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.
The authors have addressed all the Reviewers' comments. As a consequence, this revised version of the manuscript is suitable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Two experts in this field assessed your manuscript and found the content relevant. Some comments need to be addressed before moving this manuscript forward. Among them, the inclusion of more details in the materials and methods section and the inclusion of figures and raw data are requested.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
1) abstract has to be rewritten based on the research results, because I could not find out how genetic backgrounds affect spontaneously occurring mutations.
2) could authors please provide more information on delition procedures, e.g. primer sequences?
3) this is a really interesting study, but except for the chemical picture, there is no picture related to the transformation and validation processes.
4) in M&M there is serious lack of cite proper references.
The methods used in this study must be described with sufficient detail and information.
the authors are advised to add the "conclusions" part and highlight how the results of this research can be useful for future research.
the authors are recommended to improve the presentation of their results by appropriate figures, graphs or tables
the authors are advised to improve the discussion section by comparing their results with previously published work.
A really interesting manuscript that elaborated on a novel study to compare fitness differences among strains that differ in ploidy and/or zygosity in haploid yeast. Keeping ploidy-specific effects of mutations in mind, the researchers conducted a thorough study to measure mutational effects on fitness in the haploid and homozygous diploid form of yeast. They also give an important cautionary message to other molecular biologists working in this field about using multiple transformants in fitness assays. However, there are a few suggestions:
1) The main findings you got for your objectives are not clearly mentioned in the abstract, instead of mentioning the methods used it is better to elaborate on the results.
2) The writing style followed for the introduction is not as per the journal’s prescribed format
3) Kindly provide a few original images from your experiment that highlight the differences between the control and transformed colonies.
4) If possible, provide the raw data obtained in an Excel file
5) The authors should provide a conclusion
No comments
No comments
no comments
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.