Next Article in Journal
Biochemical Approaches on Commercial Strains of Agaricus subrufescens Growing under Two Environmental Cultivation Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Oleic Acid Addition Methods on the Metabolic Flux Distribution of Ganoderic Acids R, S and T’s Biosynthesis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 8
Issue 6
10.3390/jof8060614
Review Report
jof-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

Structured Framework and Genome Analysis of Magnaporthe grisea Inciting Pearl Millet Blast Disease Reveals Versatile Metabolic Pathways, Protein Families, and Virulence Factors

J. Fungi 2022, 8(6), 614; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8060614
by Bhaskar Reddy 1,*, Sahil Mehta 2,†, Ganesan Prakash 1, Neelam Sheoran 1 and Aundy Kumar 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Fungi 2022, 8(6), 614; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8060614
Submission received: 4 March 2022 / Revised: 10 April 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 9 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Fungal Genomics, Genetics and Molecular Biology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the MS “Structured framework and genome analysis of Magnaporthe 2 grisea inciting pearl millet blast disease reveals versatile meta-3 bolic pathways, protein families, and virulence factors”, authors demonstrated the genomic basis of the pathogenicity and underlying biochemical pathways in Magnaporthe using genome-sequence of a pearl millet infecting M. grisea PMg_Dl generated by dual NGS techniques, Illumina NextSeq 500 and PacBio RS II. The most obvious feeling is that the author only lists the data and does not connect these data with characteristics of M. grisea PMg_Dl.

 

  1. Can you get more information from the phylogenetic tree?
  2. Figure 3. Is the picture narrowed?
  3. Analysis of Orthologous Genes, Protein Family, and CAZymes in Assembled Genomes. Are these genes related to the specificity of grisea PMg_Dl?
  4. How many chromosomes grisea PMg_Dl.I has?
  5. The MS focused on the conserved information of Magnaporthe. It is better to analyze these data to give some information about the host specificity.
  6. Please provide some pictures of the colony morphology, infected structure, and pathogenicity of grisea PMg_Dl.I.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reddy et al. conducted a pretty comprehensive study on Magnaporthe grisea and the manuscript was written with a good presentation. 

Just some minor comments to further improve the MS:

  1. the information in the legend of Figure 1 is not sufficient and clear. The authors should break the diagram into different steps and describe each step in detail in the legend.
  2. Line 118, the BUSCO version, is not indicated. 
  3. The authors can provide another Supp table, by comparing the assembly quality (N50 or BUSCO) genome they generated and other published genomes listed in Figure 2. This information can be useful to assess the quality of the genome and how it has been improved. 
  4. The content of the abstract is quite redundant. Can remove some unnecessary text and only keep those most significant findings and content/ 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments are answered

Back to TopTop