Next Article in Journal
Whether Gametophytes Are Reduced or Unreduced in Angiosperms Might Be Determined Metabolically
Next Article in Special Issue
Improved Genetic Map Identified Major QTLs for Drought Tolerance- and Iron Deficiency Tolerance-Related Traits in Groundnut
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptional Differences for COVID-19 Disease Map Genes between Males and Females Indicate a Different Basal Immunophenotype Relevant to the Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/genes11121448
Review Report
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Identification of Novel Genomic Associations and Gene Candidates for Grain Starch Content in Sorghum

Genes 2020, 11(12), 1448; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11121448
by Sirjan Sapkota 1,2,*, J. Lucas Boatwright 1,2, Kathleen Jordan 1, Richard Boyles 2,3 and Stephen Kresovich 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Genes 2020, 11(12), 1448; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11121448
Submission received: 18 September 2020 / Revised: 10 November 2020 / Accepted: 27 November 2020 / Published: 2 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantitative Genetics and Genomics to Accelerate Plant Breeding Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well structured and written. I have only few minor comments:

L 131: Write „HSP90-6“ not „HSP 90-6“ L

162: Please revise sentence, “…,we extracted the SNPs from within the genes from the network and ...“

L 165: You may write „HSP70“ instead of „heat shock protein 70“, HSP was explained earlier (L 9) and HSP70 already mentioned (L 154).

L 195-201: I am fine with the comments regarding false positives but I am not really convinced regarding false negatives. I could imagine there are still many unidentified loci with an effect on starch content in the population.

Author Response

Thank you for you reviews. The comments will be incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to address them. Please see the detailed response in the document attached.

 

Best,
Sirjan Sapkota

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your suggestions. We hope we have attended to all of your concerns. Please find the detailed response attached.

 

Thank you,
Sirjan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This revised version is substantially improved. The questions I had on the previous versions are now cleared, and the M&M is much better and possible to follow and understand. I have carefully revised the manuscript along with the comments made in the previous round, and I believe that this version is almost good for publication, once the minor comment below is addressed.

Minor

L155-156: It is not very clear to me how is it that the BSLMM estimates the \alpha_i and \beta_i to explain the small and large SNP effects.

Back to TopTop