Mitogenome Characterization of Four Conus Species and Comparative Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and well illustrated. The methods used are adequate as well as the conclusions. This is a valuable addition to the growing mount of full mitogenomes. I have few very minor comcerns:
1. Somewhat more detailed information on the ecology and life history of the species studies would be interesting
2. It is interestimg to have the details on the partitions amd patition-specific models used
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an analyses of mitogenomic variation of Conus species which is mostly descriptive. The English can be improved and there are some repetitions in the text.
Introduction, - page 1: "are of significant in medical ... application" - rephrase
Introduction, - page 2 4th line: "with single molecular markers ... "
mitogenome is a single molecular marker. It is true that the whole
mitogenome can be more informative than a single gene (or a framgment
of it) in the mtDNA but as it is non-recombining it just presents a
single marker. Thus, although the mitogenome can provide valuable
information, assessment of other independent markers are needed in
order to reconstruct the phylogeny of the speceis and to evaluate the
patterns obtained with the mtDNA. This should be clarified here and
elsewhere in the paper.
Introduction, - page 2, second paragraph: "is circular" <- "are ..."
Introduction, - page 2, third paragraph: "were found" <- have been described ...
"species were included" <- are
mitogenomes. we sequenced <- ". W"
Results page 2 last line: PCGs and RNA were <- RNA genes ...
page 3 First paragraph - rewrite. Information in third sentence already described in the paragraph above. Some sentences are describing what is obvious.
page 3 Second paragraph. "composed of CR " explain here or "composed of control region (CR) "
delete: "which is commonly referred to as CR "
140 bp in C. marmoreus 140 bp chnage to "on average in C. marmoreus"?
page 4 ", and indicated that the appearance ..." clumsy, the statistic shows this
page 4 "that a bias towards" - rephrase
page 5 - first two lines are repeated from what had been stated earlier
page 5 line 4 - delete in [] "but [there was] a truncated stop co[n]don T was detected ..."
page 5 second paragraph. Finish or rewrite the first sentence, add space before (Fig. 3)
page 5 second paragraph. Rewrite the last sentence.
What about the Ka/Ks ratio? Could indicate positiive or negative selection.
page 5 2.3. add "and" in front of "C. virgo"
page 7 2.4. descrebe briefly the ISS vslue and ISS.c method
Fig. 5 Does the tree support the status of these species? What about C. hybridus, C. unifasciatus and C. guanche?
Discussion
page 8 "have more phylogenetic signals" - rewrite
page 8 last paragraph starting with "Compared ..." rewrite first sentences and also the last paragraph.
complete Mitogenome < complete mitogenome
Materials and Methods
Buffer I .. and Buffer II - these buffers from a specific kit?
page 10
Add concentrations of several solutions (prt K, NaCL) are missing or reference to to kit, also in subsection 4.2 i.e. primer, template of DNA etc
"PCR on the complete length " <- rewrite
4.4Phylo... <- add space
Conclusion (page 11)
Secomd sentence repeats what is in the first sentence.
"studies Conus" <- add "on"
"we consider it supported by our result" - rewrite
Last sentence - it would be more important to add independent nuclear markers
Several sentences should be improved as pointed out above
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx