Submited on: 23 Mar 2014 07:27:55 PM GMT
Published on: 24 Mar 2014 05:23:51 AM GMT
 
EST-SSRs in Mungbean
Posted by Dr. Rupesh K Deshmukh on 07 Apr 2014 04:13:04 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Mungbean is orphan crop and as authors highlighted very limited genomic resources are available. In present study Authors have evaluated microsatellites identified in ESTs. Since, the number of ESTs and GSS are very limited so not significant to test for microsatellite evolution or characterisation per se. I suggest Author to try for development of markers based on EST-SSR in Mungbeans. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Claims are novel- no previous significant  efforts have been made toward EST-SSR development in Mungbean 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Statistical significance, and comparison with other legumes required


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Author can try characterisation of SSRs in species evolutionary close to mungbean


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Not a outstanding, SSR mining is routine practice, It could be interesting if author could review genomic resources for orphan crops like mungbean


  • Other Comments:

    Need to be correct typo mistakes

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Singh, H., Deshmukh, R. K., Singh, A., Singh, A. K., Gaikwad, K., Sharma, T. R., ... & Singh, N. K. (2010). Highly variable SSR markers suitable for rice genotyping using agarose gels. Molecular breeding, 25(2), 359-364.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Working on SSR mining from last 10 years

  • How to cite:  Deshmukh R K.EST-SSRs in Mungbean[Review of the article 'Identification and Characterization of EST-SSRs in Mungbean ' by Gacche R].WebmedCentral 2014;5(4):WMCRW003031
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Identification and Characterization of EST-SSRs in Mungbean
Posted by Dr. Jai Ghosh on 25 Mar 2014 05:19:57 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The crop Vigna radiata is an important crop in India. It is indeed a comendable effort to study the genomics of this plant which would go a long way in improving the agronomic values.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes, these claims are novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not just properly, but very well placed


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results support the claims.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    The protocols are quite routine and no major deviations are seen.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology is sufficient and the analyses can be reproduced.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes it outstanding in the sense that an attempt has been made to create a database of this crop.


  • Other Comments:

    Nothing in particular.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    None

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    This is an important piece of Bioinformatics subject dealing with database of genomics and I have the necessary expertise in this field.

  • How to cite:  Ghosh J .Identification and Characterization of EST-SSRs in Mungbean[Review of the article 'Identification and Characterization of EST-SSRs in Mungbean ' by Gacche R].WebmedCentral 2014;5(3):WMCRW003021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse