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 March 12th, 2019 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 11th, 2019.
  • The first revision was submitted on April 30th, 2019 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 7th, 2019.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 7, 2019 · Academic Editor


Thank you for the update - all the remarks were taken into account.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 11, 2019 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Actually the remarks are very minor. Please take into account suggestion by reviewer 1, and resubmit the manuscript. I recommend you also update Figure 1 - include more physical map information (about region climate), attitude, longitude, with visible numbers, rather than administrative map. Welcome re-submit the paper soon.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. The article is written in grammatically correct, professional English. The text is clear, unequivocal and technically regular form, corresponding to professional standards of politeness and manner of expression.
2. The introduction presents very accurate and detailed results from previous investigations, which are in the context of the current study and underline its up-to-date nature.
3. The structure of the manuscript corresponds to the form in PeerJ's "Standard sections".
4. The figures are four. They are correctly numbered and well described, but Figures 2, 3 and 4 need further corrections:
a / Figure 2:
- to improve the quality of polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis / there is a part of the gel – an artifact in Lanes 4-5 - that disturbs the image quality.
- to indicate with arrows the components /bands/ with which the three electrophoretic gliadin spektra of the polymorphic variety Lutescence 65 (Lanes 1-3) differ from one another.
b / Figure 3:
- above each bar on the graph, the frequency of the corresponding allele should be indicated.
Recommendation: It is better the values of the frequencies of gliadin alleles to be also presented in a separate table. In this way, the exact values of the frequencies of the rare alleles will be seen.
c / Figure 4:
- In the "Results" section, a table of statistical parameters should be included on the basis of which the gliadin dendrogram has been obtained.

5. Unmatched data was provided in Supplementary material 1/2 in accordance with the PeerJ requirement. It is necessary to change the description of Supplementary material because the table contains data of the Gliadin allele composition of varieties/lines from Kazakhstan as well as varieties originating from other countries. In the Supplementary Material1 the origin of each variety/line should be indicated. This is necessary to demonstrate the results in Table 1 as well as the results of the cluster analysis presented in Figure 4.

Experimental design

Primary studies are very original and relate to the purpose and scope of the PeerJ . The main objectives / research issues are well defined. Detailed and modern up-to date research has been outlined and analyzed the results of previous studies. The following additions are required:
- in the section Materials and Methods / Wheat germplasm and geographic locations
it is advisable to present in a table the varieties, lines and standards included in the study along with their origin.
- in the section Materials and Methods / Electrophoresis and identification of Gli alleles,
it has been shown that polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was performed by the method of Metakovsky & Novoselskaya, 1991. In order to reproduce the assay according to the PeerJ requirements, it is necessary to indicate known details of how the electrophoretic method is performed in one separate laboratory, for example: the concentration of the separating polyacrylamide gel, the duration of electrophoresis, the temperature and power of the assay, the methods of fixing, the coloring/discoloration of the electrophoretic plates, and used equipment.

Validity of the findings

The results obtained are very well described and discussed. They are substantiated and supported by the results of previous research by the same scientific team as well as by other authors. Conclusions are well-formulated, supporting the results in conformity with the main purpose of the study.

Additional comments

This study is very original and useful for the wheat breeding in terms of the fact that certain gliadin alleles, which are found in high frequency in varieties and lines, show very good cold-resistance, tolerance to dryness conditions and high grain quality. The results are also proven with data from the previous studies. This manuscript supports the biochemical markers based on storage proteins as an alternative method involving cheaper and simpler methods that can be successfully used by breeders to purposefully create genotypes with concentrated gliadin alleles and desirable traits.


Basic reporting

Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.

Experimental design

Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.

Validity of the findings

Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.

Additional comments

Protein markers, such as the electrophoretic spectra of wheat gliadins, have not lost their relevance for assessing the economically valuable traits of varieties and their ecological and geographical correspondence to certain regions. Electrophoresis spectra of gliadins are not altered by environmental conditions, are easily reproducible and very useful for wheat germplasm identification in addition to DNA markers. Extensive material on the allelic composition of wheat gliadins in northern Kazakhstan and other territories has been seriously and interestingly analyzed.

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.