Assessment of the Degree of Relatedness of Some Inbred Lines Created at ARDS Turda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research performed phenotypic and genetic analyses on seven created maize breeding inbred lines to evaluate potential relationships among those breeding genotypes, and assess potential heterosis resources for further planning improvement. By using biometric analysis and genetic data, the authors showed significant variations in most phenotypic traits among those hybrids and found an inbred line that showed great genetic difference with other sister lines. Descriptions of the results were clear but with weak discussion, which suggested that this manuscript only provided a descriptive study without drawing significant scientific questions.

The authors might consider to rewrite or rearrange the descriptions of the introduction part, and address clear questions that will be analyzed or tested using phenotypic and genetic analyses provided in the study.

Descriptions of the methods part were also simple and might need to be largely improved. For example, a summary list and description of the tested phenotypic traits was suggested although they were presented in Table 1 of the result part; the methods and programs that were used for genetic variances (additive and non-additive effects) were unclear; a list of SSR markers, as well as the genetic methods used for phylogenetic analysis were necessary information for the study.

In table 1 and 5, what is LSD?

For figure 1, is that a part of copy that obtained from previous or other (Suteu et al) study? If the phylogenetic relationship was not reconstructed by the authors in this research, I am not sure it could be presented in the results part depending on the scientific ethic of the journal.

 Conclusions should be modified and improved according to the main results obtained from phenotypic and phylogenetic analyses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive evaluation

 

Based on your comments, we changed the content of the manuscript as follows:

• changed some parts of the introduction
• included a list of tested traits
• added the formulas used for the analyses
• deleted figure 1 to avoid any problems
• added the significances in tables

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, the authors investigated the phenotypic and genetic similarities or diversities between 7 flint inbred lines adapted to the early maize growing regions, which is useful in planning crosses for hybrid and inbred line improvement. Totally, it is an interesting and valuable study. However, some points need to be addressed and corrected before publication. All detailed comments are as follows:

1. For Table 1 and 5, the error value of each trait of each inbred line needs to be provided. In addition, for each trait, the difference significance analysis among inbred lines also should be performed.

2. For Figure 1, the intact figure should be provided.

3. In the “Results and discussions” section, the discussion needs to be more detailed.

4. Abbreviation should be used throughout the manuscript.

5. Grammar checks should be carried out for proper English.

6. Please check the structure of format presentation for Agronomy.

Grammar checks should be carried out for proper English

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough evaluation and for your constructive approach.

 

Based on your annotations, we made some changes:

• added the significances in tables
• deleted figure 1 to avoid any problems
• used abbreviation
• checked for grammar errors
• changed the theme font in tables, so that they are according to Agronomy structure

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is methodologically correct. It is written in a very clear way. The tabular and graphical presentation of the results does not raise any objections. A certain shortcoming of the work is that perhaps too much space has been devoted to the detailed characteristics of the line, while the discussion of the results is superficial. So, if the authors managed to discuss at least a little more deeply, some of the results it would be good for its quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your evaluation and for your constructive approach.

 

We changed some parts of the paper, based on the reviews received.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the study was significantly modified, and most of the descriptions were clear.

For the results part, I suggest a table information added to show the genetic distance among those tested inbred lines.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your observation and suggestion.

Regarding your suggestion to add a table with the genetic distance among the inbred lines, we did not calculate this distance in the present study.

Reviewer 2 Report

no

Author Response

Thank you for your review.