Differentially Expressed Genes Shared by Two Distinct Cytoplasmic Male Sterility (CMS) Types of Silene vulgaris Suggest the Importance of Oxidative Stress in Pollen Abortion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript in its revised version is now acceptable for publication, considering the additional information that the authors brought  in response to my previous remarks on the manuscript.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript written by Krüger et al  aims to describe the differentially expressed genes between females and hermaphrodites in gynodioecious Silene vulgaris, thus with  CMS maintained in natural populations.

The authors studied two different cytoplasms KRA and KOV, with 4 crosses between the two haplotypes, and comparing transcriptomes of 3 Females/3 Hermaphrodites and parents per cross. The cross scheme need to be detailed. Shouldn’t there be 32 analyzed individuals  instead of 30? Were there crosses between hermaphrodites that generate sex segregation? What was the genetic relatedness among parents?

The RNAseq strategy was conducted in order to sequence RNAs from nucleus but also organellar compartments, but no further details are given for the portion of organellar genes that were finally sequenced. Overall, the study is conducted seriously and cautiously, by using for example different softwares to identify differentially expressed genes (down or expressed) between females and males.  As such, the new data obtained in the present study is of high value  for the community working on Silene. But what concerns me is that the manuscript remains very descriptive, being largely a catalogue of genes differentially expressed that belong to a large number of GO categories.  It is obvious that a general comparison of females and hermaphrodites without taking account the cytoplasm concerned (CMS) will reveal all the cascade of genes that are involved to produce male organs and their suppression. Indeed, why should we expect it to be different from cultivated studied organisms? I was surprised that the authors did not try to focus on the differences between KRA and KOV to tentatively disentangle the mitochondrial  genetic determinants of male sterility and  the  nuclear ones of male fertility restoration in both systems.

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf