Inheritance of Mitochondria in Pelargonium Section Ciconium (Sweet) Interspecific Crosses
, Joost Korver 1, Ronald Snijder 2, M. Eric Schranz 1 and Freek T. Bakker 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Inheritance of mitochondria in Pelargonium section Ciconium (Sweet) interspecific crosses”
This paper represents a solid piece of work documenting mostly maternal but occasional paternal inheritance of mitochondria in Pelargonium section Ciconium. While the paper clearly merits publication, it could benefit from addition of a short review on mitochondrion inheritance modes in other species of angiosperms or more broadly in seed plants. This addition will enhance significance of the results reported here, especially when the authors have a section in the discussion on “Evolutionary effects of mCNI”. As the authors discussed, the mitochondrial genome is used more and more in organismal phylogenetic reconstruction, and this knowledge of different parental inheritance in different groups of plants is important when incongruence is detected among studies using sequences from different cellular genomic compartments.
There are some typos and grammatical errors that should be corrected, and below are just some I detected.
Ln. 46 – “embryo content” is better changed to “egg content”.
Ln. 55 – “could have been played” should appear as “could have played”.
Ln. 81 – “used, as” should be changed to “used as”.
Ln. 143 – “These moderately reliable” should be changed to “These”.
Ln. 210 – “inherit” should be changed to “are inherited”.
Ln. 243 – “modes inheritance” should be changed to “modes of inheritance”.
Ln. 245 – “are easier” should be changed to “are more easily”.
Review of “Inheritance of mitochondria in Pelargonium section Ciconium (Sweet) interspecific crosses”
This paper represents a solid piece of work documenting mostly maternal but occasional paternal inheritance of mitochondria in Pelargonium section Ciconium. While the paper clearly merits publication, it could benefit from addition of a short review on mitochondrion inheritance modes in other species of angiosperms or more broadly in seed plants. This addition will enhance significance of the results reported here, especially when the authors have a section in the discussion on “Evolutionary effects of mCNI”. As the authors discussed, the mitochondrial genome is used more and more in organismal phylogenetic reconstruction, and this knowledge of different parental inheritance in different groups of plants is important when incongruence is detected among studies using sequences from different cellular genomic compartments.
There are some typos and grammatical errors that should be corrected, and below are just some I detected.
Ln. 46 – “embryo content” is better changed to “egg content”.
Ln. 55 – “could have been played” should appear as “could have played”.
Ln. 81 – “used, as” should be changed to “used as”.
Ln. 143 – “These moderately reliable” should be changed to “These”.
Ln. 210 – “inherit” should be changed to “are inherited”.
Ln. 243 – “modes inheritance” should be changed to “modes of inheritance”.
Ln. 245 – “are easier” should be changed to “are more easily”.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on KAPS marker of interspecific hybrids, this manuscript analyzed the mitochondria inheritance in Pelargonium section Ciconium, and it indicated that maternal inheritance of mitochondria is frequent, while paternal inheritance and biparental inheritance is rare. However, this manuscript encountered some problems in experiments and text.
First, this research confirmed the previous view about mitochondria inheritance in Pelargonium, and provided little new information. There was only one table and one figure in Results of the manuscript. The authors should conduct more further works to reveal the inheritance mechanism of mitochondria in Pelargonium. Second, Table 2 indicated only one or two plants were analyzed for some crosses, and usually at least three biological replicates are necessary for experiments. Third, the authors should pay more attention to the text writing, for example, the acronyms in Table 1 were capital letters, but they were lowercase letters in Table 2, and acronym ‘hort’ in Table 2 was not showed in Table 1 (materials).
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been revised.
The manuscript has been revised.
