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.
Your manuscript accepted after last revision. Congratulations
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript needs some final very minor revisions.
From my side it is ok. The author did the required editing
-
-
-
The author has greatly improved the manuscript, however, the authors should revise their conclusion and clearly summarize their findings.
It is recommended to add a description of the Phase Ⅱ.
no comment
no comment
no comment
After you make minor revisions in accordance with the reviewers' reports, your manuscript will be evaluated for acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
You can find in attached pdf
-
-
-
Kernel row number is one of the important yielding attributing traits in maize. Basic genetic information on KRN is already known and application of basic knowledge in breeding is limited. This may be because of the lack of proper tools to integrate the genetic information available with the routine breeding program. In this connection, a transcriptome-based approach to understanding the novel gene and trying to use the same in crop improvement may give new insights into the traits and their utilization.
In this Introduction, the author has mentioned 4 QTLs have been cloned, but it appears still more QTLs are still cloned, that may be mentioned
Material methods were clear but the Genetic background of the genotypes and the sources from which it was derived, may be mentioned
Give details on library preparation in MM
Special expression of the gene is required if not it may be discussed
Results appear to be appropriate and validated
221 to 223, Is this from your result? or else justify with reference.
The manuscript is written meticulously. All the sections are well explained. However, there are some clarifications required in some sections, that may be attempted.
no comment
1. The PHG35 and Dan598 were planted in the experimental field of Shandong Agricultural University (Taian, China). The authors should introduce the planting density and conditions.
1. In this study, a total of 30 cDNA libraries were constructed for sequencing. However, a sample of D_V9 showed greater separation in Figure 2e, whether that has an impact on results?
2. The five developmental stages can be divided into two distinct developmental phases: Phase I (V6 to V8) and Phase II (V9 and V10) in both PHG35 and Dan598. The authors should introduce the basis in detail.
3. In this study, the authors obtained 8612 line-specific DEGs in Phase II (V9-V10). I think that it is important to understand the molecular mechanism of KRN development. The authors should add the Phase II analysis.
4. The discussion section should be revised in order to better understand the results， rather than “Their similar expression patterns suggest that they may have conserved functions.”
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.