Analyses of the Updated “Animal rDNA Loci Database” with an Emphasis on Its New Features
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached PDF
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a concise report of an update to the Animal rDNA Dataset. As such, the authors clearly delineate what has been accomplished in this update. They go further and present some interesting analyses based on data contained in the database. While the construction of the database represents a significant accomplishment, it is unfortunate that it does not include tools that would allow for comparisons to be made between the entries or that would facilitate such analyses.
Minor Comments:
Grammatical/typographical errors
- Line 236, “ chromosomes ?, which is…” the question mark does not belong in the middle of a sentence.
- In many instances (e.g. line 219), “chromosome” is typed “chro-mosome”. The same was done for autosomal. Other words are also inappropriately hyphenated, e.g. “colocaliza-tion (line 218)
- Other typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
This is a concise report of an update to the Animal rDNA Dataset. As such, the authors clearly delineate what has been accomplished in this update. They go further and present some interesting analyses based on data contained in the database. While the construction of the database represents a significant accomplishment, it is unfortunate that it does not include tools that would allow for comparisons to be made between the entries or that would facilitate such analyses.
Reply: We thank the reviewer about her/positive view about our ms and for ideas for further database improvements. In future, we are thinking to introduce a tool for an easy calculations of average locus numbers in the groups (genera) which would be useful for comparative analyses at the genus levels (not done by us) and putting these parameters into a phylogenetic context. In addition, information about the copy number of rDNA units calculated from high throughput sequencing data is planned as a new feature within this frame.
Minor Comments:
Grammatical/typographical errors
- Line 236, “ chromosomes ?, which is…” the question mark does not belong in the middle of a sentence.
- In many instances (e.g. line 219), “chromosome” is typed “chro-mosome”. The same was done for autosomal. Other words are also inappropriately hyphenated, e.g. “colocaliza-tion (line 218)
- Other typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Reply: We corrected all typing errors, thank you.
