Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Association Study as an Efficacious Approach to Discover Candidate Genes Associated with Body Linear Type Traits in Dairy Cattle
Next Article in Special Issue
Adaptive Evolution and Functional Differentiation of Testis-Expressed Genes in Theria
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Heat-Treated Bifidobacterium longum CECT-7347 Combined with Fibersol-2 on the Intestinal Health of Cats Submitted to an Abrupt Dietary Change: A Randomized Controlled Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fast and Simple Molecular Test for Sex Determination of the Monomorphic Eudromia elegans Individuals
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

Specificity of Key Sex Determination Genes in a Mammal with Ovotestes: The European Mole Talpa europaea

Animals 2024, 14(15), 2180; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152180
by Alexey Bogdanov 1, Maria Sokolova 1,2 and Irina Bakloushinskaya 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Animals 2024, 14(15), 2180; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152180
Submission received: 29 April 2024 / Revised: 19 June 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 26 July 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the genetics of sex determination in gonads of the European mole. The introduction is very well written and clear and shows that the majority of this work has been done before in lab mice. The authors were able to collect samples from 8 European moles. I anticipated that this collection would have been done during pest eradication of moles, but it seems that appropriate ethical standards were employed nonetheless, and this small sample size was able to yield informative results.

The primer design is good and incredibly well detailed, and will be useful in future studies of this species. Although the Rspo1 gene could not determine well the ovotestis development, the primers for reliable sex determination (line 205) will be very useful in further studies.

Overall this paper is incredibly clear and replicable and provides much needed data on species within Eulipotyphla.

Author Response

We are grateful to the Reviewer for taking the time and appreciating our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are in the uploaded PDF file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The manuscript requires a native English speaker to review it from a grammatical and semantic point of view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided very interesting data on the structure of genes involved in sex determination in mammals with ovotestes in females. All the results obtained are highly significant, and I think that the manuscript, after minor revisions, can be considered for publication in the Animals.

Line 85 of Introduction: please check the list of 8 mole species (two same species listed)

Author Response

We are very thankful to the Reviewer for appreciating our work.

It was our mistake Line 85 of Introduction: please check the list of 8 mole species (two same species listed)

We apologize for the mistake. The sentence was corrected with mention of Galemys pyrenaicus instead of one of two T. romana.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors have ignored most of my suggestions and unconvincingly refuted most of my criticisms, mainly those related to the subject matter of the manuscript. As a result, the text has not improved sufficiently to justify publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The manuscript requires a native English speaker to review it from a grammatical and semantic point of view.

Author Response

In the response to the first review, we answered all the comments step by step. The lack of clear argumentation in the second review does not allow us to understand what exactly the reviewer did not agree with in our responses. Scientific discussion implies exchange of opinions, but we do not see any feedback in this case.

We would like to accent that the reviewer emphasizes in both the first and second reviews, that our work is phylogenetic one rather than related to the problems of sex determination. Phylogeny, as it is known, is the reconstruction of historical relationships of organisms, populations and taxa of different ranks. Building phylogenetic reconstructions is a special task that requires a special selection of objects, features, and appropriate analysis. Moreover, the databases do not provide sufficient data for phylogenetic constructions on the genes we studied. Phylogenetic study was not planned by us in this short communication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop