in common wheat” (ID: agronomy-435438). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: The following table titles;
Table 2. Analysis of yield performance and general combining ability of hybrid combination F1.
Table 3. Analysis of heterosis of yield-related traits and yield in hybrid cross F1.
Table 4. Analysis of mid and high-parental heterosis in F1 hybrid yield.
Table 6. Correlation analysis between GD and MPH and HPH of yield and yield related traits.
Should be changed to;
Table 2.Yield performance and general combining ability of F1 hybrid combinations.
Table 3. Heterosis of yield-related traits and yield in F1 hybrids.
Table 4. Mid and high-parental heterosis in F1 hybrid yield.
Table 6. Correlation between GD and MPH and HPH of yield and yield related traits.
Response 1: We revised it as suggested.
Point 2: The actual hybrid combinations should be explicitly referred to and the male and female lines should be identified. Both these needs could be satisfied by referring to Table 2 and Table 4 which identify the hybrid combinations and then grouping the females or males across the top down side, or vice versa, of each table.
Response 2: We revised it as suggested. Sort the females in the table from top to bottom. Sort the males in the table from left to right.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Yingbin Nie
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is very interesting to the readers, but you have many technical and language mistakes. Aldow I am not qualified to judge language I will point some issues.
L16 add randomized
L32 Triticum aestivum -italic
L33 hm2?,
L41 Triticum timopheevi- italic
L42 delete comma after line
L44 However, wheat hybrid were not
L49 observations are
L52 Modify sentence
L55 after (15-17). you need extra space
L56 requires (not required)
L59 to analyze (not analyzed)
L66 cultivars and lines
L73 May you give us the names of cultivars, codes of lines, year of release if possible in the table
L75 AL- meaning?
L81-82 Last sentence--Test was conducte---place at the begining
L84-L93 explain GCA and SCA, how did you calculated?
L107 with (not which)
L121 consisted of (not was the)
L122 consisted of (not was the)
L123 consisted of (not was the)
L158 What kind of analysis??
L191 similar (not similarity)
L218-218 Modify sentence
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment of heterosis based on genetic distance estimated using SNP in common wheat” (ID: agronomy-435438). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: L16 add randomized
Response 1: We fixed it.
Point 2: L32 Triticum aestivum -italic
Response 2: We fixed it.
Point 3: L33 hm2?,
Response 3: hm2 means hectares. We revised the word “hectares”
Point 4: L41 Triticum timopheevi- italic
Response 4: We fixed it.
Point 5: L42 delete comma after line
Response 5: The male sterile line, maintainer line, and restorer line are side-by-side relationships and are placed in parentheses. It is better to keep it .
Point 6: L44 However, wheat hybrid were not
Response 6: We revised it as suggested.
Point 7: L49 observations are
Response 7: We revised it as suggested.
Point 8: L52 Modify sentence
Response 8: I have modified the statement of the sentence.
Point 9: L55 after (15-17). you need extra space
Response 9: We revised it as suggested.
Point 10: L56 requires (not required)
Response 10: We revised it as suggested.
Point 11: L59 to analyze (not analyzed)
Response 11: We revised it as suggested.
Point 12: L66 cultivars and lines
Response 12: We revised it as suggested.
Point 13: L73 May you give us the names of cultivars, codes of lines, year of release if possible in the table
Response 13: Due to the size of the table, we only listed the name of cultivar and lines.
Point 14: L75 AL- meaning?
Response 14: The cytoplasm of the sterile line is from the Huixianhong, a common wheat alborubrum Korn’ variant, so take the upper two letters of its variant "AL" to name the sterile line.
Point 15: L81-82 Last sentence--Test was conducte---place at the begining
Response 15: We revised it as suggested.
Point 16: L84-L93 explain GCA and SCA, how did you calculated?
Response 16: We have added the reference.
Point 17: L107 with (not which)
Response 17: We revised it as suggested.
Point 18: L121 consisted of (not was the)
Response 18: We revised it as suggested.
Point 19: L122 consisted of (not was the)
Response 19: We revised it as suggested.
Point 20: L123 consisted of (not was the)
Response 20: We revised it as suggested.
Point 21: L158 What kind of analysis??
Response 21: Correlation analysis was carried out.
Point 22: L191 similar (not similarity)
Response 22: We revised it as suggested.
Point 23: L218-218 Modify sentence
Response 22: We have revised the statement of sentence.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Yingbin Nie
