Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 5th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 30th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 10th, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on March 1st, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 5th, 2017.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Mar 5, 2017 · Academic Editor


I hope that the readers will understand these sentences as intended by the authors.

Version 0.2

· Feb 19, 2017 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

While most reviewers' concerns have been addressed, there are a number of points that I do not understand.

(1) What does it mean that "contigs are essential for assembly" - how does that prove that these contigs are not contamination?

(2) There seems to be something wrong with the wording in "these three contigs are essential for assembling the complete mt genome, suggesting that these three contigs may be derived from its cp genome" - to what genome does the pronoun "its" refer?

(3) I suspect that "contigs assembled twice" may be an indication of a problem with the assembly. If not, this needs to be clarified.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jan 30, 2017 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address comments about comparison with a congeneric species and a possibility of misassembly. Other comments are mainly editorial.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Some correction in presentation of plant names required (see attached file).

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

As a botanist, I read this paper with great interest, and I found some important suggestions for me. The manuscript is well written and logically consistent. I suggest only few corrections; the most of them concern the writing of plant names (see attached file).

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Overall the article is clearly written and easy to follow. There are however some cases of unclear wording, excessively long sentences. Some relevant references are missing. The most critical is that the authors seem to be unaware about the publication of mitochondrial genome of a congeneric species Salix purpurea (10.1186/s40064-016-3521-6).

Experimental design

The methods are reasonable though there are few points where they require revision.
1) I'm puzzled about the method of sequencing. The authors write (lane 86-88) that they used two technologies, 454 and Illumina, but all description of assembly process concerns 454 data only. How were Illumina data used?
2) As soon as Salix purpurea mt genome is available, please make comparative analysis (GC-content, gene and intron content, gene order, sequence divergence).
3) The presence of chloroplast-derived regions in mitochondrial genomes is a potential for misassembly and emergence of chimeric contigs/scaffolds that contain fragments of mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes. Such misassemblies can be found by mapping of reads back on the assembly and inspecting the coverage (fragments from cp genome have higher coverage). Please check whether the assembly does not have the regions with anomalous coverage.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

lane 41 - exceptional stems? unclear, please explain
lane 54-58 - unclear, please rephrase
lane 67-69 - the largest mt genomes are among Cucurbitaceae (10.1186/1471-2164-12-424) and Caryophyllaceae (:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001241), not Corchorus capsularis. The smallest is that of Viscum scurruloideum (10.1073/pnas.1504491112)
lane 74 - Populus trichocarpa - should be in italics
lane 89 - change Hisep to HiSeq
lane 142-143 - not exactly so. There are few examples of DNA transfer from mt to cp genome (see 10.1111/nph.12704). Please remove or revise this sentence
lane 343-344 - not striking, cox2 introns are lost in many plants (e.g. 10.1086/319586, 10.1007/s00438-002-0657-6)

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.