Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC LINKS BETWEEN ENDOMETRIOSIS AND CANCERS IN WOMEN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article by Bhyan et al. deals with the analysis of genetic links between endometriosis and cancers in women. This study represents a very well designed multidisciplinary investigation in this field.
A well-designed functional analysis of major endometriosis-related genes was conducted in an attempt to gain insights for the function of the identified genes as well as the relevant biochemical pathways and processes involved in cancer and tumor progression. Interconnectivity of endometriosis-related genes is another major issue of the article under review, considering that a number of the findings, related to the derived gene networks, may be used in prognostic studies of endometriosis. The authors also pointed out the importance of the high frequency of genetic alterations observed in various endometriosis-related genes. Moreover, another key-issue of this article refers to the functional enrichment performed, which revealed common genetic mutations to be involved in the development of both endometriosis and four types of women cancer.
Overall this study has a very good potential, the results are clear and impressive and, possibly, of high clinical significance at the stage of prognosis. It is well organized, the questions are clear and the approaches followed are straightforward. The entire information is well presented and convincing and the reasoning is logical. The introduction is clear enough with sufficient data and references to support the study hypothesis. The methodology used is correct and appropriate and the quality of writing is sufficient. The tables and figures are very comprehensive and help in summarizing the data and to a better understanding of the findings. Most of the relevant references have been included and detailed information is presented dealing with the current literature.
Experimental design: The methodology used is correct and appropriate and the quality of writing is sufficient.The tables and figures are very comprehensive and help in summarizing the data and to a better understanding of the findings
Validity of the findings: Overall this study has a very good potential, the results are clear and impressive and, possibly, of high clinical significance at the stage of prognosis. It is well organized, the questions are clear and the approaches followed are straightforward. The entire information is well presented and convincing and the reasoning is logical. The introduction is clear enough with sufficient data and references to support the study hypothesis.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENETIC LINKS BETWEEN ENDOMETRIOSIS AND CANCERS IN WOMEN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English could be improved somewhat as there are several typos. Apart from this, the reporting is fine (although I would suggest citing the recently published meta-analysis by Gandini et al. on cancer risk among endometriosis patients in the Introduction).
Experimental design: The design is sound and methods are described thoroughly, although I fear that many readers could be unfamiliar with the database, software, etc. that were exploited by the Authors. Thus, some more details on this would be helpful.
Validity of the findings: This paper has no very strong conclusions, rather it is kind of an overview of genetic alterations in endometriosis and women's cancers that may serve to generate hypotheses for further study. Because of the nature of this paper, some parts of the Discussion (in particular, the second and third paragraphs) are quite generic and should be tweaked to be rendered more specific to endometriosis.
Additional comments: In general, the authors should be commended for embarking on this review. As stated before, conclusions are not surprising overall, which is somehow to be expected when the main finding is a long list of genes. However, this paper may serve in the future as a sort of catalog of genetic links between endometriosis and cancer, to generate more specific and clear-cut hypotheses to be investigated in dedicated, analytical studies.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GUT MICROBIOME OF SWAMP EEL (MONOPTERUS ALBUS) BY 16S RRNA GENE SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors are recommended to re-check Peer J authors instructions:

1) about the reference guidelines, especially how to include references in the text (e.g. line 54 – 55, 59, 63,65, 69, 124, 196)
and

2) about Style Considerations, "Species formatting" section and correct where is necessary (e.g. line 142)
Experimental design: 1) The net cages location of the commercial swamp eel farm should be mentioned, and if/ where and how they have been transferred. Please also provide more information’s about the husbandry techniques and the experimental design.

2) Why choose to use two different isolation kits? Any reason?

3) Is not clear what has been used for the DNA isolation and referred as mucosa in the experiment. Is the gut tissue? Make more clear description for the different sample categories.

4) Please rephrase the sentence  line 106 – 107 “The raw sequencing data were removed the barcodes and low quality sequences to obtain the clean data using hASTX-Toolkit.”
Validity of the findings: 1) Please rephrase the sentence line 140 – 141 “To further uncover characteristics of microbial compositions in different gut compartments, relative abundances of OTUs assigned for the phylum level and the genus level were analyzed (figure 3).”

2) Line 153 – 155 “To identify the differential enrichment of the core microbial taxa in specific gut compartment, we analyzed the abundance of the 54 core OTUs across all compartments. As shown in figure 4, total 36 compartment-specific enriched OTUs were observed.”

Add all the 54 core OTUs in the heat map to make clear your result.

3) Enrich the discussion. I suggest improving it by discussing findings from relevant studies (e.g. gut microbiota from other eel species)
Additional comments: I recommend the authors to use transition words (moreover, furthermore, in addition) instead of "what's more" (line 67, 138, 179, 210).

I would like also to suggest the authors to use “gut section” instead of “gut compartment”


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GUT MICROBIOME OF SWAMP EEL (MONOPTERUS ALBUS) BY 16S RRNA GENE SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper entitled “Systematic evaluation of the gut microbiome of swamp eel (Monopterus albus) by 16S rRNA gene sequencing” aims at characterizing the microbiota and their predicted functions associated to the foregut, hindgut, and stools of swamp eel using the sequencing of the V3-V4 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene. It is a manuscript with adequate experimental design and data analysis. There are some problems with the writing. Some sentences are awkward and unclear or not a complete sentence. The manuscript would benefit greatly from having someone with a good command of English proofreading it, particularly on sentence structure and word choices. While the English is adequate for general understanding, it is still difficult to follow the authors' arguments.
Nevertheless, there are few major issues with either the experimental design or data analysis that prevents from completely supporting the claims and conclusions made in the manuscript.

Literature references are sufficient field background/context. The results are relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: Nevertheless, there are few major issues with either the experimental design or data analysis that prevents from completely supporting the claims and conclusions made in the manuscript.

1. The alpha diversity analysis shows a difference between analyzed sections of the swamp eel. It seems that author used the total sequencing depth for this analysis. To compare between samples these metrics should be made at the same sequence deep for all the groups of samples. The sequence depth between the treatments could be different and this result is strongly influenced by sequence depth. The authors should demonstrate and discuss that a similar effect is maintained using alpha diversity metrics calculated at the same sequence depth (using at least 1000 iterations). In this manner, they can obtain and compare metrics such as observed OUT’s at the same sequence depth between the groups of samples and also they can calculate p-values for this metric among the tested groups. Thus, authors eliminate the bias that sequence depth actually has on their results. Please include the rarefaction curves used to calculate the observed OTUs for all the samples as a supplementary figure.

2. It is not clear for this reviewer if the authors used the core of OTUs or the differential OTUS to predict the potential function. Please clarify. A PCoA of weighted UNIFRAC distances should be included and discussed as a supplemental figure to improve their results between fish sections.  The authors should describe the number of total reads that were unclassified. The database used to classify the sequencing reads was not reported in materials and methods. The authors used SILVA or GreenGenes?

3. Lines 196-200. This result is probably due to that authors used the observed OTUs using different sequencing depth. Please include a table containing the number of reads for each sample and clarify the sequence deep used for alpha diversity analysis (observed OTUs).

4. It is important to acknowledge PiCrust limitations. The method is based on the annotated functions of known genomes in the database to which the 16S sequences were able to be mapped. Thus, is important to include the NSTI values and consider those values in the discussion in the context of literature using PiCrust such as shrimps or human.

5. How the authors define that an OTU was shared; when it appeared in at least one sample or in all the samples? How the authors define that an OUT was specific; when it was not shared between treatments or when it was enriched independently of the number of samples in which was present?

Lines 122-124. Please clarify where the PERMANOVA was used. The article never discusses the result of this analysis.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Minor changes

Lines 89-90. Were the samples mixed or separately used for sequencing? This point should be clarified.
Line 98. Was the DNA extracted from the total mucosa?
Lines 104. What is the sequencing platform used for the analysis, MiSeq 2x300, 2x150, 2x100?
LiNES 106-108. Please clarify the Phred score used as a cut-off. Doy you removed N’s from the sequences?
Lines 108-109. Dou you removed the singletons from the OTU’s table?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GUT MICROBIOME OF SWAMP EEL (MONOPTERUS ALBUS) BY 16S RRNA GENE SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. It would be benefic for the non-expert readers if the authors could describe, in the Introduction section, the structure and physiology of the different gut compartments of the swamp eel, as well as the feed habit of this fish in captivity and wild life. In this context, please include a hypothesis regarding the possible microorganisms to be detected.
2. Please provide a better definition and reference for probiotic used in aquaculture (L55-56).
3. I could not access to both data sets, please check the accession number.
4. The abstract is not structured according to PeerJ standards.
5. Please include in all the legend’s figures the number of analyzed individuals. In figure 1 indicates if the results showed averages of these individuals.
Experimental design: Method section:
1. Please provide more information about the diet (ingredient composition) and fish weight.
2. Please explain how the gut mucosa was sampled.
3. DNA extraction was performed from the 4 individuals? Please explain.
4. Describe the quality checking performed with the raw sequences
Validity of the findings: 1. How many sequences were obtained per samples?
2. Please provide rarefaction curves of the all the sequenced samples to observe the coverage of the sequencing.
3. The OTUs number, %abundance, and other results corresponded to an average of the 4 individuals?
4. L245-250: provide some evidence and references regarding the oxygen concentration in the eel’s intestine. A deeper analysis including all microorganisms detected is necessary to associate aerobic or anaerobic bacteria to a specific intestinal compartment.
5. Please justify  the use of 2 DNA extraction kits,  and discuss how the use of different methods can influence the bacterial diversity oberved.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GUT MICROBIOME OF SWAMP EEL (MONOPTERUS ALBUS) BY 16S RRNA GENE SEQUENCING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have shown a lot of effort to improve the manuscript. However, there are many grammatical, linguistic and spelling mistakes that should be revised.
Experimental design: With the additional informations, the "Methods" section is now more clear and comprehensible
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BENCHMARKING PROTOCOLS FOR THE METAGENOMIC ANALYSIS OF STREAM BIOFILM VIROMES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the writing is good, but more work needs to go into explaining the methods. I have included notes in my review. Environmental virus literature is well cited and review, but in the introduction there is to much focus on bulk metagenomes and not enough on virus targeted metagenomics (viromics). All the raw data is available. I made suggestions for the figures in my review and I also recommend clustering the viruses into viral populations.
Experimental design: The overall design is correct and the optimization efforts are a good addition. The authors did a lot of work to target both ssDNA and dsDNA viruses including reading and citing relevant literature, and using the correct library kit and amplification methods, but did not target the correct CsCl density range to capture ssDNA and much of the dsDNA viruses.  The targeted bioinformatic analyses for ssDNA are not well described. Please go through the methods section and be more descriptive of all the approaches.
Validity of the findings: The work here is novel and interesting and well help future viral analyses of freshwater bio films. Some of the discussion and conclusions need to be re-evaluated based on my suggestions.
Additional comments: This paper has a lot of solid work and the figures are appealing. It is a lot for any reader to digest, so please work on making it a little clearer.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BENCHMARKING PROTOCOLS FOR THE METAGENOMIC ANALYSIS OF STREAM BIOFILM VIROMES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper describes the development and validation of a methodological pipeline for extracting viruses from stream biofilms for the purposes of virus enumeration and virome sequencing.  While none of these techniques are novel, the authors are clear that they are adapting previously described protocols for a unique application (specifically, stream biofilms).  All data are accessible and the final protocol is made available on protocols.io
Experimental design: Given that this is a methods paper, there were a few areas where I felt details were lacking and/or references to prior protocols are needed.  I've detailed them below:
1) Line 88 - what volume was used to collect the biofilm and processed downstream?  Is there a standard volume suggestion relative to surface area of stones?
2) Line 95 - is there a reference that has previously used the tetrasodium pyrophosphate and sonication method?
3) Line 121 - verify that 100 xg is correct?  Seems very slow...
4) Line 153 - is there a reference for treatment with DTT and why this concentration was chosen?
5) Line 166 – provide a reference for the 16S rRNA gene primers.  Also, were any tests performed to determine if there are inhibitors present in the DNA produced when following this protocol?
6) Lines 177 and 180 – how much volume was harvested as the viral fraction from the CsCl or sucrose ultracentrifugation?
7) Line 179 – provide a reference for the sucrose densities used?  Protocols.io includes a link to a sucrose cushion protocol but it’s for pelleting viruses through a sucrose cushion, not layering and capturing the viruses between the layers as is done in this protocol.
8) Line 188 – add the concentration of SYBR Gold used
9) Line 200 – “purified viral samples were suspended in” is a little misleading because it makes it sound like the viral particles are pelleted or not contained in a volume of liquid.  Possibly better to just say that 0.1 volume of TE, etc… was added to the purified samples
10) Line 202 – is this cold EtOH that is added?
11) Reference for the CTAB protocol?

