Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJuly 1, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-20388 Exploring the genom ic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China by RAD-seq PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ren, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. In your Methods, please describe the exact protocol used for blood sampling, including the volume of the samples and whether any analgesia was used. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following:
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, RAD-seq was used to detect SNP markers from seven distinct domestic Bactrian camel populations from China. SNPs were used for Fixation index (FST) and principal component (PCA) analysis, and involved genes were tested for possible selection, where their function was further studied. In my opinion, this manuscript is of importance to the scientific community and has great potential. Nevertheless, I have several suggestions and comments in which I believe it might improve the impact of it. General comments and suggestions: 1. In general, I feel that connection between sentences is missing throughout the whole text in order to create a better flow while reading. See, for example, l.50 – 55. I would suggest to review the whole manuscript and create better links between sentences as well as sentence construction. The discussion is also very descriptive and lacks connection between sentences (more comments about the discussion below). 2. Some abbreviations for text comprehension have no explanation assuming all readers know what is relates to, for example l.59: MSY. I would suggest to review all abbreviations. 3. The authors wrote several times in the different manuscript sections that FST and PCA were used for testing “phylogenetic” distances from domestic Bactrian camels in different populations. But the authors did not do any phylogenetic analysis, they have just tested for population differentiation (Fst) and individual-to-individual (PCA) genetic distances. I suggest the authors change it to “genetically” instead. 4. At the beginning the taxonomic description of the domestic Bactrian camel is missing. Only in the line 59 it is stated the scientific name, but with no connection to the common name. 5. I don’t understand why the authors justify the use of Hexi camel population as “control population” for selection tests just because “these camels are genetically more distant to the other populations”, to then infer environmental pressures or production traits. I am not saying it is a bad choice, I am just commenting and calling attention to the fact that there is context information missing to understand the thought behind it. Why did the authors choose these populations specifically? What do they have in common and what do they have that differentiates them? Do all populations except for Hexi live under the same environmental conditions? Are the animals under different selective pressures on production traits on the control population compared to the others? It is always very interesting to assess genes under selection, but it is also very important to contextualize the results with the real situation, in this case, contextualize the results with the different camel populations the authors are using. I comment more on this in the “introduction” and “discussion” detailed suggestions where I suggest less descriptive text on the discussion and more information on these populations (maybe this information should start in the introduction section) to better understand the whole manuscript message. Detailed comments and suggestions: Abstract. 6. L15-17: “In this study, restriction site associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) was used to detect SNP markers of the seven domestic Bactrian camel populations.” There are not only seven Bactrian populations in China, so I would suggest to delete “the”. Also, it is “Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing” (hyphen missing). 7. L. 17 – 20: “The filtered SNPs were used for Fixation index (FST) analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) to find out the population which is phylogenetically distant from domestic Bactrian camels in other populations as the control population.” I suggest to rephrase this sentence. Introduction. 8. L. 55 – 57: “In addition, the domestic Bactrian camel lives in hot and arid desert environment, which has potential ecological adaptation value.” Domestic Bactrian camels do not live exclusively in hot and arid, but also in cold and high altitudes. I would suggest to rephrase this sentence or to justify where specifically they live in these conditions – again, it would help if there would be already here more information on the different populations that were chosen in this study. 9. L. 58: delete “(2019)”. 10. L. 59: “Camelus bactrianus” should be in italic. 11. L. 58 – 66: The authors start by telling about this other study (in the 3rd person), and then on the l.63 they state “in the previous study, we used…”. I would suggest to be coherent and either write it in the 1st or 3rd person. 12. L. 70 - 71: “RAD-seq analysis is becoming more and more perfect” I suggest to rephrase “more and more perfect”. 13. L. 71 – 78: It is good that the authors state examples of studies that used the same technique in different species like eggplant or chicken, but I would suggest to state examples closer to camels or even within camelid species, that have used the same (RADseq) technique. 14. L. 82 – 87: Please add citations or links to “GO”, “KEGG” and “Genecards”. 15. Missing a more complete sentence in the end of the introduction with the aim and importance of this study as right now these are not very clearly stated. Materials and Methods. 16. L. 123-128: substitute “readings” to “reads”. 17. The authors did SNP filtering, but did the authors do sample filtering (e.g. filtering samples out with missing call of a specific rate)? 18. L. 154: are the “internal PERL scripts” available to the scientific community, to promote transparency? 19. I think it would be interesting to see ADMIXTURE analysis in order to infer population structure and for calculating ancestry estimates. Results. 20. L. 179: I suggest to stated with how many SNP the analysis were performed. 21. L. 186: The respective initials of the populations to the populations in the table description are not stated. 22. L. 191: please make reference to the figure number. Discussion. 23. L. 264: I would suggest to change “In the study” to “In this study”. 24. L. 266: Fst in italic. 