Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 17, 2022
Decision Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

PONE-D-22-07044Genetic relationship and source species identification of 58 Qi-Nan germplasms of Aquilaria species in China that easily form agarwoodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KANG,

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 May 22 2022 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:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: The authors have attempted to identify germplasm resources of Aquilaria species using DNA barcoding analysis with the help of one nuclear and chloroplast genes or their combination. The manuscript is well written and the results are clearly presented. However, to get a better resolution of genetic differences, it is highly recommended to use molecular markers like SSR or ISSR or a combination of DNA barcoding and these molecular markers.

Reviewer #2: “Qi-Nan” is an important agarwood species valued for its fragrance and medicinal importance. Authors have made efforts to identify its source species using DNA barcoding analysis and inferred A. sinensis. to be the source species of “Qi-Nan”. The overall quality of manuscript the way it is written needs to be improved. My major concerns are as below:

1. Please mark Figure 1 properly

2. In line 136, please provide the full detail of the DNA isolation kit used.

3. It will be appropriate the address the primer pairs used in this study as universal primers rather than common primers (LINE 136)

4. Please rewrite methods sections, some of the information is duplicated while some sections need elaboration e.q.1) Data analysis section contain the duplicated information

2) the name of sequencing platform and the methodology of sequencing is not provided

5. Reference 2 is not complete

6. In general, few references are misleading in the manuscript. Authors are requested to recheck the citation used in the manuscript

7. It would have been appropriate to dedicate the last section of discussions to conclusion and future aspects but the last section appears more of the introductory part of the manuscript

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-07044_reviewer (1).pdf
Revision 1

Dear Dr. Pankaj Bhardwaj,

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

We would like to thank you and the two reviewers for your careful and thoughtful consideration of our manuscript. In particular, we were pleased that the Editor and reviewers were interested in the identification of Qi-Nan germplasms. We have taken care to integrate the suggestions brought up during review and feel that the paper is greatly improved by the process. We are confident that we have addressed the concerns brought up during review.

Sincerely,

Yong Kang

Comment is from Reviewer 1

Comment: The authors have attempted to identify germplasm resources of Aquilaria species using DNA barcoding analysis with the help of one nuclear and chloroplast genes or their combination. The manuscript is well written and the results are clearly presented. However, to get a better resolution of genetic differences, it is highly recommended to use molecular markers like SSR or ISSR or a combination of DNA barcoding and these molecular markers.

Response: Thank you very much for your advice. DNA barcoding technology has been widely used in species identification, especially in the identification of closely related species and germplasm resources. It has the advantages of strong objectivity, high accuracy and rapid identification. The combinations ITS2+matK had the highest success rate, the correct match rates of “best match”, “best close match” and “all species” for these combinations were 93.84% in this study. The results can support the accuracy of identification of the source species of Qi-Nan germplasms. However, I will focus on the combination of SSR or ISSR with DNA barcoding to get a better resolution of genetic differences in the future research.

Comments are from Reviewer 2

“Qi-Nan” is an important agarwood species valued for its fragrance and medicinal importance. Authors have made efforts to identify its source species using DNA barcoding analysis and inferred A. sinensis. to be the source species of “Qi-Nan”. The overall quality of manuscript the way it is written needs to be improved.

The major concerns of reviewers are as below:

Comment 1: Please mark Figure 1 properly.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Figure 1 has been marked.

Comment 2: In line 136, please provide the full detail of the DNA isolation kit used.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Full details of the DNA isolation kit used have been supplemented.

Comment 3: It will be appropriate the address the primer pairs used in this study as universal primers rather than common primers (LINE 136).

Response: Thanks very much. I have finished the modification according to your comments.

Comment 4: Please rewrite methods sections, some of the information is duplicated while some sections need elaboration e.q.1) Data analysis section contain the duplicated information. 2) the name of sequencing platform and the methodology of sequencing is not provided.

Response: Thank you very much for your review. I have rewritten the method section. On the one hand, the content of duplicate information in data analysis has been modified. And on the other hand, DNA sequencing methods and platforms have been supplemented.

Comment 5: Reference 2 is not complete.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. I have replaced reference 2.

Comment 6: In general, few references are misleading in the manuscript. Authors are requested to recheck the citation used in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. I have rechecked and revised the citations used in the manuscript.

Comment 7: It would have been appropriate to dedicate the last section of discussions to conclusion and future aspects but the last section appears more of the introductory part of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for your advice. I have revised in the discussion and conclusion according to your comments.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response letter.docx
Decision Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

Genetic relationship and source species identification of 58 Qi-Nan germplasms of Aquilaria species in China that easily form agarwood

PONE-D-22-07044R1

Dear Dr. KANG,

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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors have made attempts to identify Qi-Nan germplasm using DNA barcoding. The combination of barcodes identified in the present study will facilitate the breeding programs and agarwood production in future.

Authors have incorporated the suggestions. I have made few correction in the annotated manuscript. Authors are requested to carefully check the manuscript for minor typographical errors.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

PONE-D-22-07044R1

Genetic relationship and source species identification of 58 Qi-Nan germplasms of Aquilaria species in China that easily form agarwood

Dear Dr. Kang:

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. Pankaj Bhardwaj

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 .