Minor text edits:
1) Line 88, "benthic biofilm" should be "benthic biofilms"
2) Line 97, reword "worked fine for us previously" to "has been previously established"
3) Throughout the manuscript, apostrophes are often used instead of commas in numbers (e.g., line 111 but this happens throughout)
4) Line 116: Reword to say "Extraction aims to liberate VLP from the biofilm matrix, while purification aims to reduce the amount of contaminating nucleic acids and cellular debris.
5) Line 278 – “This pipeline also yielded the highest DNA concentration” – add “the”
6) Lines 258-364: These sentences are confusing, please reword for clarity.  Why does it matter that ssDNA viruses lack a lipid envelope for their susceptibility to chloroform?  Add a reference for the fact that some tailed phage are sensitive to chloroform.
7) Line 361: Phycodnaviridae should be italicized
8) Line 379: I found the ending of this section to be pretty abrupt – maybe add a few sentences about the library construction, sequencing, bioinformatics?
9) The reference formatting is very inconsistent – some journal titles are abbreviated, others are written out fully.  Some titles are all first letter capitals, others are sentence-style capitalization.
10) Figure 2 caption – I don’t see some of the morphologies mentioned in the caption, such as the lemon-shaped particles.  I suggest labeling each panel of this figure and referring to each one by letter after the corresponding morphology in the legend.  In addition, the center panel appears to be similar to a plant virus in morphology, which might be worth mentioning in the list of morphologies.
11) Figure 5: It is very difficult to distinguish the different colors in this figure.  Also, I believe this graph refers to the number of contigs belonging to each viral type, but it would also be useful to see the number of reads mapping to contigs belonging to each viral type because otherwise you could have 1 highly represented full genome and that will get a much smaller piece of the graph than something with many contigs but low coverage.
Validity of the findings: I have three concerns with this paper:
1) The use of only DNase I to eliminate contaminating nucleic acids is fine for viromes focused on dsDNA; however, it should be noted (at least in the discussion) that DNase I will not degrade ssDNA or RNA.  Most recent studies utilize a nuclease cocktail (e.g., Temmam et al. "Host-associated metagenomics: a guide to generating infectious RNA viromes." PLoS One 10, no. 10 (2015): e0139810 or Rosario et al. "Diversity of DNA and RNA viruses in indoor air as assessed via metagenomic sequencing." Environmental science & technology 52, no. 3 (2018): 1014-1027."  This does not seem to have affected the authors conclusions, since they did not see a lot of ssDNA viruses and RNA was not targeted, but is important to mention since others will likely follow this protocol.

2) The TEM images of the viruses shown were obtained from unprocessed biofilm samples (as described in lines 106 - 111). First, I'm not sure that all of the images are actually of viruses - many seem amorphous, like they could be membrane vesicles.  While I agree that it's impossible to get definitive identification, the possibility that they could be vesicles should be addressed.  Second, (and if there is ANY possible way the authors could generate these images, I would strongly encourage it), TEM should be performed on the final purified VLPs.  This is important because it would show if some of "morphologies" seen in the initial TEM from the unprocessed sample disappear throughout the processing (like vesicles would) and second, because it will reveal if any viral types are lost throughout the processing.  If it is not possible to obtain TEM images from the final processed samples, I recommend removing the images altogether, since it's not very relevant if you don't show how they are changed/maintained through the purification protocol.

3) The potential biases of the purification scheme need to be discussed.  For example, Kauffman et al. (2018; A major lineage of non-tailed dsDNA viruses as unrecognized killers of marine bacteria. Nature, 554(7690), p.118) showed that the use of density gradients biased against some common groups of non-tailed viruses.  I imagine it is possible that the sucrose gradient used in this paper might bias against certain groups of viruses (for example, viruses with lipids or ssDNA viruses with different densities?).   While it is impossible to have a method for viral purification that isn’t biased in some manner, and it’s not practical to sequence from every virome preparation method, it is critical to discuss the potential limitations of the optimized protocol.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BENCHMARKING PROTOCOLS FOR THE METAGENOMIC ANALYSIS OF STREAM BIOFILM VIROMES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I am very pleased with the efforts of the authors to address the reviewers' comments. The manuscript is much clear and reads well. I think the manuscript is ready for publication, but did provide some additional comments.

1. Per ICTV guidelines virus names should never be italicized. https://talk.ictvonline.org/information/w/faq/386/how-to-write-virus-and-species-names

2. Lines 286–288 “We mapped the reads to the contigs using BWA-MEM (http://bio-bwa.sourceforge.net/) and then counted the number of reads mapping each contig using samtools (Li et al. 2009).”

What was the mapping threshold and was is the default parameters for BWA-MEM?

3. Lines 359–362 “Across the three samples, on average 554.6 reads mapped to contigs classified as Caudovirales, 153.8 mapped to Podoviridae and 115.1 reads mapped to Myoviridae, whereas only 29.4 reads mapped to Siphoviridae. There was substantial variation in the number of reads mapped to contigs in the different samples.”

I think it would be better to present the average % and no the actual number of the reads that mapped.

4. Lines 441–442 “Finally, there is a plethora of tools available for the bioinformatic analysis of viromes (e.g. those implemented in iVirus (Bolduc et al., 2017).”

I know Ben would appreciate the shout out because he has worked very hard on making tools available for everyone. Really though, his efforts are because of the various grants Dr. Bonnie Hurwitz was awarded and DOE funding. To be more transparent and make other researchers have to work less you should direct them to CyVerse (https://www.cyverse.org/) and KBase (https://kbase.us/). iVirus was started building off iMicrobe, which built off iPlant (the original app). Because so many tools are used in common, CyVerse brought them all together. KBase is just like CyVerse, but has some different tools, is supposed to be more user friendly, and because it is linked to government funding it *should* be sustained indefinitely. I think both are good options that can aid researchers. Maybe keep it as is and direct people to CyVerse and KBase.
Experimental design: Author's address my comments and it reads well.
Validity of the findings: This paper will be a nice addition to current literature and is robust.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BENCHMARKING PROTOCOLS FOR THE METAGENOMIC ANALYSIS OF STREAM BIOFILM VIROMES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed my major concerns.  I have made a few edits on the manuscript itself, there were several mistakes in the newly added text.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MODELLING THE EFFECT OF CURVES ON DISTANCE RUNNING PERFORMANCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear, mostly unambiguous (see comments later), good lit review though I suggest adding one more. Good structure, but Figs 6 and 7 not cited in the main text.
Experimental design: Modelled. Well explained in the main. The work is presented as descriptive rather than hypotheses-driven.
Validity of the findings: Insightful. Could be 'sold' better.
Additional comments: I enjoyed reading this manuscript, which does a pleasingly good job of walking the typical non-mathematically-minded biologist (such as myself) through the equations. I have few things to fault in the report, although I feel that the Abstract and opening to the Discussion are a little prosaic – I would encourage the authors to consider ‘selling’ their manuscript a little better. For example, perhaps stating that their model indicates that indoor track records are underperformances compared to outdoor records, even when accounting for the tightness of the bends. And that the 2-hr marathon record would not have been beaten even if the route had been entirely straight. That marathon runners lose very little time on most courses due to their curves. That the standard outdoor track dimension is arguably a close to optimal trade-off between curve-effect-minimisation and space efficiency. Things like that.

The following is a relevant paper that probably should be cited in this manuscript – it shows that for the same pace of movement in humans (albeit walking), metabolic rate is higher when turns are included, particularly when those turns are more acute:
Wilson, R., Griffiths, I., Legg, P., Friswell, M., Bidder, O. R., Halsey, L. G., . . . Shepard, E. (2013). Turn costs change the value of animal search paths. Ecology Letters, 16(9), 1145-1150. doi:10.1111/ele.12149

L50: Here or elsewhere, I think it worth noting along which dimension that curve radius is measured. For some reason, in my head I was initially seeing it as a measure of how far beyond the ends of the straights the curve extended, rather than the ‘width’ of the curve i.e. how far apart the straights are. I believe the latter is what is really meant. Of course, a ‘wide radius’ means the opposite for these two concepts of the curve radius. Indeed, perhaps as an extra panel to one of the Figures, it might be useful to show a schematic of a few different track dimensions depending upon the curve radii, to help the reader (particularly those not accustomed with track and field) visualise the concept being presented in this manuscript.  … Also, is it the case/assumed that the curves are always the same length regardless of their curvature?

L53: ‘for’ missing

L174: It could be worth quantifying this. E.g. how much difference is there assuming 100% glucose utilisation versus perhaps 50% glucose, 25% fat and 25% protein (i.e., I believe two feasible scenarios)?

L180: ‘this’ missing.

L184: Is this assuming V’O2c = V’O2s?

L186: be clear here that the ‘180 degree turn’ is clinal rather than instantaneous. In my mind I saw a person stopping, turning 180 degrees and then running again.

L187: period punctuation mark required here?

L208: presumably assuming consistent V’O2

L213: aren’t indoor tracks often banked? How might this affect calculations? Maybe something for the Discussion.

L216: calculate

L229: consumption better than uptake?

L241: semi colon better than a comma here, given how the sentence is constructed.

L308: This surprises me – the marathon runner only loses 7 seconds across the entire race because of the (many) bends he encounters on the track. This suggests that the 3 second difference in NCAA mile time conversion is spurious, most of the loss of speed on the indoor track being due to weaker physical performances rather than the additional and sharper bends (though I appreciate the miles runners are moving faster than marathon runners, accentuating the ‘cost’ of the bends).

L313: While a radius greater than 36 m would appear to be advantageous, it seems to be only slight. Might this suggest that the standardised 36 m might not be coincidence? I.e. there was some trade-off made, albeit perhaps not quantified, between limiting the effects of curve running versus space efficiency?

