Genetic Diversity and Core Germplasm Research of 144 Munake Grape Resources Using 22 Pairs of SSR Markers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript was well written but the manuscript title and reported content did not match. The title needs to be changed. Please see details in attachment.
Major revisions:
1. The title of this manuscript did not match with the reported results. It was not relevant to the core construction.
2. In the abstract, the authors did not mention the possible applications of their research results. Even the “period” was missing at the very end of their abstract. Please pay attention to their writings.
3. The authors may add a map for the sample collection (in Atushi of Xinjiang). This map will be informative for representing geographic diversity.
4. The authors did not mention and define the SSR markers (genomic SSR or EST SSR, SSR marker locations on chromosomes). In the methods, the authors should provide detailed information on these 22 SSR markers.
5. The core conception was not clear. Normally the core collection is 10% of the entire collection. 144 to 93 did not meet the criteria.
6. For any report, it is necessary for authors to generate a figure for dendrogram.
Minor revisions:
1. Line 51, “a set of species alleles”? What did the authors mean “species alleles”? Were they sure? Please change it. Diversified alleles?
2. Line 53, phenotypic and genotypic data instead of molecular markers? It should be paralleled.
3. Line 62, Vitis vinifera should be in italics.
4. Line 88, please expand what the SSR stands for.
5. Line 90, “strong polymorphism”? Highly polymorphic?
6. Line 97, What did the complete genome map mean? Was or Were?
7. Line 108, a suitable molecular marker? Markers?
8. Line 111, this germplasm?
9. Lines 117 and 118, “This” and “It” were no clear. To be more specific.
10. Line 162, what did you mean 144 individuals here? Please use scientific name.
11. Line 164, what did you mean ”effective alleles?”
12. Line 173, highly polymorphic primers? That was not right. You definitely did not want to use highly polymorphic primers!
This manuscript needs to be rewritten before acceptance. Please see comments and suggestions to the authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
1.The title of this manuscript did not match with the reported results. It was not relevant to the core construction.
An: We agree with your suggestion, it will make our article better, we used this concept incorrectly when we first thought about the title, we have now changed the title to "Genetic diversity and core germplasm research of 144 Munake grape resources using 22 pairs of SSR markers.".See them in Line2-3, p1.
2.In the abstract, the authors did not mention the possible applications of their research results. Even the “period” was missing at the very end of their abstract. Please pay attention to their writings.
An: Thank you very much for your constructive comments, we have revised the abstract, we have added the applications that will be involved in the results of this research, we have made a clearer study of the definition of SSR and we have restructured the abstract.See them in Line 16-31, p1.
3.The authors may add a map for the sample collection (in Atushi of Xinjiang). This map will be informative for representing geographic diversity.
An: We added information about the samples, a figure and two tables were added to the Introduction section. See them in Line 116-117、127-128, p3- p4.
4.The authors did not mention and define the SSR markers (genomic SSR or EST SSR, SSR marker locations on chromosomes). In the methods, the authors should provide detailed information on these 22 SSR markers.
An: Detailed information about these 22 SSR markers is added to the Methods. definitions of SSR markers are added to the Introduction section. See them in Line 183-185, p5.
5.The core conception was not clear. Normally the core collection is 10% of the entire collection. 144 to 93 did not meet the criteria.
An:Thank you for your constructive comments, our research on the core germplasm is intended to provide some support and guarantee for our future research,
6.For any report, it is necessary for authors to generate a figure for dendrogram.
An: We have taken your suggestion and added a figure in the text.We have altered the chart on genetic coefficients by changing the misshapen tabular form to a bar chart, which is much clearer and easier to follow. See them in Line 194-196、 229-332、335-337, p11.
Minor revisions:
1.Line 51, “a set of species alleles”? What did the authors mean “species alleles”? Were they sure? Please change it. Diversified alleles?
An: We apologize that due to an oversight in writing, our lack of clarity in presentation led to misunderstandings, and this has been modified. See them in Line 36-48, p2.
2.Line 53, phenotypic and genotypic data instead of molecular markers? It should be paralleled.
An: We apologize that due to an oversight in writing, there was a misuse of proper noun leading to confusion of concepts, and this has been modified. See them in Line 64-65, p2.
3.Line 62, Vitis vinifera should be in italics.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 59-60, p2.
