Gene Action, Heterotic Patterns, and Inter-Trait Relationships of Early Maturing Pro-Vitamin A Maize Inbred Lines and Performance of Testcrosses under Contrasting Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am very glad that the authors took into account the changes proposed in the review. I believe that in its current form, the publication entitled "Gene Action, Heterotic Patterns, and Inter-Trait Relationships of Early Maturing Pro-Vitamin A Maize Inbred Lines and Performance of Testcrosses Under Contrasting Environments." may be further promoted in the Agronomy Journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am interested in the results of the study entitled “Gene Action, Heterotic Patterns, and Inter-Trait Relationships of Early Maturing Pro-Vitamin A Maize Inbred Lines and Performance of Testcrosses Under Contrasting Environments”. I would like to inform you that this paper cannot be printed for the following reasons. I still don't seem to have made much progress on the answers below.
1. It is said that the gene involved in the increase in grain yield has been identified as a secondary trait, but the data for two years of testing six hybrid lines are insufficient.
2. It is necessary to perform statistical analysis on the data from Figures 1 to 8 without relying on the program.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The latest statistics show that the world's population will exceed 10 billion by 2050. In view of the above, the problem of hunger will worsen, especially in developing countries, including Africa, therefore the research topic undertaken by the authors seems to be very important. Although the topic is relevant and up-to-date, authors should improve individual chapters of their publication, especially plant material and methods.
The abstract was written correctly, although the presentation of the results is not legible and requires a more detailed explanation.
The Introduction is the best written chapter in this publication. The research problem was well described. The authors indicated the importance and validity of the research conducted. The literature was also correctly selected.
Material and Methods is the least described chapter and requires detailed improvement. The item "Development of PVA maize inbred lines" is described very illegibly. Please present it schematically as the description is inaccurate. A lot of information is missing in the "Field Evaluations" section, eg what was the experience like? what size were the experimental plots?, in what system were they set up?, in how many repetitions was the experiment assumed? The description of research methods requires a complete change because it is difficult to know what the experience was like.
The results also leave a lot to be desired. The authors have a lot of results, unfortunately the way of presenting them is bad and is not consistent with the methodology and the described plant material. This chapter should also be revised in detail.
Author Response
Reply to Academic Editor
Academic Editor Notes
Comments on Agronomy 1211843
1) Developing populations and lines:
i)Cross early DT Striga res x high provit A
ii)Create BC1F1
iii)backcrossing to 2004 TZE-Y Pop DT STR C4 to recover earliness
The kernels of BC1F1 with deep orange color were selected and recombined to obtain the early provitamin A variety 2009 TZE-OR1 STR. This was followed by selfing of 2009 TZE-OR1 STR to obtain S1 lines which were advanced through repeated selfing to the S6 stage to develop 155 early provitamin A inbred lines. T
iv)The kernels of the BC1F1 of each material with deep orange color were selected and self-pollinated for two cycles for advancement to the BC1F3 stage. BC1F3 lines with the deep orange color were selected and recombined to form the early Provitamin A variety, 2009 TZE-OR1 STR.
A diagram would help explain the process. The current text says that 209 TZE-OR1 STR came from BOTH BC1F1 AND BC1F3 ?????????????? Which ? Correct. Clarify the derivation process.
Response
A diagram illustrating the development of the two PVA populations and the extraction of PVA inbred lines have been presented.
Another example of confusion
You twice speak to the development of the 155 lines:
In lines 115-116
And again
In lines 125 and 126
Response
The repetition has been corrected.
2) No funds to allow Provit A testing
This is quite a remarkable lack of data given the whole study is about obtaining higher provit A. You will need to provide 100% assurance backed up with references that deep orange colour visually is a surrogate for high provit A otherwise this paper must be rejected.
And then you fail to present any PVA data!!!!!!!!!!!!
Response
The PVA data for the inbred lines have been presented.
3) Field evaluations and plant data for dr, low N, striga:
What were the checks? Why chosen?
Planting density? Plot data: row length? number of rows? Border rows?
Number of plants measured?
Response
TZEI 25 and TZEI 124 are parental lines of the commercial check of TZEI 124 x TZEI 25 which have been released in Nigeria, Ghana and Mali.
The plant density, row length and number of rows details are presented in lines 171- 176
54 hybrids selected on GY
4) Results
Yield data per se should be presented- probably best to use a Supplementary Table
Response
The yield data and other Agronomic traits have been presented in supplementary Tables 1 and 2.
Where is Figure 4???????????
Response
The figures 4 has now been presented.
Where are the PVA data????????
Response
The PVA data have now been included as Table 1.
5) Discussion
Given all the multivariate analyses there is then a lack of conclusions drawn for all of those figures when it comes to the Discussion. Here is your chance to pull all of the information from those figures into a narrative that is easy to comprehend. If you don’t do that what is the point of all those multivariate plots? Either use one para to pull the conclusions together from those figures or delete the figures.
Para 1 Yes obvious GxE exists and so need to test in multi environments
Para 2 Yes nothing new
Para 3 OK Very promising couple of hybrids identified
Para 4 yes
Para 5 yes—And you already have done assignations into heterotic groups for the 20 lines which you used to create the diallel crosses---So why go over this yet again?? You need to contrast the heterotic group assignations here with what you previously described for the 20 lines.