25. I really feel it is missing connection between the results and the camel populations history. I think the manuscript would improve greatly if the authors would change from a descriptive discussion to a more “story telling” format around the subject. This means that maybe there should be a bit more contextualization of these populations first (starting already in the introduction), and then relate to their findings, instead of just being very descriptive in major results. This would be very helpful to better understand their findings. This also connects to one of my comments on creating better flow between sentences. 26. L.284-285: Please elaborate on how this finding fills in the knowledge gap. Reviewer #2: Manuscript PONE-D-20-20388 seemed to be designed, based on the same RAD-seq data reported before by the same group of authors (Liu CM, Chen HL, Ren ZJ, Zhang CD, Yang XJ. Population genetic analysis of the domestic Bactrian camel in China by RAD-seq. Ecology and evolution. 2019;34(4): 11232-11242. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5624.), to examine the population differentiation and then selection signals of the seven Chinese Bactrian camels. After reading their early article published in 2019, it is hard to see the value of publishing this manuscript with limited new result. 1. The manuscript is written in very poor English. 2. The data and major analyses including FST and principle component analyses were already included in the article published by the same authors. 3. The selection signal analyses based on the π value and FST values from the comparison of the Hexi camel population with the other six camel populations make almost no sense. Considering the very low number of samples and also genetic admixture of the Hexi camels with Dongjiang, Qinghai or Sunite camels as shown in the article of 2019 and also the genetic differentiation of the Qinghai camels at PC1 in this manuscript, it is not justified to treat Hexi camels as a control population. Therefore, the annotations of the what so called functional genes are not reliable at all. 4. Further detailed comments are shown in the reviewed manuscript using the annotation tools in the PDF format. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-20-20388R1 Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China by restriction site-associated DNA sequencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ren, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In general, the authors have tried to address my suggestions, but not all of them. I can see an improvement on sentence connection, but I am not sure if this was enough to improve the manuscript in general. I feel the authors could have taken more time to analyse and answer to each of my suggestions, and either apply them or justify their choices. Also, I still cannot understand - and it was also mentioned by me on the first review - why the authors have chosen the Hexi population as a control population. Unfortunately, in a meaningful biological way, the justifications are not enough for a proper scientific understanding, and this part being their main finding (selection), it has to be improved. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-20388R2 Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China by restriction site-associated DNA sequencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ren, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: No ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: This manuscript has already been reviewed, as this a second revised version, however, I see it for the first time. It is rather unusual that a new reviewer is selected during such a late stage of an ongoing review process. In the attached manuscript it is possible to see only one comment of reviewer 1. Therefore it is unfortunately not possible for me to build on and add to previous comments, but I have to provide a completely new review to the best of my knowledge. The authors provide an interesting manuscript with the aim to identify selection signals in several groups of domestic Bactrian camels from China. However, the approach the authors took is not entirely clear. Major comments: *) The same or at least a very similar data set has already been published in 2019 in Ecology and Evolution by the author team (Liu et al. 2019): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5624?af=R Figure 2 in this manuscript and Figure 6 in Liu et al. 2019 are basically the same, and Table 1 in this manuscript is very similar to Liu et al. 2019. As it is not good scientific practice to publish data a second time, even if they come from the same author team (self plagiarism), I suggest that it should be clearly stated that the population structure has already been identified in a previous study (Liu et al. 2019) - the sentence in l57-61 is not sufficient - and the PCA should be removed from this manuscript. *) Selection Signals: It is not clear for me why the authors use Hexi as "control group" for exploring genomic resources (l52-53 and l71-73). What is the rationale behind this? It is clear from the previous manuscript (Liu et al. 2019) that Hexi camels are genetically more distant from the other investigated Bactrian camel groups, however, what is the meaning of "control group" here? This is not a case-control study. Why is it necessary to have a control group for detecting selection signals? To the best of my knowledge, methods for detecting signals of selection (like FST outliers, Tajima's D, Codml from PAML package, etc....) do not require a control group. What do the authors want to control for? It is not clear why the selection signals are separately assessed for those groups, which genetically cluster together. It would be better to analyze them jointly to get a stronger signal. Otherwise, the rationale of investigating selection in the groups separately should be explained. Are there any overlapping signals of selection between the groups? Please can the authors provide a supplementary table with a full list of the top 1% genes from the FST outlier screening, which were then subjected to GO and KEGG analyses. *) SNP calling (l162-163): Usually a missingness rate of 10% (=90% of genotypes are present in all samples) is used in population studies using SNPs, it might be acceptable to go down to 25% of missing genotypes, however 50% of missing genotypes is not acceptable according to my point of view. What about filtering for Hardy Weinberg Equilibirum (HWE) and minor allele frequencies (MAF), which are standard filtering steps for SNPs? Minor comments: l53-54: The description of the Y-chromosomal resources (Felkel et al. 2019) is out of context here. It shows differentiation between domestic and wild two-humped camels, while this manuscript deals with different domestic Bactrian camel breeds. Please either remove or put into context. l82: Please provide the concentration and the provider of the anesthetic as well as the amount (ml/kg) applied to the camels. Figure 1: The scientific content (geographic origin of the samples) is not reflected properly in figure 1. The districts or geographical regions where the samples originate from (e.g., Gansu, Xinjiang, etc.) are not presented, while the lines of longitude and latitude do not provide any relevant information. Fig.3-6: The figures cannot be evaluated, as the letters are too small and when zooming in, the resolution is not enough to read the text. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-20-20388R3 Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China by restriction site-associated DNA sequencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ren, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: No ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: No ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to revise the manuscript. Unfortunately many of my comments were not considered in the manuscript text and the authors' explanations why they did not consider them are not satisfactorily. I just can repeat my previous comments that the authors still include previously published data in this manuscript, which does not follow good scientific practice. Either the authors show convincingly what is different in the data set presented or they need to remove all of the previously published data (Table 2, l165-189). Similarly, the filtering of the SNP data set is not performed sufficiently rigorous to ensure robust results for their research question, namely selection in the different camel populations. See my comments below in "Methods". It is clear that there is larger genetic difference between the Hexi camelsbut again, there is no rationale to use it as "control" camel group is used as a reference explained in the manuscript text, now it is only included in the answer- Hexi camels can be treated like the other camel groups, and FST outliers - to detect signals of selection can be estimated and discussed in the light of the different production traits and geographical location. Moreover, higher FSTs between Hexi and the other camel populations can just be signal of drift and geographic isolation. How do the authors There is no logic behind a "control" group. Introduction: l53-57: The Y-chromosomal SNP analysis is still out of the context here. What does the Y-chromosomal differentiation between wild and domestic camels have to do with the differentiation among domestic camels? Methods: I acknowledge that that there are different approaches for data filtering which depend on the research question. The paper, which is cited by the authors, e.g, doi: 10.1002/ece3.6016., has a completely different research question. In that paper actually the "potential heterozygote miscall rate was estimated by comparing the observed number of heterozygous individuals with the number expected given the allele frequency and assuming the SNP was in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. Based on this the 50% missing rate was inferred. Based on this a data set containing only genotypes with read depths between 30 and 300 copies, MAF ≥0.01 and NAs ≤0.5 was created." On top, the authors used another data set with "only" 25% of missing genotypes to answer their questions to "determine the effects of the MAF, the proportion of missing data and the number of SNPs on Ne estimates when applying the LD approach to RADseq data." And actually they detected a difference of Ne estimates up to 7.5-fold using different filtering thresholds: "Depending on the combination of threshold values, Ne estimates varied by up to a factor of 7.5." Filtering SNPs which below a certain HWE value (usually 10-6 or using an FDR as cut-off is a method to account for genotyping errors. The same accounts for filtering for a minor allele frequency, which the authors completely ignore. Here, the authors look for signatures of selection, which actually requires a rigorously filtered dataset to avoid false positive signals. If they want to include SNPs which are actually not present in 50% of the dataset, they have to justify this approach. Therefore, I encourage the authors to repeat their analysis with a less amount of missing genotyping data and show that the same results can be retrieved with both datasets. Results: The authors still present already published results and simply removed Figure 2 from the figures, but not as results from the text (Table 2, l165-189), even the PCA is still mentioned as Fig.2. All results, which have been published previously need to be removed. English correction is necessary throughout the manuscript. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 4 |
|
PONE-D-20-20388R4 Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China through restriction site-associated DNA sequencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ren, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: No ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: Major 1) I agree with the Reviewer#3 that choosing Hexi camels as the reference for selection analysis is not appropriate. Even if Hexi camels are geographically, genetically and phenotypically different from other camels, there is no evidence that the other populations are derived from Hexi camels. I think a better strategy is to compare each population with the pool of all remaining others. 2) In regard to the SNP quality, I think an independent dataset is needed to justify the authors’ filtering strategy. In fact, there are a lot of WGS data for domesticated Bactrian camels (e.g. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0734-6). It is surprising that the authors did not mention any recent research progress of the camel genome. 3) P3:51-54 The authors listed many phenotype differences among the populations such as heat resistance, villus yields, but there is no data or reference support the claims. Minor Text in figures is not friendly to read. For example, what does “-log10({\\pi_{N}})” mean? ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 5 |
|
Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China through restriction site-associated DNA sequencing PONE-D-20-20388R5 Dear Dr. Ren, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-20388R5 Exploring the genomic resources of seven domestic Bactrian camel populations in China through restriction site-associated DNA sequencing Dear Dr. Ren: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .