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. Chung,
Congratulations! You study entitled "Development of genomic simple sequence repeat markers for Glycyrrhiza lepidota and cross-amplification of other Glycyrrhiza species" has been accepted.
Sincerely,
Marcial.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a Section Editor covering this Section #]
This the second revision of this manuscript. The authors made all the recommended changes and I suggest to accept the manuscript as it is now.
Minor changes recommended before were include.
No additional comments
No additional comments
Dear Jong Wook,
Both reviewers have made suggestions to improve the manuscript. One of the reviewers is very worried about the process to identify and select the SSRs.
Please, consider the suggestions from reviewers and submit a new version of the manuscript if you think you could address them.
Cheers,
Marcial.
No comment
The method was not enough and not clearly descripted for SSR identification.
The development of SSR markers is one of the most important part for the manuscript. However, there was nothing mentioned for the identified SSR number, the frequency and distribution of different SSR types in the genome.
In this manuscript entitled "Development of genomic simple sequence repeat markers for Glycyrrhiza lepidota and cross-amplification of other Glycyrrhiza species" to describe the development of SSR markers in Glycyrrhiza lepidota, and use some of these markers to assess the genetic diversity. In general, this paper is good writing, but miss several important parts in methods and results. The overall research content was not enough for published on Peer J. Certain specific comments are addressed below:
Major comments
1. The development of SSR markers from the genomic sequence is an important component of the entire manuscript, while the detail on SSR analysis in the method and result was missed. For example, approximately 28,000 SSRs were identified in G. lepidota. What is the criteria used for identification of different SSR motif? What are the frequency, distribution and characterization of different SSR motif? These important information were not mentioned in the manuscript.
2. The Author Contributions was also missed in the manuscript.
This is a very well done work and it is very well presented. The authors have informed about a new set of markers very useful for different studies regarding this species.
In general, writing is very clear and the objectives are very well faced.
There are some minor things that I suggested to check before accepting this manuscript.
The experimental design and analysis follow the standard protocols for this kind of studies.
I feel that this work is original enough to be published here.
This a very well designed and performed work.
The authors have informed about the first set of SSR markers for this particular species. It is unique and hard to perform work.
Their findings, despite limited to this species or their related ones, will have an impact on the upcoming studies in different areas.
You have done a very intense and hard work. There are only some minor comments that I suggest you to consider.
You will find them in the PDF draft.
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.