High-Density Linkage Mapping of Agronomic Trait QTLs in Wheat under Water Deficit Condition using Genotyping by Sequencing (GBS)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have gone through the manuscript and reviewed thoughly. Based on the review, I have attached the review commnets in order to improve the manuscript at major level.
Thanks
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well-written manuscript. In this study, the authors constructed a high-density linkage map, mapped 20 novel QTLs for grain yield and related traits, and identified potential candidate genes for these QTLs by using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS)-based SNP markers of a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population derived from the cross of Iranian landrace #49 and cultivar Yecora Rojo, which was evaluated in three locations in Iran during two years under irrigated and water deficit conditions for the agronomic traits related to grain yield in wheat. The data is new and abundant. The results are helpful for further wheat drought stress breeding. I have the following issues:
Line 15: “Improvement of grain yield…” should be corrected as “Improvement of grain yield (GY)… ”.
Line 155: “chro-mosomes 2A…” should be corrected as “chromosomes 2A…”.
Line 156: “…ir-rigated…” should be corrected as “…irrigated…”.
Line 169: Better reword here.
Line 175: “2.4.41000.” should be corrected as “2.4.4. 1000”.
Line 242: “…Zhang et al. [20]” should be corrected as “…Zhang et al. [20],”.
Lines 260-261: Please check the orders of the “Ch” and “QTL Reported in the same interval”columns in Table 2. For Ch, it should be better from 1A, 1B, 1D to 7A, 7B, 7D. For QTL Reported in the same interval, such as “PH [32,25]”, it should be corrected as “PH [25,32]”, and please check thoroughly across the manuscript.
Finally, for the “References” section, I think that the authors should check the format of the reference. For line 475: “TAG Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet.”.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers.
Comment 1: Line 15: “Improvement of grain yield…” should be corrected as “Improvement of grain yield (GY)…
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected in the line 13 of revised draft.
Comment 2: Line 155: “chro-mosomes 2A…” should be corrected as “chromosomes 2A…”.
Response 2: We have corrected it.
Comment 3: Line 156: “…ir-rigated…” should be corrected as “…irrigated…”.
Response 3: This mistake has been also corrected.
Comment 4: Line 169: Better reword here.
Response 4: Agree. We have modified this in lines 188.
Comment 5: Line 175: “2.4.41000.” should be corrected as “2.4.4. 1000”.
Response 5: We have corrected it in line 193.
Comment 6: Line 242: “…Zhang et al. [20]” should be corrected as “…Zhang et al. [20],”.
Response 6: This has been corrected.
Comment 7: Lines 260-261: Please check the orders of the “Ch” and “QTL Reported in the same interval”columns in Table 3. For Ch, it should be better from 1A, 1B, 1D to 7A, 7B, 7D. For QTL Reported in the same interval, such as “PH [32,25]”, it should be corrected as “PH [25,32]”, and please check thoroughly across the manuscript.
Response 7: The order of Ch is similar to what you suggested, however for some QTL interval we could not find QTL region reported by previous studies for instance chr1A, 1D. Indeed, the table 3 has been deleted from revised draft and moved to supplementary file. We agree with your suggestion about references and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript.
Comment 8: Finally, for the “References” section, I think that the authors should check the format of the reference. For line 475: “TAG Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet.”.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected references based on format throughout the manuscript.
In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected. We hope that our resubmission would be suitable for inclusion in Plants journal and we look forward to hearing from you.
