Multiple Stochastic Parameters Influence Genome Dynamics in a Heterozygous Diploid Eukaryotic Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article takes an observatory approach to gaging the frequency of loss of heterzygosity (LOH) under various stress conditions, examining independent chromosomes. LOH is a result of double stranded DNA breaks that cause DNA damage that requires repair. The authors find differences even within isogenic isolates. 

 

Comments:

1.     The current manuscript takes an observatory approach to describing the frequency of LOH between chromosomes. The authors can consider taking a more hypothesis driven introduction. Bringing forth the paragraph that starts on line 142 “Here, we used C. albicans as a model organism…” might be the text to launch a more hypothesis driven statement.

2.     Line 198, “confronted” need to be changed.

3.     Include the location of Miltenyi Biotec, line 202.

4.     Within the legend for Figure 1, make it clear this is an experimental strategy schematic.

5.     Defined “DSB” on page 254 (double stranded break).

6.     Line 280, “distinct” not “district”.

7.     Line 301 remove “out” and add “allowing us to study” on line303.

8.     Line 335, “permitted us to …”

9.     Lines 479 to 484 need to be changed. This sentence is confusing as written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some minor text edits: make sure that C. albicans is italicized throughout.

On line 301 and elsewhere "We sought to" would be a better option.  Line 303 I think should read "allowing us to study" or "allowing the study of".  Likewise, line 335 should probably be "allowing us to conclude".

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor text edits: make sure that C. albicans is italicized throughout.

This has been done throughout the manuscript.

On line 301 and elsewhere "We sought to" would be a better option.  Line 303 I think should read "allowing us to study" or "allowing the study of".  Likewise, line 335 should probably be "allowing us to conclude".

This has been corrected (Lines 301-303).