Comparative Assessment of Genetic Variability Realised in Doubled Haploids Induced from F1 and F2 Plants for Response to Fusarium Stalk Rot and Yield Traits in Maize (Zea mays L.)
, Gangadharaswamy Triveni 1, Mallana Gowdra Mallikarjuna 2, Nanjundappa Mallikarjuna 3, Devanagondi C. Balasundara 4 and Pandravada Anand 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Manuscript "Comparative Assessment of Genetic Variability Released in Doubled Haploids Induced from F1 and F2 plants for Response to Fusarium stalk rot and Yield Traits in Maize (Zea mays L.)" is very interesting.
General comments:
Authors developed and screened DHs induced from F1 and F2 plants in the artificial disease screening nursery for FSR incidence, compared the magnitude of genetic variation released, and worked out descriptive statistics to decipher the inheritance pattern of FSR disease resistance. In addition, the same parameters were worked out in F2 populations of the same two crosses utilized for DH production. This comparison of DHs (DHF1 and DHF2) and F2 can provide a useful procedure for understanding the genetic relationships.
Detailed comments:
The number of DH lines is good.
Description of statistical analysis is perfect.
Figure 4 needs correction.
Lack of estimation of genetic parameters (additive, epistasis) for DHF1 and DHF2.
My suggestion:
Quality of Figure 2 is very poor. Needs correction.
Table 7 needs standard deviation values.
Lack of correlation analysis between observed traits.
Paper needs minor revision.
Author Response
- Quality of Figure 2 is very poor. Needs correction.
The Fig.2 with clear photographs and description has been incuded.
- Table 7 needs standard deviation values.
As suggested, Standard deviation values have been included in Table 7.
- Lack of correlation analysis between observed traits.
Correlation analysis was performed and described in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors
I read the article. It is an interesting subject.
General comments
Please answer my questions:
References are not suitable for the MDPI format. Please revise them.
What is the objective of this study?
What is the novelty of this study? ( it is not clear to me)
Specific comments
Line 19-22 needs to revision
Line 74- 75 need to revision
Line 57 days’ time to change days
Line 198 as well as change to and
Line 203 to estimate change to estimates
Line 334-340 need to revision
Line 380-384 need to revision
Line 428-435 need to revision
The conclusion needs to revision
Author Response
- References are not suitable for the MDPI format. Please revise them.
As suggested all references were altered as per the format followed in Agronomy.
- What is the objective of this study?
We have developed and screened DHs induced from F1 and F2 plants of the two crosses in the artificial disease screening nursery for FSR incidence and yield traits, with an objective to compare the magnitude of genetic variation released.
- What is the novelty of this study? ( it is not clear to me)
The novelty involved in this effort is in terms of screening DH lines for their reaction to Fusarium stalk rot and comparing the efficiency of F1 and F2 in releasing genetic variability in the doubled haploid lines. This is the first effort made in elucidating genetics and magnitude of genetic variability released for resistance to FSR disease.
- Specific comments
Line 19-22 needs to revision
Line 74- 75 need to revision
Line 57 days’ time to change days
Line 198 as well as change to and
Line 203 to estimate change to estimates
Line 334-340 need to revision
Line 380-384 need to revision
Line 428-435 need to revision
We have considered these suggestions and edited the MS as per these suggestions.
- The conclusion needs to revision
This part has been edited to suit the outcome of this work considering the suggestion of the learned Reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
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
Majors:
The study was focused on doubled haploid technology to develop hybrids with resistance to FSR disease. However, based on the data analysis, the result does not show any big difference from other reports. What novel significant findings do the authors want to discover from the experimental results? As the authors mentioned the materials of doubled haploids, what new knowledge and advantages from their research? We have noticed that the author has previously made reports very similar to this manuscript, what is the similarities and differences between this manuscript and previous reports?
Minors:
1) Page 2 line 26. The marker of citations was error.
2) Page 2 line 47. Please use the full name of the organization or supplement it.
3) Page 15 line 1. The content shown in Figure 7 is very confusing. I don't understand the author's intention.
4) Page 16-17 line 1, The figure legend of fig.3 should be mark clearly and make font formatting consistent.
5) Page 16-17 line 1. Abbreviation of genetic variance (VG) in manuscript was not agreement. Please make them consistent.
6) Page 13 line 50. What does GAM mean? Please supplement.
7) Page 17 line 20. Paragraph format was error.
8) Page 18 line 33. Is there any relationship between yield traits and resistance to FSR disease.?
9) Page 18 line 33. Is there any relationship between yield traits and resistance to FSR disease.?
10) Page 19. The cited literature in References is too old and the literature format was error.
11) Page 6. In Results and Discussion, this part of the content is too messy to understand. Please rewrite this part.
Author Response
Majors:
The study was focused on doubled haploid technology to develop hybrids with resistance to FSR disease. However, based on the data analysis, the result does not show any big difference from other reports. What novel significant findings do the authors want to discover from the experimental results? As the authors mentioned the materials of doubled haploids, what new knowledge and advantages from their research? We have noticed that the author has previously made reports very similar to this manuscript, what is the similarities and differences between this manuscript and previous reports?
In this study we have showed the variation in response of genotypes to Doubled Haploid production, compared the genetic variance in F1 and F2 derived Doubled Haploid lines developed from two different crosses and F2s in terms of response to Fusarium stalk rot and yield parameters. We have identified good number of resistant/moderately resistant recombinant DH lines and produced test cross progenies to identify potential DH lines and our earlier papers were on understanding the genetics of resistance to Fusarium stalk rot employing Generation mean analysis and characterized the DH lines for their reaction to FSR disease. We have not reproduced any of these results in this MS.
