The Development of Molecular Markers for Peach Skin Blush and Their Application in Peach Breeding Practice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript authored by Guo et al. describes a study with aim to dissect the genetic basis of peach peel coloration. It claims that the identified indels in a MYB gene promoter are responsible for the phenotypic variances of red and non-red peach varieties. It could provide informative resources for molecular marker-assisted peach breeding.
My major concern is the lack of sufficient data to support some statements, as manifested in Figure 3. While there is a correlation of MYB gene expression and anthocyanin accumulation, it is premature to state that “Multiple mutation sites in MYB10.1 promoter are causal to the phenotypic differences in peach skin color”. In addition, the background and previous studies of MYB genes related to peach skin color must be included and cited, for example, in the last paragraph of abstract (Line 77-88). Without this information, it is hard to grasp the rationale behind choosing PpMYB10 as the focus of this study since other genes in the anthocyanin biosynthetic pathways also showed similar expression variation.
My other suggestion for improving the manuscript is to start with all the main figures and tables. Please reorganize, revise or add key information to their legends to better present the data, which will benefit the readership. For example, what are the allelic size numbers highlighted in red in Table 1? Table 3 can be moved to the supplementary; Please correct the title of Figure 1, obviously gene expression data is not included there.
The lanaguage is understandable. However, moderate editing to improve the syntax and conciseness is needed. Also, presenting the data more cohensively to support the conclusions could help.
Author Response
Dear review experts
I am very grateful for your suggestions for my manuscript, all of which I have revised in the final version of the manuscript. I will continue to improve the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of other experts and submit the final version of the article immediately. Thank you for your valuable suggestions for this article !
In the first paragraph of the introduction, the previous studies on the MYB10.1 gene were described and cited (line 47-51).
The rest of the questions have been modified in detail in the document.
Thank you again for your suggestions.
Guo Tian fa
Tarim University
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written and provides interesting information.
I have the following comments for the improvement of the manuscript.
In the Introduction, please state the objective of this study and the reasons that you undertook this work.
Figures 1 and 2 should be redesigned. They are important but very difficult to read through. Please increase the font size and the size of the charts.
Figure 1A should increase in size to make certain colors are readable.
Figure 1B should be below Figure 1A and increase in size. Fonts in the axis and the chart should be larger.
Same guidelines should apply to Figure 2A and B.
In Conclusions, please state the innovations of this research study.
The quality of English language is good
Author Response
Dear review experts
I am very grateful for your suggestions for my manuscript, all of which I have revised in the final version of the manuscript. I will continue to improve the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of other experts and submit the final version of the article immediately. Thank you for your valuable suggestions for this article !
Guo Tianfa
Tarim University
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of the English language is good, although minor editing is required.
Author Response
Dear review experts
Thank you for your suggestions on the revision of this manuscript. I have revised it according to your suggestions. Please review it again. Thank you !
I will continue to modify according to the recommendations of other review experts and submit the final version of the document immediately.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript acceptably.
Quality of English language is good
