Genetic Characterization and Population Structure of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Molecular Markers against Rust (Uromyces viciae-fabae) in Newly Developed Genotypes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript (sustainability-1883320) entitled "Genetic Characterization and Population Structure of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Molecular Markers against Rust (Uromyces viciae- fabae) in Newly Developed Genotypes" submitted to Sustainability, Anmol Singh Yadav and colleagues have characterize Genetic and population structure of pea through using simple sequence repeats (SSR) markers against rust (Uromyces viciae- fabae). Authors identified 78 alleles at 32 loci and found 56% variation among the individuals and 20% within the population. These findings provides basic information to select parental lines for developing rust resistant varieties. Overall, I consider this study interesting and complete, however some concerns needs addressing to improve the quality of this manuscript.
1, I found the writing poor in some sections and, thus, the manuscript may benefit from the use of a professional editor.
2, Full names of the abbreviations AA, UPGMA, â–²K, LnP(D), and AUDPC should be spelt out at their first appearance in this article.
3. Figure 1 b, the value shown in this figure is too small, please optimize.
4. Please double-check the reference list. For instance, abbreviations of ‘Nucleic Acids Res.’ and the full names of ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ were used simultaneously.
Author Response
Journal Title: Sustainability
Manuscript title: “Genetic Characterization and Population Structure of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Molecular Markers against Rust (Uromyces viciae- fabae) in Newly Developed Genotypes ”
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1883320
Dear Reviewer,
We are highly obliged for the critical review of the manuscript with your keen interest to improve its quality. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. The detailed corrections are addressed below point by point:
Comment1. I found the writing poor in some sections and, thus, the manuscript may benefit from the use of a professional editor.
Response: Now, the entire manuscript has been checked by a senior language expert of the University for its complete comprehensiveness.
Comment-2: Full names of the abbreviations AA, UPGMA, â–²K, LnP (D), and AUDPC should be spelt out at their first appearance in this article.
Response: Full names of the abbreviation have been spelt out at their first appearance accordingly in the manuscript except for AA which stands for the name of the markers.
Comment-3: Figure 1 b, the value shown in this figure is too small, please optimize.
Response: The size of values given in the figure 1b has now been optimized. (Page No.:7)
Comment-4: Please double-check the reference list. For instance, abbreviations of ‘Nucleic Acids Res.’ and the full names of ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ were used simultaneously
Response: Now the references have repeatedly been checked for such errors and the section has been improved accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provided a neat explanation of the results obtained.
The novelty of the work done can be included in the manuscript by the authors
Also, the results can be elaborated a little more with more authentic reports of the previous work done.
Author Response
Journal Title: Sustainability
Manuscript title: “Genetic Characterization and Population Structure of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Molecular Markers against Rust (Uromyces viciae- fabae) in Newly Developed Genotypes ”
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1883320
Dear Reviewer,
We are highly obliged for the critical review of the manuscript with your keen interest to improve its quality. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. The detailed corrections are addressed below point by point:
Comment-1: The novelty of the wok done can be included in the manuscript by the authors.
Response: The novelty of the work done has been included into paragraphs 1 and 4 of the discussion section of the manuscript by signifying its scientific utility. (Page No.:9 & 10)
Comment-2: The results can be elaborated a little more with more authentic reports of the previous work done.
Response: Wherever felt necessary, the discussion of the results has been elaborated by citing the concerned references. These elaborations have been incorporated into paragraphs 1 to 4 and 8 in the discussion section of the manuscript. (Page No.: 9, 10 &11)
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear colleagues,
I suggest that the manuscript should be reviewed and corrected in some points. Some of the main suggestions are:
Experimental design has weaknesses.
Question: why 115 germplasm from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and only four new germplasm.
Observed heterozygosity for 28 of 31 SSR markers is 0, which is not possible (methodology should be revalidated).
In the "Introduction" chapter, one part is general (lines 55-65); the mentioned part needs to be refined (shortened).
Clarification of the number 1,00,000 (line 110, line 111).
Table 2 should be checked, especially Ho.
Table 3 can be moved to the appendix of the manuscript (not very informative).
The references in the text are not listed in the correct order (it is necessary to follow the instructions of the journal).
In the "References" chapter, the order of references is not correct (the order should be based on the order of citations in the text of the manuscript).
The entire manuscript should be reviewed and proofread.
Author Response
Journal Title: Sustainability
Manuscript title: “Genetic Characterization and Population Structure of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Molecular Markers against Rust (Uromyces viciae- fabae) in Newly Developed Genotypes ”
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1883320
Dear Reviewer,
We are highly obliged for the critical review of the manuscript with your keen interest to improve its quality. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. The detailed corrections are addressed below point by point:
Comment-1: Why 115 germplasm from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and only four new germplasm.
Response: The tested 115 pea genotypes received from NBPGR are unexplored Australian lines against pea rust in the Indian context. Apart from these, four varieties (HUDP-15, HFP-4, HFP-8909 and HFP-9907) were used as Check for pea rust as they are used under the AICRP (All India Coordinated Research Project) for improvement of Green gram (Vigna radiate L.), Black gram (Vigna mungo L.), Lentil ( Lens esculenta L.) Lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus L.), French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and Peas (Pisum sativum L.) operating by ICAR-IIPR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Pulses Research), Kanpur, India.
Comment-2: Observed heterozygosity for 28 of 31 SSR markers is 0, which is not possible (methodology should be revalidated).
Response: We checked the data and found same result. Such results have also been found in similar sort of research papers. (Page No.: 10, Paragraph No.: 3)
Comment-3: In the "Introduction" chapter, one part is general (lines 55-65); the mentioned part needs to be refined (shortened).
Response: The said portion of the introduction has now been reframed. In addition to this, the entire introduction section has also been rechecked and improved accordingly for full clarity. (Page No.:2; Paragraph No.: 3)
Comment-4: Clarification of the number 1,00,000 (line 110, line 111)
Response: For the sake of clarification about 1,00,000 (Line No.110), the given statement has been checked and found correct as the MCMC process begins by randomly assigning individuals to a pre-determined number of groups, then variant frequencies are estimated in each group and individuals re-assigned based on those frequency estimates. This is repeated many times, typically comprising 100,000 iterations, in the burning process that results in a progressive convergence towards reliable allele frequency estimates in each population and membership probabilities of individuals in a population.
The statement given in line number 110 and 111 has now been changed as “The optimum number of population (K) was selected by testing K = 1 to K = 10 using 5 independent runs of 1, 00,000 burns-in period followed by 100000 MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo)replication.” (Page No.:4; Section 2.3)
Comment-5: Table 2 should be checked, especially Ho.
Response: The Ho is the observed heterozygosity (Ho). It is rechecked and found correct. Since pea is a self-pollinated crop, yields very low value of observed heterozygosity (Ho) approximately up to 6.0%. In our study, it was found 5.2%.
Comment-6: Table 3 can be moved to the appendix of the manuscript (not very informative).
Response: Yes, Table 3 can be moved to as supplementary file after the final decision of the Editor.
Comment-7.The references in the text are not listed in the correct order (it is necessary to follow the instructions of the journal).
Response: All the references have been checked critically and corrected accordingly in the text.
Comment-8: In the "References" chapter, the order of references is not correct (the order should be based on the order of citations in the text of the manuscript).
Response: The order of references has been checked and placed accordingly in the "References" chapter.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I have no additional suggestions.
Thank you for the clarifications.
