What were the Sizes Per Population? > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Page four L 5 - 6: it will sound good if this sentence (thought) is said to the previous idea L 1 - 3. Here the logic hyperlink between two ideas was lost (cashew & plants). The division of this section into at the least two subsections ought to sound better. 10. Data Presentation: The presentation of outcomes is clear, however the inclusion of more figures, equivalent to heatmaps or extra PCA plots, may help visualize the data better. P8, L16-18 This sentence shouldn't be clear, please rewrite. P11, L4-5 contradicts the results on P8, L13-14. P8, L20-22 The roots of the dendrogram of for the genetic dissimilarity usually are not clear to decipher any relationships. I see four color clusters on the dendrogram. It's even clear that clusters usually are not delineated based mostly on these predefined sub-counties. The desk exhibiting the cashew genotypes, sub-counties and counties of origins should be included to offer some information on samples and sampling procedure. The gap used between samples (which can have a big impact on outcomes), and the motivation behind the choice of limiting the examine to 3 counties only should be offered. Conclusions should be drawn by also considering the important thing findings comparable to relationship between landraces (ancestral subpopulations and three subpopulations), admixture and the potential fixation of alleles revealed by the heterozygosity.

This should replicate the implication of those genetic indices on the background and breeding history of cashew landraces already highlighted. These findings (He and Ho) were also offered in no right subsection "markers’ characterisation" and are usually not the same as those introduced in Table 2. The authors must also explain why no genetic indices of cashew landraces from Lamu had been calculated. The authors acknowledged that the expected heterozygosity was better than the noticed heterozygosity in contrast of what introduced in Table 2 (which misses the indices of Lamu inhabitants). I suggest the manuscript be returned to authors with the option to resubmit it after substantial revisions. Tables and their captions had been positioned at the end of the manuscript. 19. Table Completeness: Tables should be self-explanatory with detailed captions. 4) The Tables had been separated from the textual content, reference model and quotation format were not respected. 6. The manuscript didn’t observe the reference style and quotation format. The authors also needs to revise the conclusion and relate it to the subject of the manuscript. Authors should make clear the rationale behind and the implication on the choice making. The primary causes behind are as observe: 1) it didn't be introduced in the recommended structure and written in a complete method to make sure readers perceive the analysis.

However, discussing potential causes for the noticed admixture and gene movement in additional element would add depth. 20. Citation: Add most recent references. I agree with authors that the allele richness among people might play a task of their ability to adapt to some stressors when is high, authors should justify completely their confirmation without ambiguity that the reasonable allele richness observed in cashew landraces explains their skill to adapt to both diseases and local weather changes. If you happen to choose "no", your identification will stay anonymous but your assessment should be made public. Do you want your identification to be public for this peer evaluation? 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer assessment history of their article (what does this mean? ). Authors additionally used Landscape and Ecological Associations (LEA) R package deal to analyse the genetic population construction of cashew landraces and sub-populations have been validated using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Referring to outcomes, cashew landraces in Kenya are moderately divergent demonstrating that they're closely related thought they were separated into 2-three sub-populations based on the inhabitants structure.

If the authors can make the necessary improvements, the study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the understanding of genetic diversity in Kenyan cashew landraces. Page 1 L 18: the authors indicated that several techniques have been employed to know the genetic variety of various plants. As well as, the discussion part needs to be improved and revised avoiding some confusion (e.g. the sentence on page eleven L 19 - 20 itself), contradictions (e.g. Page 11 L 13 - 16 and web page eleven L 19 - 20), and explaining deeply findings with or in opposition to these that can be discovered in the literature. 13. Interpretation of Findings: The discussion interprets the outcomes well, but linking the findings to sensible implications for breeding applications may very well be elaborated. 11. Marker Quality: The discussion on marker high quality is satisfactory. The authors ought to clarify the use of PIC as genetic variety index in the section of materials and methods and presented in outcomes as the quality management parameter with a view to avoid confusion. The authors have missed to present in this section essential results demonstrating the level of genetic range within populations.