Response
Please note that the heterotic groups of the 20 inbred lines selected for this study were not known until we conducted the study. Therefore, an important objective of this study was to determine the heterotic groups of the selected lines and that is exactly what we have done. Through the present study, it has been possible to use the HGCAMT method to determine the heterotic groups of the inbred lines so that we could use planned crosses to select the best hybrid combinations for commercialization.
Para 6 Why select supposed surrogates for yield selection? Are you REALLY willing to place your best on a handful of morphological traits for multigenic traits??? IF you are going to do this why not use markers and Genomic selection??????????
Response
We do agree with the editors that despite the effectiveness of the HGCAMT method in classifying the inbred lines into heterotic groups in the present study, it would be desirable to use molecular markers and genomic selection to confirm the heterotic groupings of the 20 early inbred lines.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am interested in the results of the study entitled “Gene Action, Heterotic Patterns, and Inter-Trait Relationships of Early Maturing Pro-Vitamin A Maize Inbred Lines and Performance of Testcrosses Under Contrasting Environments”. I would like to inform you that this paper cannot be printed for the following reasons.
1. It is said that the gene involved in the increase in grain yield has been identified as a secondary trait, but the data for two years of testing six hybrid lines are insufficient.
2. It is necessary to perform statistical analysis on the data from Figures 1 to 8 without relying on the program.
Author Response
Reply to Academic Editor
Academic Editor Notes
Comments on Agronomy 1211843
1) Developing populations and lines:
i)Cross early DT Striga res x high provit A
ii)Create BC1F1
iii)backcrossing to 2004 TZE-Y Pop DT STR C4 to recover earliness
The kernels of BC1F1 with deep orange color were selected and recombined to obtain the early provitamin A variety 2009 TZE-OR1 STR. This was followed by selfing of 2009 TZE-OR1 STR to obtain S1 lines which were advanced through repeated selfing to the S6 stage to develop 155 early provitamin A inbred lines. T
iv)The kernels of the BC1F1 of each material with deep orange color were selected and self-pollinated for two cycles for advancement to the BC1F3 stage. BC1F3 lines with the deep orange color were selected and recombined to form the early Provitamin A variety, 2009 TZE-OR1 STR.
A diagram would help explain the process. The current text says that 209 TZE-OR1 STR came from BOTH BC1F1 AND BC1F3 ?????????????? Which ? Correct. Clarify the derivation process.
Response
A diagram illustrating the development of the two PVA populations and the extraction of PVA inbred lines have been presented.
Another example of confusion
You twice speak to the development of the 155 lines:
In lines 115-116
And again
In lines 125 and 126
Response
The repetition has been corrected.
2) No funds to allow Provit A testing
This is quite a remarkable lack of data given the whole study is about obtaining higher provit A. You will need to provide 100% assurance backed up with references that deep orange colour visually is a surrogate for high provit A otherwise this paper must be rejected.
And then you fail to present any PVA data!!!!!!!!!!!!
Response
The PVA data for the inbred lines have been presented.
3) Field evaluations and plant data for dr, low N, striga:
What were the checks? Why chosen?
Planting density? Plot data: row length? number of rows? Border rows?
Number of plants measured?
Response
TZEI 25 and TZEI 124 are parental lines of the commercial check of TZEI 124 x TZEI 25 which have been released in Nigeria, Ghana and Mali.
The plant density, row length and number of rows details are presented in lines 171- 176
54 hybrids selected on GY
4) Results
Yield data per se should be presented- probably best to use a Supplementary Table
Response
The yield data and other Agronomic traits have been presented in supplementary Tables 1 and 2.
Where is Figure 4???????????
Response
The figures 4 has now been presented.
Where are the PVA data????????
Response
The PVA data have now been included as Table 1.
5) Discussion
Given all the multivariate analyses there is then a lack of conclusions drawn for all of those figures when it comes to the Discussion. Here is your chance to pull all of the information from those figures into a narrative that is easy to comprehend. If you don’t do that what is the point of all those multivariate plots? Either use one para to pull the conclusions together from those figures or delete the figures.
Para 1 Yes obvious GxE exists and so need to test in multi environments
Para 2 Yes nothing new
Para 3 OK Very promising couple of hybrids identified
Para 4 yes
Para 5 yes—And you already have done assignations into heterotic groups for the 20 lines which you used to create the diallel crosses---So why go over this yet again?? You need to contrast the heterotic group assignations here with what you previously described for the 20 lines.
Response
Please note that the heterotic groups of the 20 inbred lines selected for this study were not known until we conducted the study. Therefore, an important objective of this study was to determine the heterotic groups of the selected lines and that is exactly what we have done. Through the present study, it has been possible to use the HGCAMT method to determine the heterotic groups of the inbred lines so that we could use planned crosses to select the best hybrid combinations for commercialization.
Para 6 Why select supposed surrogates for yield selection? Are you REALLY willing to place your best on a handful of morphological traits for multigenic traits??? IF you are going to do this why not use markers and Genomic selection??????????
Response
We do agree with the editors that despite the effectiveness of the HGCAMT method in classifying the inbred lines into heterotic groups in the present study, it would be desirable to use molecular markers and genomic selection to confirm the heterotic groupings of the 20 early inbred lines.