Figure 1 caption: panels C and D not cited.

Figure 1: (panel B) when running a curve of 36.8 m radius, at any speed the additional axial force involved is always just fractionally above 0 (i.e. Fa = 1.1BW)?

Figures 6 and 7 are not cited in the main text!


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MODELLING THE EFFECT OF CURVES ON DISTANCE RUNNING PERFORMANCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Summary: This manuscript describes a modeling study to predict the effect of curves on the performance of runners as it pertains to running velocity and total race time. It uses the rationale that runners will maintain a constant metabolic rate, which will force them to slow down on curves as a function of the radius of curvature and axial leg force requirements. Overall, this is a very well written manuscript that is methodical in its logic and execution. The authors should be commended on a fine study. I do have some suggestions that may help with discussion points, however, my overall impression of the manuscript is very positive.

1)	The first model assumption, which the authors point out as a limitation in lines 446-457, is that runners decrease velocity on curves during race performance. Decreased velocity on the curve for races of these distances at submaximum speed is unknown, as the authors point out. However, given that their model is trying to predict competitive race performances, it seems quite plausible that racers might choose not to slow down on a curve. Instead, they could suffer some added metabolic cost in order to maintain their speed relative to their competition. One aspect of this, which was not discussed is whether and how a runner could even control and maintain a constant metabolic rate. Although a person might be able to sense overall metabolic energy expenditure over long distance and time (on the order of minutes), they would need to negotiate a curve in a much faster timeframe than their metabolic rate could be sensed (on the order of seconds). In contrast, something like running velocity is rather easy for a runner to sense and control. So one might expect a runner could maintain their velocity in a race at the expense of a transient increase in energy cost. As the authors mentioned, what runners actually do is unknown and would benefit from a study on the subject, but it should be worth noting that sensing and controlling metabolic rate over something like running velocity may be a difficult task.

2)	Related to #1 above, the second assumption, which the authors also address in lines 459-466 as a limitation, is that these runners maintain a constant metabolic rate througout the race and that non-oxidative sources of energy are not accounted for in their model. Although runners may be running at submaximum velocity, is it correct to assume they are running with negligible non-oxidative metabolic costs even for longer distance races? As competitive races go, how robust is the assumption that runners would be pushing their physiological limits while not taking advantage of additional non-oxidative sources of energy? Even if it is to maintain speed on a curve, or perhaps to maintain or increase running velocity at the end of a race, it would seem that this assumption might warrant more discussion on how non-oxidative metabolism might change the predictions.

3)	Lines 459-461: Related to above, #2. What is the reference or rationale for the statement that nearly 100% of energy for longer races comes from oxidative sources? I believe the Hill 1999 paper only addressed up to a 1500m distance where non-oxidative sources could be as high as 20%.

4)	There is another important assumption about linearity of the increase in metabolic cost as average axial leg force increases. Again, the authors did a good job of citing this as a limitation in their model, but can they (generally) comment on how their predictions might change if this relationship were non-linear? For example, if metabolic cost increased greater than linearly with increasing leg force, how would this affect your model predictions? The rationale for this comment is that as one recruits faster, less economical muscle fibers at higher forces, the metabolic rate per unit of force generated may increase at a faster rate than at lower forces.

5)	Line 55, just to improve clarity, please replace “…total axial leg force…” with “…average axial leg force…”

6) 	Lines 102-110: I understand what the point being made here is, but as pointed out later in the manuscript, there are non-frontal plane forces that runners are also subject to (i.e., braking and propulsive forces). Please revise to clarify that this section is addressing forces only in the frontal plane that runners are subject to.

7) 	Equations 7 and 8: This is a very minor point, but the constant in both equations should be identical, but they have a different number of significant digits (18.91 vs 18.911).


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MODELLING THE EFFECT OF CURVES ON DISTANCE RUNNING PERFORMANCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 545 - ‘At faster velocities, … slower speeds ...’
The wording of this sentence is contradictory, and should be revised.

Perhaps a surface/contour plot of figure 1, with some of the corners/speeds considered in the discussion indicated on the plot would be more illustrative, plotted over a more relevant range.

The model assumes perfect traction at the runner's feet. At what point could the traction be limiting to cornering ability, and contribute to a speed decrease? The same question applies to ankle strain, at what point is fear of injury limiting?

Does traction limit speed when going around the bend? The model does not appear to account for potential changes to traction (according to the model different conditions of traction would not affect running speed).

The manuscript would benefit from conveying better how the findings are relevant to running in other model systems beyond a narrow human biomechanics viewpoint. Can authos better cover a comparative context in their introduction and their discussion.

When it comes to running around a bend a controversial question in the field is what factors limit performance.

In the interest of discussing a comparative aspect better, authors could discuss other studies comparing performance of running on a straight line versus curve running.

What effect would authors anticipate from comparison of performance under locomotion around the bend with a camber (incline) in the curved section of the trackway?

In contrast to findings from the paper under consideration, Usherwood and Wilson 2005 (cited by authors) suggested that greyhounds would not suffer any reduction of top speed when going around a bend with a camber.

By contrast, experiments by Hayati et al (2017) based on IMU and foot print analyses found that greyhounds do slow down when going around the bend. Since the latter experiment is more line with performance described in the manuscript under consideration, it would be imperative that authors discussed its findings in comparison with their own.

In this spirit, the discrepancy between these studies requires further consideration and discussion sensu Hayati H., Eager D., Jusufi A., Brown T. (2017) A Study of Rapid Tetrapod Running and Turning Dynamics Utilizing Inertial Measurement Units in Greyhound Sprinting. AMSE DETC 67691, V003T13A006.

Experiments on human locomotion around the curve while suspended suggest that traction management is a key feature to the speed reduction.
Experimental design: Could the authors give some further indication of the validity of the empirical equations 1 and 7, as they are critical to the rest of the analysis?
Validity of the findings: The idea and execution is not unsound, and the paper is well written. I find the evidence is not sufficient to validate the model and its underlying assumptions, or at least to demonstrate its utility. But the authors are candid about the limitations of their analysis, and as a first step to further study it is a reasonable, if incremental contribution.
Additional comments: The authors describe a model of the cornering energy cost in human running based on combining existing empirical relationships with the basic mechanics of running on a curved path. They use this to estimate speed decreases based on a constant energy consumption. They then compare the predictions this model makes for speed decreases resulting from course curves with observed differences between curved and straight performances by real athletes.

The authors often refer to other factors which affect race times (the presence of a slope, current fitness etc.) but do not give any sense of the magnitude of the effects. It would be helpful to give some measures of spread for competing effects, to have a sense of the relative size of predicted time changes.

Other than the NCAA comparisons, the authors rely on individual events such as records, and I feel the paper would benefit from a more statistical analysis with attention paid to spread / variation.

Why do the authors often choose to compare maximal/record times, whereas the model is based on data from less high performing athletes, and what effect is this expected to have?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NEW TITANOSAURIFORM (DINOSAURIA: SAUROPODA) SPECIMENS FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS DAIJIAPING FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Good.
Experimental design: No experiments.
Validity of the findings: valid.
Additional comments: Review of „New titanosauriform (Dinosauria: Sauropoda ) specimens from the Upper Cretaceous Daijiaping Formation of southern China” by Fenglu Han, Xing Xu, Corwin Sullivan, Leqing Huang, Yu Guo, and Rui Wu

The paper describes sauropod bones from the Upper Cretaceous Daijiaping Formation of Tianyuan County, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, southern China. The bones belong to different individuals and possible different species as they come from several stratigraphic levels. All specimens are referred to Titanosauriformes indet. I see the only one serious problem in the paper, the misinterpretation of the cervical vertebra ZG T002 (Fig. 3). The lateral pleurocoels described are not on the centrum but on the neural arch. Consequently, all comparisons of these structures are incorrect. The vertebra is broken just posterior to the posterior end of diapophysis. Comparing with cervicals of Erketu, more than half of the centrum might be missing (not only small part as authors believed). On the centrum there is one elongated pleurocoel which is incomplete posteriorly. Another pleurocoel could be on the missing part of the centrum. The ischium indeed has some similarities with that bone in rebacchiosaurids. As it is an important specimen, a 3d model of the ischium is desirable.

Specific comments:
Line 156: Add Titanosauriformes indet. On a new line after Titanosauriformes Salgado, Coria and Calvo, 1997.
Lines 168-169: Change “both an anterior and a posterior pleurocoel” to “both anterior and posterior pleurocoels”.
Lines 168-169: “On the less distorted left side, both an anterior and a posterior pleurocoel are completely preserved, suggesting that only a small portion of the centrum is missing posteriorly”. The vertebra is missing all the centrum posterior to the diapophysis. Compared with the vertebrae in Erketu, more than half of the centrum is missing, not only “a small portion”. The pleurocoels described are on the neural arch, not on the centrum (see below).
Lines 172-173. “However, the relatively anteroposteriorly short and dorsoventrally tall centrum suggests that the vertebra may be an anterior or a posterior cervical”. You cannot decide how the vertebra was long anteroposteriorly because it is incomplete posteriorly. This incompleteness may cause illusion that the centrum is short.
Figure 3A. It is said to be the left lateral view, but appears to be ventrolateral view. Please indicate the position of the diaphysis.
Figure 3D. The lamina labelled as PODL is SPOL, not PODL.
Lines 181-183: “The low and transversely narrow neural spine is another indication that the vertebra is an anterior cervical, as in Euhelopus the neural spines become transversely wide and bifurcated posterior to cervical 11”. Do you mean neural arch? Neural spine is missing on this specimen.
Lines 187-188: “The lateral surface of the centrum is excavated by two shallow pleurocoels, one anterior and one posterior, which are separated by a prominent, posterodorsally oriented ridge (ppr, Fig. 3A)”. The “ppr” ridge is on the neural arch, not on the centrum. Consequently both described pleurocoels are also not on the centrum. Indication of parapophysis and diapophysis on this neural arch would help orientation of the vertebra.
Lines 213-214: “The dorsal surface of the parapophysis is excavated by a large pneumatic fossa (Fig. 3G)”. No paparpophysis or pneumatic fossa on it are visible on Fig. 3G.
Lines 217-218: “The anterior part of the ventral surface of the centrum bears three adjacent large fossae, whereas the posterior part bears a prominent midline keel”. This the middle part of the centrum, its posterior part is missing.
Lines 244-245: “The keel essentially divides the posterior part of the ventral surface into two large, shallow depressions”. Again, this is a middle part of the cervical centrum, the posterior part is missing.
Line 345. In Mamenchisaurus only anterior caudal centra are procoelous.
Lines 352-355. There is no need to mention absence of the pneumatic fossa on the middle caudal centrum. This fossa is present in anterior caudals of very few sauropods. A similar longitudinal ridge on the centrum is present in middle caudals of basal titanosaur Andesaurus.
Description of ischium. Did collateral ischia contacted along the midline? Please describe and add illustration of ischium in ventral view.
Lines 589-590: “However, the analysis in question did not include the earliest titanosaurian from Asia (Tapuiasaurus).” Tapuiasaurus is from South America. Do you mean Tengrisaurus?
Figure 6. Please label iliac and pubic peduncles. A 3d model of ischium would be helpful.