Minors:
1) Page 2 line 26. The marker of citations was error.
We have changed this as suggested.
2) Page 2 line 47. Please use the full name of the organization or supplement it.
The full name of the organization is given as the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
3) Page 15 line 1. The content shown in Figure 7 is very confusing. I don't understand the author's intention.
It is Table 7 and necessary corrections have been made as per suggestion of the Reviewer.
4) Page 16-17 line 1, The figure legend of fig.3 should be mark clearly and make font formatting consistent.
The figure legends marked clearly and similar font size maintained.
5) Page 16-17 line 1. Abbreviation of genetic variance (VG) in manuscript was not agreement. Please make them consistent.
Abbreviation of genetic variance (VG) changed as VG in the whole manuscript.
6) Page 13 line 50. What does GAM mean? Please supplement.
GAM stands for Genetic advance as per cent mean and it explains the per cent genetic gain obtained in a character under a particular selection pressure
7) Page 17 line 20. Paragraph format was error.
We have addressed this in the text.
8) Page 18 line 33. Is there any relationship between yield traits and resistance to FSR disease.?
There is no direct relationship between yield traits and resistance to FSR disease. We cannot predict the DH potential without making testcrosses and evaluating them in a suitable field design and hence testcrosses were made.
9) Page 19. The cited literature in References is too old and the literature format was error.
The literature cited viz., Federer W T, 1961, Federer et al., 1998, Snedecor and Cochran, 1994, Payak and Sharma 1983 are classical references, and hence retained in the text.
11) Page 6. In Results and Discussion, this part of the content is too messy to understand. Please rewrite this part.
We have separated Results and Discussion sections for better understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript written by Babu et al. titled ‘Genotypic Response and Comparative Assessment of Genetic 2 Variability Released in Doubled Haploids Induced from F1 and 3 F2 plants and Bi-Parental Derived F2 Populations for Response 4 to Fusarium stalk rot and Yield Traits in Maize (Zea mays L.)’ describe the generation of DHs from both F1 and F2 generations and comparing their effect on DH production along with the magnitude of genetic variance released in two crosses VL1043 × CM212 and 19 VL121096 × CM202 in terms of response to Fusarium stalk rot (FSR) disease in maize.
The subject matter of this study is of interest and relevance for publication in Agronomy. However, the authors should address the following points not only as a response to the reviewer’s comments but also should be reflected in the appropriate place of the manuscript.
Line 2: The title is too long which should be brief and reflects the core idea of the manuscript.
Line 15-37: Abstract should be more concise and core findings should be highlighted.
Line 38-42: Mention the objectives clearly in the introduction part.
Line 27 in materials and methods: Write in detail, how do you double the chromosomes using colchicine? Chromosomes are doubled by treating which specific part (seeds/embryos or seedlings)?
In Tables, The authors need to include the BLUE value in the relevant part of the manuscript as well.
In figure 2: Properly mention the caption of each figure from a-l for increasing visibility.
Line 19: Results and discussion should be written in a separate section.
In Table 3: Explain why error values are significant?
In the reference section: A number of references were found old which suggested being used recent references throughout the manuscript. Also, correct the order of references
Author Response
The manuscript written by Babu et al. titled ‘Genotypic Response and Comparative Assessment of Genetic 2 Variability Released in Doubled Haploids Induced from F1 and 3 F2 plants and Bi-Parental Derived F2 Populations for Response to Fusarium stalk rot and Yield Traits in Maize (Zea mays L.)’ describe the generation of DHs from both F1 and F2 generations and comparing their effect on DH production along with the magnitude of genetic variance released in two crosses VL1043 × CM212 and 19 VL121096 × CM202 in terms of response to Fusarium stalk rot (FSR) disease in maize.
The subject matter of this study is of interest and relevance for publication in Agronomy. However, the authors should address the following points not only as a response to the reviewer’s comments but also should be reflected in the appropriate place of the manuscript.
- We have provided responses along with necessary corrections in the MS.
Line 2: The title is too long which should be brief and reflects the core idea of the manuscript.
- We have changed the title of the MS as “Comparative Assessment of Genetic Variability Released in Doubled Haploids Induced from F1 and F2 plants for Response to Fusarium stalk rot and Yield Traits in Maize (Zea mays)”
Line 15-37: Abstract should be more concise and core findings should be highlighted.
- This suggestion has been considered and changes have been made as suggested by the Reviewer.
Line 38-42: Mention the objectives clearly in the introduction part.
- We have edited this part and made suitable changes.
Line 27 in materials and methods: Write in detail, how do you double the chromosomes using colchicine? Chromosomes are doubled by treating which specific part (seeds/embryos or seedlings)?
- This part has been clearly mentioned in the corrected version of the MS.
In Tables, The authors need to include the BLUE value in the relevant part of the manuscript as well.
- We have included BLUE values also in the text.
In figure 2: Properly mention the caption of each figure for increasing visibility.
- We have made suitable corrections as per this suggestion.
Line 19: Results and discussion should be written in a separate section.
- We have considered this suggestion and Results and Discussion sections have been separated for the better appreciation of results.
In Table 3: Explain why error values are significant?
- It was an inadvertent mistake and corrected in the table.
In the reference section: A number of references were found old which suggested being used recent references throughout the manuscript. Also, correct the order of references
- We have made suitable changes and old references have been retained for the better understanding of this MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors should submit a revised version in track change mode so that modifications in the manuscript will be visible.
References and other comments are not addressed properly.