4.Line 88, please expand what the SSR stands for.
An: This part of the modification is already reflected in the introduction. See them in Line 87-94, p2.
5.Line 90, “strong polymorphism”? Highly polymorphic?
An: Highly polymorphic should be used here, the mistake has been changed. See them in Line 87-94, p2.
6.Line 97, What did the complete genome map mean? Was or Were?
An: The point being made here is that the whole genome of grapevine was sequenced by a researcher, and that a lack of clarity led to this problem, which has now been corrected. See them in Line 87-94, p2..
7.Line 108, a suitable molecular marker? Markers?
An: In this case it should be SSR marker, not molecular marker, this part has been corrected. See them in Line 112, p3.
8.Line 111, this germplasm?
An: The word was used incorrectly and should have read population, which has now been corrected. See them in Line 115-116, p3.
9.Lines 117 and 118, “This” and “It” were no clear. To be more specific.
An: This expressed concept was not clear and the manuscript was revised. See them in Line xxx-xxx, px- px.
- Line 162, what did you mean 144 individuals here? Please use scientific name.
An: The 144 individuals here represent the 144 samples used in the experiment and have been modified in the manuscript. See them in Line 123-127, p3.
- Line 164, what did you mean ”effective alleles?”
An: The concept intended to be expressed here is the number of effective alleles, and an oversight in doing the writing led to this problem. See them in Line 124-127, p3.
- Line 173, highly polymorphic primers? That was not right. You definitely did not want to use highly polymorphic primers!
An: By highly polymorphic primers here we mean SSR sites that were mis-expressed at the time of writing. See them in Line 188, p5.
Sincerely yours,
Shi Wei & Wang Jian-Cheng
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes the analysis of genetic diversity and structure of Munake grape cultivars from a germplasm collection using SSR method. My comments are (not limited to) as follows:
L12 I would suggest to restructure your abstract. A part of the M&M (L26-27) was described after the results. L17 the title uses the word "SSR", while here "microsatellite" is used. Although both words bring the same meaning at one level; however, it would be better to uniform them. In this case, I would suggest to use "SSR" throughout the ms.
L22 UPGMA should be in parenthesis. full form should be written here. Please check throughout for other abbreviated terms.
L23 numerical values less than 10 should be spelled in words. Please check throughout.
L62 Scientific names should be in italic form
L82 citation [10] does not belong to D'Onofrio et al. Please check and recite accordingly.
L90 SSR markers are molecular-based. Writing "SSR molecular markers" is redundant.
L100 I suppose this should be Li et al. [15]. same goes to L103.
L112 grammar
L113 where do these 22 SSR markers come from? Please indicate here.
L124 grammar
L133 word of choice. "gang".
L131-136 wrong use of capitalized forms
L138-143 weird presentation of method. grammar. SI units not abbreviated.
L144 Genemapper not cited.
L148 POPGENE not cited
L150 GenAlEx not cited. Please check for others. too many to be addressed.
L162 word of choice "individuals". I thought you are using accessions as the unit to describe them apart.
L164-165 grammar
L166 grammar
L171 past tense for results.
L184 Table 1 has no caption. And I believe the format of the Table does not fulfill the requirement by the Journal.
L190 what Aksu and Hotan? Where can I find this information? I am basically lost now.
L260 why is there citation in Results? Citations = Discussion
Figure 2 and 3 are meaningless without any indications. Pop1 - Pop 8, what are they?
L282 As I cannot work through the Results, so I cannot understand the facts provided in the Discussion section. The authors tend to raise up the same information from the Results at every paragraphs. Polishing is required
L373 references do not comply to the format required by the Journal. inconsistent format detected.
Although I have indicated moderate English edit is required, many grammar mistakes can be detected easily in the ms. The word-of-choice is bad, and the presentation is untidy at the Results and Discussion sections. I suggest them to get someone good in English to proofread the ms.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for your key suggestions regarding the results and discussion sections of this manuscript, and we have revised the content of these two sections of the manuscript. In addition, we have added some figures and tables to enrich the content of our article and make it more convincing, please see below for the details of the revisions:
Responses to the reviewers' comments:
1.L12 I would suggest to restructure your abstract. A part of the M&M (L26-27) was described after the results. L17 the title uses the word "SSR", while here "microsatellite" is used. Although both words bring the same meaning at one level; however, it would be better to uniform them. In this case, I would suggest to use "SSR" throughout the ms.
