Genome-wide assessment of population structure and genetic diversity of Allium karataviense using double digest restriction site-associated dna sequencing

Yüklə 6,28 Mb.

Ergashov Ibrokhimjon2.3.2022

**Genome-wide assessment of population structure and genetic diversity of Allium karataviense using double digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing.**

Abstract. Uzbekistan is widely regarded as one of the most diversified sources of the species of Tulipa L. The present study provides the synopsis of the genus Tulipa in this area. According to literature reviews and field surveys, the genus includes 33 species (34 taxa) distributed in Uzbekistan. In this paper, more than 1300 herbarium specimens deposited in the National Herbarium of Uzbekistan, Tashkent (TASH) were utilized to provide comprehensive genus coverage. The evaluation of their distribution, taxonomic classification and conservation were described. Geographical and taxonomical analyses, diagnostic keys at both sectional and species levels as well as morphologic illustrations of most species of the genus distributed in Uzbekistan are provided.

Seed macro- and micro- morphology in Allium (Amaryllidaceae) and its phylogenetic significance

However, if you can see your way to dealing satisfactorily with the various criticisms we would be happy to consider a resubmission of this work. When resubmitting, you should use the Covering Letter to comment on changes you have or have not made in response to the referees' and Handling Editor's criticisms. Please do not re-register as a new user. During resubmission, please indicate, in the appropriate place, that the paper is a resubmission and quote the number of the original manuscript (21777).

But unfortunately, there are also many mistakes when assigning some species to the correct section and discrepancy in the text and signatures in the figures. Here are just a few examples: Allium denudatum (A. albidum) - belong to section Rhizirideum, and not to sect. Codonoprasum(A)……….
But my biggest complaint is the molecular part of the manuscript. The selection of the ITS sequences in the gene bank raises too many questions. There are several sequences of some species in Genbank, but selected and indicated some are incomplete (E.g. A. geyeri only ITS2; or did not come from Allium (e.g. A. carolinianum - HG690573 Eimeria praecox!?, If this is just about confusing a letter - G instead of Q, then it could be HQ690573, but it's not A. carolinianum but A. condensatum. A. carolinianum is HQ690570.AJ250300 is not Nothoscordum bivalve but Tulbagia fragrans(B)*.
In general, I do not understand why not for all species of which the seed surface was examined and of which the ITS sequences are available in the gene bank, are not included in the analysis(C)*.
My quickly calculated tree with sequences from appendix plus with replacement of the wrong accessions on correct one shows other topology, where e.g. A. neriniflorum is right basal in the second evolution line. The ITS tree should be recalculated with new sequences(D)*.

*(B)Accessions numbers have been taken Friesen et al. 2006, Li et al. 2010, Choi et al. 2012.
*(C) Our former ITS tree had 67 species, now we have 74 species.

(B) Page 4, Line 34: On what basis were these sequences for a given species selected for the construction of a phylogenetic tree? This requires an explanation in the text as to why only 67 species of Allium were selected for phylogenetic analysis and the seed morphology was examined on 98 species.

(C) Table 2: Seed length-width. Are these measurements referenced to a single seed and were taken under a scanning microscope? Were more seeds measured?

Yüklə 6,28 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş: