thank you for reviewer’s comments, we made changes accordingly. We added statistical analysis for CNA association between case and reference groups (please see page 5).
My main issue is with the way the results are presented. The authors claim that they observed statistical differences between case and reference groups yet they do not preform a statistical test, nor give any p-value. Even if they performed a test, important questions remain on the selection of the reference. The ancestry of HapMap is not latino so therefore any test between cases and references will be confounded by ancestry. The PCA they show is probably capturing those differences instead of real differences given by disease status and, by the way, I question the usefulness of this PCA. My suggestion is to offer a better background for these results by trying to answer two main questions: 1)