A Test of the Adaptive Lag Hypothesis of the Evolution of Cancer Suppression and Lifespan in Dog Breeds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author walks around Peto’s paradox. His approach was to involve ancient breeds and their level of admixture in the modern breeds, and looked for cancer mortality rate, litter size, lifespan data versus the weight of individuals and age of the breeds to check adaptive lag hypothesis of cancer suppression.   For the definitions of modern and ancient breeds, available genetic and archeological evidence were obtained from literature. Lifespan data, causes of death are from literature and public databases. Data are crosschecked. Litter size, lifespan and cancer mortality rate are characterized.   The author has found that ancient breeds live longer and have smaller litters than modern breeds of the same size. Cancer mortality rates increase with body size in modern breeds but decrease with body size in ancient breeds. These findings support the adaptive lag hypothesis.   Notices:   - literature is well selected and cited at the right places in the text. - Appendixes were welcome at the end of the manuscript. - Please give explanation of lx, mx, lxmx, LRS, … in the footnote of Table 1 as well.   I suggest minor revision mentioned above.

Author Response

Comment: Please give explanation of lx, mx, lxmx, LRS, … in the footnote of Table 1 as well.   I suggest minor revision mentioned above.

Response: These definitions have been added as footnotes to Table 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

In this article, the author evaluated the lifespans of ancient dog breeds and modern dog breeds. By comparing them he found that ancient dog breeds have notably prolonged lifespans than modern dog breeds of the same size. Furthermore, he found that the increase in cancer mortality rate for modern dog breeds is significantly different from that exhibited by ancient dog breeds. The article is interesting, and theory based. However, there are some comments that need to be addressed.

Major comments

1. The author should adapt the final paragraph of the introduction to fit the journal's structure. Please refer to the 'Instructions for Authors' section of the Genes journal for guidance.

2. On page 2, line 42, the author writes '[but see 23].' What does this mean?

3. It is recommended that the abbreviation “yr” is defined.

    

4. In the discussion section the author should highlight the strengths and limitations, and suggest areas for future research.

5. It is highly recommended to include the conclusion section should be short and summarise the main results of the study.

6. Table 1 should be placed in the centre.

7. The title of Reference 3 needs to be corrected.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author should adapt the final paragraph of the introduction to fit the journal's structure. Please refer to the 'Instructions for Authors' section of the Genes journal for guidance.

Response: I believe the reviewer is referring to the instruction "Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions." I've changed the start of the first sentence of the final paragraph to more clearly indicate  the main aim.

Comment 2: On page 2, line 42, the author writes '[but see 23].' What does this mean?

Response: This refers to a dissenting opinion.

Comment 3: It is recommended that the abbreviation “yr” is defined.

Response: "yr" is defined as years and is now defined at its first use.

Comment 4: In the discussion section the author should highlight the strengths and limitations, and suggest areas for future research.

Response: A paragraph has been added to address these issues.

Comment 5: It is highly recommended to include the conclusion section should be short and summarise the main results of the study.

Response: A conclusion section has been added.

Comment 6: Table 1 should be placed in the centre.

Response: Table 1 has been centred. 

Comment 7: The title of Reference 3 needs to be corrected.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction has been made.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The modifications introduced by the author are satisfactory.