An: We have revised the structure of the abstract and added a more detailed explanation of the possible applications of our research and SSR markers in the abstract. We have also revised the use of the terms"microsatellite" and "SSR" in the manuscript. See them in Line 16-31, p1.
2.L22 UPGMA should be in parenthesis. full form should be written here. Please check throughout for other abbreviated terms.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 162-163, p4.
3.L23 numerical values less than 10 should be spelled in words. Please check throughout.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 164-168, p5.
4.L62 Scientific names should be in italic form
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 59-60, p2.
5.L82 citation [10] does not belong to D'Onofrio et al. Please check and recite accordingly.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 60-67, p2.
6.L90 SSR markers are molecular-based. Writing "SSR molecular markers" is redundant.
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 89-95, p3.
7.L100 I suppose this should be Li et al. [15]. same goes to L103.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 103-118, p3.
8.L112 grammar
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 110-115, p3.
9.L113 where do these 22 SSR markers come from? Please indicate here.
An: Detailed information about these 22 SSR markers is added to the Methods. definitions of SSR markers are added to the Introduction section. See them in Line 115-117、127-129, p4.
10.L124 grammar
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 124-127, p3- p4.
11.L133 word of choice. "gang".
An: Word has been modified. See them in Line 143, p4.
12.L131-136 wrong use of capitalized forms
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 154-163, p4.
13.L138-143 weird presentation of method. grammar. SI units not abbreviated.
An: We have changed this section of the text because it was not clear at the time of writing that the experimental procedures were not clearly expressed. The units have also been changed. See them in Line 147-157, p4.
14.L144 Genemapper not cited.
An: Our lack of knowledge of the writing format resulted in no references to the software, which have now been added to the manuscript in the appropriate places. See them in Line 155-163, p4.
15.L148 POPGENE not cited
An: Our lack of knowledge of the writing format resulted in no references to the software, which have now been added to the manuscript in the appropriate places. See them in Line 155-163, p4.
16.L150 GenAlEx not cited. Please check for others. too many to be addressed.
An: Our lack of knowledge of the writing format resulted in no references to the software, which have now been added to the manuscript in the appropriate places. See them in Line 155-163, p4.
17.L162 word of choice "individuals". I thought you are using accessions as the unit to describe them apart.
An: Word has been modified. See them in Line 164-168, p4.
18.L164-165 grammar
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 164-165, p4.
19.L166 grammar
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 186-193, p5.
20.L171 past tense for results.
An: Grammar has been modified. See them in Line 202-206, p66.
21.L184 Table 1 has no caption. And I believe the format of the Table does not fulfill the requirement by the Journal.
An: The title of table 1 has been added and the formatting has been changed. See them in Line 116-118, p3.
22.L190 what Aksu and Hotan? Where can I find this information? I am basically lost now.
An: We added information about the samples, a figure and two tables were added to the Introduction section. See them in Line 127-129, p2.
23.L260 why is there citation in Results? Citations = Discussion
An: We added the wrong part to the result in our writing and have changed it. See them in Line 169-316, p5-9.
24.Figure 2 and 3 are meaningless without any indications. Pop1 - Pop 8, what are they?
An: We have explained the content of the charts in the corresponding places in the results. Added to the introductory section for the meanings of pop1-pop8. See them in Line 298-324, p9- p10.
25.L282 As I cannot work through the Results, so I cannot understand the facts provided in the Discussion section. The authors tend to raise up the same information from the Results at every paragraphs. Polishing is required
An: We made changes to the Results and Discussion sections, removing duplicate information. See them in Line 169-402, p5- p13.
26.L373 references do not comply to the format required by the Journal. inconsistent format detected.
An: Format has been modified. See them in Line 431-555, p13- p16.
Sincerely yours,
Shi Wei & Wang Jian-Cheng
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should carefully check their written English.
After minor revision, it can be considered to be published on this journal. The information would be useful for this unique species. Thanks.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for the constructive comments you gave us throughout the revision process of the manuscript to make our manuscript more readable. Based on your suggestions, we have made the following revisions:
We added the sequences of 22 pairs of Munake primers in the part of Materials and Methods,which made the research design more reasonable and the method more accurate. At the same time, we have found a more professional person to Polish the language of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
