Comparative Transcriptome Analysis between Ornamental Apple Species Provides Insights into Mechanism of Double Flowering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is interessting to understand double flowering of ornamental apples.
However, it is unclear some points as shown below. Please rewrite or audd original sentenses.
Plant materials
What tissue or stage did you use?
Double flower shape of DFM and DFR is quite different. Former has stamen and later did not as shown in Figure 1. I think this difference is important so recommend you discusss this point as possible.
Author Response
Point 1: This manuscript is interessting to understand double flowering of ornamental apples.However, it is unclear some points as shown below. Please rewrite or audd original sentenses.
Response: New sentences are added to the manuscript and revised manuscript is uploaded.
Point 2: Plant materials
What tissue or stage did you use?
Response: Very tiny close floral buds at initial stage (when the floral buds appeared) were used in the experiments (L138).
Point 3: Double flower shape of DFM and DFR is quite different. Former has stamen and later did not as shown in Figure 1. I think this difference is important so recommend you discusss this point as possible.
Response: Both the mentioned flowers has stamens. Ambiguity may be arise due to very less color differentiation of filaments and petals of DFR.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comparative Transcriptome Analysis between Ornamental Apple Species; Providing Insights in
mechanism of Double Flowering
Hera Gul et.al. 2019
Major Comments:
Flowering is a complex trait thus know the insight mechanisms of double flowering is very important specifically for ornamental species. The author trying to nail the complex pattern of gene or their functional transcriptome analysis for this double flowering. However, the manuscript needs a significant modification, as it stands is not a well-written manuscript. Specifically, numerous punctuations error such as comma, inverted comma, colon, semicolon, quotation marks makes the manuscript unreadable. I strongly recommended for the author to rewrite the whole manuscript with a simple sentence and correct form of sentences.
Also, the author needs to correct the references and use EndNote and latest citation with homogenous form. Cap letter, abbreviated vs full journal names is a common error.
Scientific:
qPCR “MD17G1259400” this gene expression is extremely high, I would recommend the author should re-run the experiment again and validate the findings, also it would be better the author could add a suppletory excel sheet all those expression results as an excel file.
Figure 4 needs to modify as it is hazy and difficult to read, also figure 2 heat maps should be modified and showed a bigger better image and figure 2 b should be separated from this image, as figure needs to be meaningful and justification for manuscripts as well as for the reader.
The description should be well organized and a smaller number of paragraphs, and justification of result. As the author just generalized the finding and didn’t explain enough regarding the findings. The author should write the manuscripts such an articulated fashion so the reader should not lose concentration after reading each line. I would suggest the author should rewrite the whole results and discussion more articulated fashion and more meaningful way, one-way, the author could write by categorizing different key functional transcriptome rather than try to explain each and everything about experimental findings.
Minor Correction:
L-3 remove “;”
L-23 remove ‘Kelsey’- similar error all over the manuscripts such as L-31 to L33 and L-103 to L104, L-249 to 259
L -333 Figure 6.a should be Figure 6a; similar error L-334
Author Response
Point 1: Flowering is a complex trait thus know the insight mechanisms of double flowering is very important specifically for ornamental species. The author trying to nail the complex pattern of gene or their functional transcriptome analysis for this double flowering. However, the manuscript needs a significant modification, as it stands is not a well-written manuscript. Specifically, numerous punctuations error such as comma, inverted comma, colon, semicolon, quotation marks makes the manuscript unreadable. I strongly recommended for the author to rewrite the whole manuscript with a simple sentence and correct form of sentences.
Response: Whole manuscript is checked for the punctuation errors and corrected accordingly.
Point 2: Also, the author needs to correct the references and use EndNote and latest citation with homogenous form. Cap letter, abbreviated vs full journal names is a common error.
Response: All the references are checked carefully and the suggested corrections are made.
Point 3: qPCR “MD17G1259400” this gene expression is extremely high, I would recommend the author should re-run the experiment again and validate the findings, also it would be better the author could add a suppletory excel sheet all those expression results as an excel file.
Response: It was a typo error while making graph. We are sorry for that and highly thankful for the suggestion of reviewer. Author did the experiment again for “MD17G1259400” as recommended by the reviewer, and got similar results. A supplementary excel sheet S12 containing all the expression results is added. The graph for “MD17G1259400” is corrected and Figure 9 containing this graph is also edited accordingly.
Point 4: Figure 4 needs to modify as it is hazy and difficult to read, also figure 2 heat maps should be modified and showed a bigger better image and figure 2 b should be separated from this image, as figure needs to be meaningful and justification for manuscripts as well as for the reader.
Response: Figure 4 is modified and the quality is set as per suggestion. Figure 2is modified and a bigger better image is added. Furthermore, Figure 2b which now Figure 3, is also separated from the image and justified in caption. All the figure number are reset accordingly due to the separation of a Figure 2b from Figure 2a.
Point 5: The description should be well organized and a smaller number of paragraphs, and justification of result. As the author just generalized the finding and didn’t explain enough regarding the findings. The author should write the manuscripts such an articulated fashion so the reader should not lose concentration after reading each line. I would suggest the author should rewrite the whole results and discussion more articulated fashion and more meaningful way, one-way, the author could write by categorizing different key functional transcriptome rather than try to explain each and everything about experimental findings.
Response: All the results have been discussed carefully and the manuscript is modified according to the suggestions of the reviewer.
Point 6: L-3 remove “;”
Response: Change accepted.
Point 7: L-23 remove ‘Kelsey’- similar error all over the manuscripts such as L-31 to L33 and L-103 to L104, L-249 to 259
Response: All the changes accepted.
Point 8: L -333 Figure 6.a should be Figure 6a; similar error L-334
Response: Changes accepted.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your correction
