Nodosilinea hunanesis sp. nov. (Prochlorotrichaceae, Synechococcales) from a Freshwater Pond in China Based on a Polyphasic Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Submitted manuscript pays attentions to a very problematic genus of cyanobacteria – Nodosilinea. The genus was established approximately 10 years ago and many observations were made all over the World. I am happy to see a new species and consider all investigations sufficient for description of new species. Disadvantage of this manuscript is one original strain only. I would appreciate more strains from the genus Nodosilinea. It would be better for description of both morphological and molecular variability. Otherwise, the manuscript follows a standard polyphasic approach applied for description of new species.  

My detailed comments:

• Name of species. I understand that the authors want to name the species in honor to the Zhangjiajie National Park. However, I am doubtful that non-Chinese speaking scientists will be able to pronounce Latin epithet without problem. I recommend to use standard Latin word.
• Rows 16 and 19 “Leptolyngby” must be “Leptolyngbya”
• Row 74 “fond” must be “found”
• Rows 144-152, Description, I recommend to follow the standard for descriptions of cyanobacteria according to Anagnostidis and Komárek (Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa…). For filamentous species in order: thallus, filaments, sheath, trichome, cells and reproduction. My suggestion: Thallus blue-green, macroscopic, in aggregates. Filaments straight or bent, unbranched, solitary, free-floating. Sheath soft, layered, colorless, adherent to the edges of the cells, often becoming wide. Trichomes isodiametric, constricted at the cross walls, forming long, loose spirals under normal light condition, nodules present under low light intensity (<4 μmol/(m-2·s-1)). Cells green to blue-green, slightly cylindrical, more or less longer than wide, 1.02–1.75–2.74 μm long, 1.10–1.10–1.34 μm wide, length: width ratio 1.0–2.42, cell content divided into peripheral chromatoplasma and central nucleoplasma. Thylakoids parietal arranged (4–5 per cell). Reproduction by hormogonia or trichome breakage (necridic cells?). … You should find whether necridic cells occur or not.
• Row 153 – complete citation of deposited strain including abbreviation of culture collection.
• Figure 1 – very low quality of pictures d-f. I understand that Nodosilinea is a very problematic cyanobacterium for taking photos. However, documentation of holotype must be the best as you can do. Especially, apomorphic features must be visible. The picture (d) shows disintegrating filament, probably old, stressed filament. It is not suitable for the holotype characterization. You can add line drawings. It can be better for documentation of problematic details.
• Row 175 – “16S rDNA” change to “16S rRNA”
• Row 180 – “Bootstrap values greater than“ change to „Bootstrap values higher than“
• Row 228 – “The filamentous morphological characteristics of the stain ZJJ01 were in accordance with those of family Leptolyngbyaceae.“ It sounds strange to me. I suggest: “The morphological features of the strain …”
• Rows 274-275 – “In recent two years, we have carried out a survey on the diversity of Leptolyngbya-like cyanobacteria in different habitats in China, and …“ Can you cite in the references?
• References – I found missing italics in some Latin names. Please check all references.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After evaluating the manuscript, the following comments/suggestions are provided to improve the manuscript.

Abstract:

Line 21: “threshold value” instead of “threshold”

Line 22: “genetically distinct” is a broad term. It is suggested to provide a clear message.

Line 23: What is meaning of “total evidence approach? Better to write a “polyphasic approach”

Introduction:

Line 35: It is better to write “16S rRNA gene” instead of 16S rDNA. Please go through entre MS and use the same pattern of writing.

Line 36: What is the meaning of “genetic identity based on 16SrRNA gene”? Please correct the sentence.

Line 49-51: Morphology--------related group.  Provide suitable citation and also add in the references.

Line 63-75: This part of the MS seems superfluous in Introduction and may be incorporated in the Discussion at the appropriate place.

Line 77-78: Morphology and molecular characteristics are part of a polyphasic approach. Reframing of the sentence is required.

Line 80-83: “The purpose----------------described”. This part has to be rewritten to make the same more lucid.

Materials and Methods:

Line 100: “taken” not “taking”

Line 102: “camera was used to observed and described: Check the sentence and rewrite.

Line 105: 107: How conventional identification on the basis of morphology, ecology, etc. was done? Mention the citation of literature used for tentative identification of the studied strain.

Line 105: “according to [36]”, it not a proper way to mention citation. May like “according to (name of author) then citation number.

Line: 138: “2.5. 16S-23S” instead of “2.516. S-23S”

Results:

Line 147: “forming long and loose” instead of “forming long, loose”

What about gas vesicle/vacuole? Are present or not, please mention in the text.

Line 175: 16S rRNA gene” instead of “16S rDNA”

Line 187: “3.3. 16S-23 ITS region” instead of “3.316 S-23 ITS region”

Discussion:

Line 260-262: Are other species do not found in fresh water habitat? Provide interpretation accordingly.

Line 265: “these evidences” instead of this evidence”

Line 267-277: This portion seems to be irrelevant at the last of the manuscript. It may be included at the suitable in the discussion, if necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment my comment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx