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.
Dear Dr. Tharmalingam,
I am writing to inform you that your manuscript - Analysis of genetic diversity and population structure of Magnaporthe grisea, the causal agent of foxtail millet blast using microsatellites - has been accepted for publication.
Congratulations!
Sincerely,
Tika Adhikari
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The revised MS has improved and addressed all the concerns raised.
However, there are few minor errors, such as sentence alignment in Table 2 and check the sample location once again as given in the Table 1
Fine
The findings are validated well after revision
Dear Dr. Tharmalingam,
Thank you for submitting your submission to PeerJ and we appreciate your patience for waiting.
Your manuscript had reviewed by three experts in your research areas. Based on their comments, and in my opinion for your article - Analysis of genetic diversity and population structure of Magnaporthe grisea, the causal agent of foxtail millet blast using microsatellites - that it requires a number of MAJOR REVISIONS. The main concerns were small sample sizes used for population genetic analysis. I would appreciate greatly it if you could response point-by-point and submit your revisions at your earliest possible time. Thank you.
Best regards,
Sincerely,
Tika Adhikari
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The authors showed the genetic diversity analysis of Magnoporthae griesa pathogen infecting foxtail millet in Tamil Nadu, India
This is necessary research that could improve foxtail millet breeding. However, I have a few concerns and comments for this MS as suggested below
1. The MS needs professional English editing to meet the publication criteria
2. The figures in the MS are not professional and need polishing to match scientific publication
3. IT would be great to indicate the regions of the isolates in Figure 3 and Figure 4
4. The discussion is very weak and needs improvement.
5. It would be better to reorganize and combine the supplementary figure 1 and 2 with Figure 2, to show the incidence and fungal spore phenotypes
Please correct the typo as indicated in the attached file
Line 45, close the parenthesis
No comment
No comments
It would be better to classify the pathogenic population based on the region they isolated. The difference and grouping based on plains and hills and how the genetic variation has occurred among these populations?
Line31-32 As a clustering analysis tool, PCoA should clarify its clustering results rather than describing the method itself.
Line147-150 Maximum likelihood method for constructing evolutionary trees appears to be more accurate and persuasive.
line209-220 The names of the groups, Group1 and Group2, need to be placed at their corresponding positions on the evolutionary tree, and a complete evolutionary tree should include scale bar.
line233-237 The author should display the name of the sample at the tip of the evolutionary tree, like in Fig 3. In this evolutionary tree, does cluster 3 correspond to group I in Fig 3? and the full paper does not explain why there are differences in the evolutionary trees established by ITS and SSR.Why these two isolates separated from the other isolates was not given a reasonable explanation by the author later.
line241 What is “adhoc”，maybe indicate the full name？and “p” in line254
line248-249 Do these three isolates correspond to Group1 in Fig3 or cluster3 in Fig4 ? The article lacks coherence and doesn't have a good connection, it just provides a general description of the results.
line250-252 The author should have explained gene flow in the discussion section, why it exists, whether it is due to the proximity of the regions? However, there was no such explanation given.
In Fig 5b， A complete graph should include titles for the axes.
no comment
no comment
The abstract should be restructured to highlight the novelty of the research rather than simply describing the methods and results.
The authors did a comprehensive work on the isolation and characterization of the MG isolates from FM. Introduction and Materials and methods sections were written with all relevant details, however, discussion section requires major revision.
The comments related to the improvement of discussion section is given in the annodated PDF file.
Standard methodology and analyses were carried out and presented.
The labelling of isolates in the figures would have been better for the readers to understand easily the grouping/diversity of isolates. The comments given in the annodated PDF file should be addressed.
The findings are novel to the location of the study. However, it should have been better discussed in the discussion section. Results are repeated in the discussion which requires some critical intrepretation of genetic diversity and its relation to disease incidence and location of collection etc.
Overall, the paper requires major revision before acceptance.
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.