Alexander Averianov


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NEW TITANOSAURIFORM (DINOSAURIA: SAUROPODA) SPECIMENS FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS DAIJIAPING FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The material was adequately figured (mostly), but I’d like to see figure 3 broken up. As it is, it’s too busy and the elements are very small within it. I’m also not thrilled with Figure 6 – I’d like to see some more views of the entire specimen. But generally I appreciate that there are many views of the elements.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Conclusions not supported by data:

Everything is fine, up until the authors introduce the idea that there might be Cretaceous diplodocoids in Asia. Allow me to be perfectly honest: there might have been, but you don’t have them. The strongest character you have tying the clade to your material is the ventral keel on the cervical centrum, and by your own admission this is a) plesiomorphic b) widespread and c) morphologically distinct from the character in dipolodocoids (lines 229-231). Beyond that, a proportional character of the ischial shaft (which, again, is also known in titanosauriforms) is your only other evidence, which I don’t find compelling, particularly given the enormity of the claim. On the other hand, the broken edges of your material display large open cells, an unambiguous synapomorphy of Titanosauriformes (which you discuss starting with line 262). To even entertain that this material is non-titanosauriform in nature relies on a willingness to ignore essentially everything we know about your material, the sauropod faunas of Cretaceous China, and neosauropod evolution.
Additional comments: From a descriptive point of view, I think this paper is fine. The material, while not excellent, has clearly been gone over in detail by the authors and thoroughly mined for anatomical detail. While not necessarily the order I would have chosen, the descriptions clearly follow a path around the material that the reader is able to follow with little difficulty. If the paper were to be just this, I would give it a thumbs up. However, the authors append what I can only describe as a “hook” – something to spice up an otherwise run of the mill description – but in this case I think they have missed the mark.

Ultimately, I can’t see a way forward to publication as long as the speculation about diplodocoid ties to the material remains – it’s just not supported in any way by what you have. Excise that in its entirety and you’re left with a solid (if unspectacular) description of some potentially novel sauropod material, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Specific comments:
Line 541: Diplodocoids did survive into the Late Cretaceous – not very long, and it doesn’t seem to have been many taxa, but they were there.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NEW TITANOSAURIFORM (DINOSAURIA: SAUROPODA) SPECIMENS FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS DAIJIAPING FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Much improved after revision.
Experimental design: not applicable.
Validity of the findings: Valid.
Additional comments: The paper was greatly improved during revision and can be published.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NEW TITANOSAURIFORM (DINOSAURIA: SAUROPODA) SPECIMENS FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS DAIJIAPING FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: MS is greatly enhanced with much more robust citation of prior work, comparisons with other material, etc.
Experimental design: As before, this seems ok.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions seem much more plausible in this version, and the speculatory bits are now more reasonable.
Additional comments: Overall, this is much improved. I especially appreciate the 3D models and the revised figures.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TOWARD INSIGHTS ON DETERMINING FACTORS FOR HIGH ACTIVITY IN ANTIMICROBIAL PEPTIDES VIA MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This work has multiple grammatical and orthographical errors as well as an ambiguous use of the English language which makes it difficult to read through. It also lacks several relevant references in AMPs/HDPs as discussed below.

1a. Ambiguous sections

Line 15: the review by Gaspar et al. refers to AMPs with anticancer properties, not HDPs in general. In that regard, the authors should refer any work from Robert E.W. Hancock such as https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2019.00043/full or  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22173434

Lines 16-19: All this information can be found in the aforementioned reference. The authors added other specific references such as Salger et al. (2016) for anti-protozoans or Kalenik et al. (2016) for antiviral HDPs, that we believe are unnecessary. Moreover, they cited their own reference Li et al. (2016) that refers to the effects of D-amino acids on HDPs bioactivity. Interestingly, that particular reference is cited several times across the manuscript in an unjustified manner.

Lines 53-54: The authors mentioned that “this study is not merely aimed at constructing prediction models of HDP antimicrobial activities but this study interprets the QSAR model on the basis of prior knowledge in the field of HDPs…” however in their methodologies, they assembled a dataset of 1641 peptide sequences divided into 3 levels/classes (high, medium, low) for which they calculated 760 molecular descriptors. However, following multivariate analysis and predictive modeling, the authors built a random forest-based classifier as described lines 208-209 “In the construction of the QSAR model, descriptors were used as the input data matrix while the assigned activity levels for each of the AMP was used as the expected output vector”. Reading further the manuscript, it becomes clear that the authors were not trying to produce the best predictive model but the most interpretable one (line 193). If we take that argument in consideration, why not exploring other tree-based models such as the more interpretable decision tree or gradient boosting.

Lines 62-64: “While numerous online databases on HDPs already exists, the DBAASP database appears to be the only one that provides an extensive repository of bioactivity and target information.” It will be appropriate to mention with one or more references these online databases the authors are referring to.

Lines 120-129: In this paragraph, the authors explained badly that they will use a multi-level classifier instead of regression models by binning the MIC activity data (in M) into 3 levels: high, intermediate and low. The M cut-offs they used to form their levels have been omitted and they should be mentioned in this section. Interestingly, they have not used the word ‘classifier’ or ‘classification model’ in this manuscript, we strongly encourage them to do so for the sake of clarity.

Line 132: Please explain in more details why/how a single AMP may possess significantly different MIC values for each strain.

Lines 133-153: The authors explained at great length that several peptide sequences were reported multiples times (up to 5 times) with different MIC values. Most peptides were only reported once. All MIC values from each unique sequence were not averaged as they “landed” within the same level of MIC activity, therefore each unique peptide will be administrated one activity level. In general, activity binning and removing replicates are inherent parts of data pre-processing. That paragraph should be condensed.

