Comparative Analysis of Pedigree-Based BLUP and Phenotypic Mass Selection for Developing Elite Inbred Lines, Based on Field and Simulated Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
MS is well written and acceptable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Please, see my responses to you and the other reviewers in the attached cover letter to the Editor, Dr. Katie Liu. I inform that the revised version was edited for English style using MDPI's Author Services. Regards,
Prof. José Marcelo S. Viana
Federal University of Viçosa/Brazil
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Viana and Dias et al. got a conclusion that pedigree-based BLUP was superior to the phenotypic mass selection in term of genetic gains. In this study, both field and simulated data were utilized to illustrate the conclusion, which could provide a few useful proposals for popcorn breeding. However, I think there some advices about this theme could be added to make a clear explanation for the readers.
Major comments:
1. Please design and draw a flow chart to illustrate the relationship between each generations, and then give clear annotation of population size, the number of lines retained, and the selection criterion (pedigree-based BLUP or mass selection).
2. Why the selfed ears were selected to evaluate phenotype? If only one selfed ear was obtained within a family, whether it could reflect the genetic character of this line?
3. There were six populations with S0 generation in this study, and eight progeny populations were subsequently generated. Please make an explanation in Part 2.1.
4. The formula of genetic gain was described in Part 2.2. Please explicate the difference between this formula and the classical one, which is R = ih(VA)1/2.
5. How to select the progenies in the process of phenotypic mass selection?
6. How to calculate the coefficient of inbreeding and kinship matrixes based on real data?
7. Why an unusual point with high value was occurred on the curve of Synthetic in Figure 1d?
Minor comments:
1. What the means of MFs, MFs, avGb, and avGsp?
2. Which generation correspond to t, g, and g’?
3. What the relationship between Δg and Dg?
4. Please revise and uniformize the format of references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Please, see my responses to you and the other reviewers in the attached cover letter to the Editor, Dr. Katie Liu. I inform that the revised version was edited for English style using MDPI's Author Services. Regards,
Prof. José Marcelo S. Viana
Federal University of Viçosa/Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, this is an interesting study. The authors have conducted extensive experimentation and collected relevant literature for this study. However, the major problem in Discussion section is the lack of adequate synthesis of the findings with relevant literature. Most literature cited were made as stand-alone paragraph. The authors need to synthesis interpretation of results alongside with the relevant literature.
There are a lot of unnecessary parenthesis in Results and Discussion sections. The authors need to minimize the use of parenthesis by using comma (,) in long sentences.
In the conclusion of the study, the authors did not clearly point out the superiority of pBLUP over other methods and also have not recommend the use of pBLUP to other breeders as a breeding tool. These two aspects are crucial for judging the novelity of the study. The authors need to provide clarity on these two aspect to improve the quality of this work.
There several minor corrections which the authors need to attend to:
Lines 16 & 17: ... in the range of 1 to 45%, ... grain yield in the range of ...
Lines 41 & 42: individual model aims at .... progeny model aims at ... (Line 44 same as in Lines 41 & 42).
Citation of several authors e.g. Velazco, et al. [14] - the correct form should be Velazco et al. [14]. The authors need to check and correct similar citations in this manuscript.
The use of year in the Materials and Methods section, e.g. 13/14 and 20/21 - Line 85, should be written in proper way for clarity to the readers. Thus 13/14 and 20/21 should be written in full, 2013/2014 and 2020/2021, etc.
In line 97: The intra-plot/ plant-to-plant spacing within a plot should be sated.
Line 107: ..., it was possible ...
Line 118: Viana, J.M.S. (the software's developer) - is this a personal communication? Authors need to clarify this citation.
Line 159: The authors need to define the variables in the equation.
Lines 232 - 236 can be improved as: ... in silico population; with total increments of 0.30 and 0.50 mL/g (Table 2).
Line 247 - 250 & 259: Not clear; the authors should re-write this parts.
Lines 252 - 253: The part - confirm that pedigree-based BLUP is superior to phenotypic mass selection. The authors should move this part to discussion section.
Figure 1: the legend at the bottom of the figure is not legible clear for readers and this needs to be improved.
Lines 296 - 299: The part is not clear, please re-write.
Line 301: However, as shown in the simulated data,...
Lines 321 - 322: The authors need to provide a scientific explanation for the reduction in genetic gains due selection from S1 to S3.
Lines 323 - 324:There is a need to avoid stating names of all authors when citing a reference in the Discussion section. Providing the first author with et al. [xx], should be appropriate except provided by the guide to authors of this journal.
Lines 324 - 337: This part is a mere literature review and was not synthesized in a manner that captures the main finds.
Lines 356 - 358: The authors need to mention the object whose body weight was measured in this study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Please, see my responses to you and the other reviewers in the attached cover letter to the Editor, Dr. Katie Liu. I inform that the revised version was edited for English style using MDPI's Author Services. Regards,
Prof. José Marcelo S. Viana
Federal University of Viçosa/Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
