Estimation of Genetic Diversity between and within Biparental Clones and Full-Sib Families of the Chinese Pine Using SSR Markers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors report on the assessed genetic diversity of Chinese pine using SSR markers for base selection and improvement of the tree populations for breeding purposes and industry. The manuscript is well written in terms of grammar and structure, including being scientifically sound, but some minor but significant corrections are needed in order to enhance the quality of the submission for publication. 

1. Title and Abstract needs to be revised. Title is not descriptive enough and it sounds incomplete. Abstract also needs some grammar improvements. Line 14 needs revision as it starts in a grammatical flawed way. Some scientific names are not italicized. and Line 30, '''clone'', better be ''cloned''.

2. Introduction is well written in its entirety but contains numerous grammar errors. Line 56-57 needs some repohrasing, Line 67-68 and Line 75-76. The coordinates given in Line 79 should be identified in terms of the region or area in China that they refer to. Minor typos also exist in Line 82, remove the comma after ''resin''.

3. MM, plant sampling for what? Revise the subtitle and make it more descriptive. Line 100 identify that ''All samples were collected...'' but not described for what? End of Line 126 needs to some revision. Fis, Fit and Fst are not described, this is necessary the greater audiens. Line 139, why is the I for identity capitalized? 

4. Results and Diss. I do not have many comments for these sections. Except that Authors should mind the way they start with their first sentence under each and every sub section. For instance, the opening sentence on paragraph of section 3.1 does not start well. This can be avoided by introducing your topic, especially because this is the start of your results. others look okay. There appear to be a confusion created by the way the ranges of alleles are presented in Line 188-189. Tables need statistics to show variances. Lastly, check the typo in Line 321 and 328, as well as the completeness of your References. Most references lacks DOIs.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English grammar is sufficient but can be improved during the revision of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting and generally well written paper. There are many language errors that I have tried to correct as far as possible. I have annotated the pdf. 

In line 95 you say you used 34 clones and in line 104 you say 35 clones. 

Line 195 "Towards these results, we concluded that the genetic diversity of the full-family progenies has no relatedness with that of the clone parents." It is not clear what you mean here. I suggest you rephrase to clarify. 

Throughout: adaptation and not adaption

Line 327: "biparental crosses between the clones are suggested used in future crosses to provide a large amount of heterotic effect in the progenies" Heterosis did not feature in this study, I think you mean heterozygosity or genetic diversity. 

You refer to genetic components, but I think you mean genetic groupings, especially in the principle coordinate analysis and neighbor joining trees.  

Line 360: I do not think there should be a patent heading? 

The rest of the comments are on the pdf. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are number of English language errors. I have tried to correct these as far as possible on the pdf. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This MS discusses the importance of quantifying genetic diversity in plant populations, specifically focusing on the Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis Carriere), a native species in North China. The study utilized SSR primers to assess the genetic diversity in both clone populations and progenies of P. tabuliformis. Moreover, the authours emphasize the significance of understanding genetic diversity in plant populations, with a focus on the Chinese pine. The study used SSR primers to analyze 35 clones from four populations and 216 progenies from 22 full-sib families of P. tabuliformis. The results indicate that P. tabuliformis is an outcrossing plant with moderately high genetic diversity. Genetic differentiation was found to be lower among clones than full-sib family progenies, possibly due to different pollination patterns. While the clustering analysis did not show significant division among clone populations, two distinct groups were identified within the full-sib families. The analysis of molecular variance revealed the majority of genetic variability within clone individuals and full-sib family progenies.

Some queries/comments:

Certainly, here are some critical questions regarding the provided text:

 How can the genetic diversity findings in Chinese pine populations be practically applied in the context of selection and breeding programs? Are there specific examples of how this research might benefit forestry or conservation efforts?

1. What criteria were used to select the SSR primers, and how do these markers accurately represent the genetic diversity of the Chinese pine? Are there potential limitations in the choice of markers?
2. What are the ecological and environmental factors that contribute to the Chinese pine's outcrossing behavior and different gene flow patterns? How might these factors affect the long-term genetic health of the population?
3. Can the authors describe in details about the clustering methods used to analyze genetic variation? Were any specific algorithms or statistical tools employed, and how robust are the results obtained from these methods?
4. What insights do the findings provide about the population structure of Chinese pine? How might this knowledge inform conservation strategies and genetic resource management?
5. How does the genetic diversity of the Chinese pine compare to other tree species or populations, and what are the implications of these comparisons?
6. What are the potential reasons behind the relatively high genetic variability within full-sib family progenies? How does this affect the breeding and selection of elite plants?
7. Given the focus on genetic diversity, what long-term strategies or conservation measures are recommended to maintain the health and sustainability of Chinese pine populations in North China?
8. Authors are suggested to improve scientific literature on molecular markers-- Multiplex molecular marker-assisted analysis of significant pathogens of cotton (Gossypium sp.), 2022; Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102557 (Cotton);  Assessment of genetic diversity and volatile content of commercially grown banana (Musa spp.) cultivars, Hinge et al., Scientific Reports, 2022; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11992-1 (Banana); Microsatellite and RAPD analysis of grape (Vitis spp.) accessions and identification of duplicates/misnomers in germplasm collection, Upadhyay et al., 2010 Indian J Hortic Volume 67 Pages 8-15; Microsatellite analysis to differentiate clones of Thompson seedless grapevine, Upadhyay et al., 2010, Ind Journal of Horticulture, Volume 67 Issue 2 Pages 260-263

Minor comments:

Figure 2A and B; and Figure 4A and B—quality needs to be improved.

Line 360: Patents?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Text could be restructured with better explanations in concise manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf