All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for your re-submission. I believe the current manuscript is ready for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Keith Crandall, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please see the reviewer's comments as follows. I encourage you to make edits accordingly and resubmit it again.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is a well written paper which introduced and compared five major local ancestry inference models of two-way and three-way admixture populations.
I have no major concerns, but I do think that there are points need to be revised.
1. Line 93: For “u=0.77”, it would be better to specify the meaning of this statistic.
2. Line 90-94: The authors argued that the PEL population could serve as a reasonable proxy for Native American ancestral population in this study. I do agree that the PEL have more Native American ancestries than other admixed American populations in 1000G, however, I still feel cautious that PEL could be a good reference population for Native Americans. It would be good to find some other populations, but I understand it would be hard by considering of the scale of the data, data merging etc. I think another way to build a good reference panel would be estimating the Native American ancestry for each PEL individual, and then select the first 10% of individuals who has the most Native American ancestry.
3. Line 96 and Table 2: When simulating the admixed populations, the authors fixed the components of each ancestral populations. Please cite the reference papers to prove that these numbers are appropriate to be set.
4. Line 103: I do concern that chromosome 22 may not be a good example here, since it is short and may contain a lot of structural variations. Maybe simulating the first 1-10Mb of Chromosome 1 is a better way to do so.
5. For Figure 6, besides using the correlation coefficient, I would suggest using another statistic (y-axis) to measure the accuracy, e.g. the absolute difference of the estimated ancestries. It is also interesting to explore why the performances were bad in some cases for each software (low values of y-axis).
In this study, the performances of five methods for local ancestry estimation were compared: LAMP-LD (2012), RFMix (2013), ELAI (2014), Loter (2018), and MOSAIC (2019), with respect to accuracy, runtime, memory usage, and usability. Authors found that in cases of two-way admixture, each software performs similarly well with RFMix and ELAI having the highest median performance. In three-way admixture, RFMix performs best overall while its runtime scales quadratically.
no comment.
no comment.
1. Line 205: “We report the estimated β1, model R2, and ANOVA p-value for each combination of software and model.” However, R2 and ANOVA p-value of linear and quadratic models were reported in Table 4. Please check.
2. Figure 4, 5: It seems a caption is omitted. There is no need to repeat “We test to see if there is a significant difference ……” in the legend. In addition, were different methods (one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA) employed to test the differences as respect to the runtime and the maximum memory usage? Please check.
3. Figure 5 legend: Doesn’t it test the difference between the runtime of each software when increasing the number of ancestries estimated? However, in the legend, you say that it is between number of ancestries and the maximum memory usage.
4. Table 5: Removing the redundant data above the diagonal would make for a more presentable table.
5. Line 387: The reference of Loter is not correctly cited.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.