1b. Orthographic and grammatical errors:

Lines 12-13: poor English usage
Line 16: amphipathicity
Line 20: has
Line 25: interact
Lines 24-27: poor English usage
Lines 29-46: Re-phrase the two paragraphs to better highlight the strengths and weaknesses of applying computational techniques to HDPs/AMPs
Line 36: had
Line 40: HDP-related topics
Line 53: aiming
Line 60: all peptide sequences
Line 62: exist
Line 68: peptide and bioactivity data that are
Line 75: deduced
Line 83: the bacterial strain names as listed above are not …
Lines 92 and 109: MIC  > 50 M
Line 202: Kuhn Kuhn
Lines 330-333: poor English usage
Line 335: throughout
Lines 337-339: poor English usage
Line 354: an
Line 368: “And as shall be elucidated”? Please re-phrase.
Line 375: Recall that… are the authors talking to the reader directly?
Line 384: For
Line 398: “As can be seen” ? Please re-phrase.
Line 407: …PROFEAT which was originally developed…
Line 515; “And the observation made here…” Please re-phrase.
Table 2 caption: p-value < 0.05

The raw data were shared on Github.

Lots of speculation or hypotheses with limited evidence.
Experimental design: The present manuscript describes the application of random forest (RF) classification for predicting the antimicrobial activity of HDPs and understands which peptide molecular descriptor(s) would impact on the level of antimicrobial (MIC) activity (high, medium, low). The original model itself uses a dataset of 1641 peptides (observations) described by 760 molecular descriptors (variables). The class variable displays 3 levels of the MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) activity data (in uM): high, medium/intermediate and low.

The scope of this study is within the Aims and scope of the journal PeerJ in the area of Biological and Health sciences.

In itself, this study is an interesting piece of work, it executes and discusses most parts of building a QSAR (machine learning) model: data collection, data preprocessing, exploratory data analysis e.g. multivariate analysis/supervised feature selection CfsSubsetEval, data splitting and 10-fold cross-validation, model building (500-1500 trees) and minimal model optimization.  Did the authors normalize/standardize their data prior to execute any multivariate analysis and predictive modeling? It was not mentioned.

Interestingly, the authors did not provide the R script on Github where the multivariate analysis and random-forest classifiers were executed.

However, by line 231, the manuscript became confusing. The authors created two different RF-based classification models where the output variable (class) is either 2 activity levels (high/low) for each of the 7 strains or 3 activity levels (high, low, inactive) based on another set of active AMPs /inactive control UniProt peptides. These UniProt control peptides should be mentioned in the “Data set” section. What happened to the original 3-class random forest classification (high, medium/intermediate and low)? Instead, this study focused on building “a predictive model for each strain using a large collection of different peptides (line 352)”.
Validity of the findings: The authors found that descriptors of different classes (local sequence, global, structural) participated to predict the antimicrobial activity of the peptides in a strain-specific manner. Figure 2 perfectly illustrates that point where the descriptors are ranked by importance per strain. While the descriptors differ in terms, the authors concluded that the important ones were all describing the same property; polarity-solubility as mentioned in lines 409 to 412: “The important composition descriptors were parameters for charge, ClogP, hydrophobicity, side chain hydrogen bond donor, van der Waals volume, polarity, polarizability, solvent accessibility, surface tension, and secondary structure. With the exception to secondary structure, all the composition descriptors were parameters closely related to peptide charge and solubility in a vice versa manner.” They also concluded that these trends were not strain-specific. The authors could sum up the importance per strain of the descriptors (either local sequence, global or structural) that refer to the same property: polarity/charge or solubility (as shown in Figure 2) to see if in general this property is equally represented among the different strains.

In the main body of the manuscript (lines 390-, the authors discussed at length the size and the impact (Welch’s t-test, null hypothesis) of all global, local sequence and structural descriptors. They illustrated their discussion with a massive Table 2. They spend enormous efforts to describe the impact of individual descriptor which makes the reader (the medicinal chemist) forget the big picture. It is good to remind the authors that such computational study aims at providing guidelines for the lab scientists who pay little attention into individual descriptors to design (antimicrobial) peptides.

While this study has the merit to apply QSAR modelling between the molecular descriptors of 1641 peptides and their antimicrobial activity, their findings are not completely new “this study did not discover any new activity influencing factors”. Instead the authors should suggest a series of guidelines to support/debunk the design of antimicrobial membranolytic peptides - based on their findings (polarity and solubility). At best, this computational study should be provided with experimental results.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TOWARD INSIGHTS ON DETERMINING FACTORS FOR HIGH ACTIVITY IN ANTIMICROBIAL PEPTIDES VIA MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: When cited most of the references, a parenthesis is missed, for instance, in line 12 one can read “and has been extensively reviewed before Hiltunen et al. (2017) and” when it should be “and has been extensively reviewed before (Hiltunen et al. (2017)) and”
The same happens in many places and makes the reading uncomfortable
Some examples of grammar mistakes are:
1.	lines 256-257 “Support the claim that the random forest models build in this study is able to differentiate the activity” versus “Support the claim that the random forest models build in this study ARE able to differentiate the activity”
2.	line 407 “as done by PROFEAT was original developed by Dubchak” versus “as done by PROFEAT was ORIGINALLY developed by Dubchak”
3.	line 454 “A remarkable consistency can observed when” versus “A remarkable consistency can BE observed when”
4.	line 467 “any descriptors” versus “any descriptor”
5.	line 654 “lyses can occurred” by “lyses can occur”
6.	line 660 “Results from this study also indicates” versus “Results from this study also indicate”
7.	line 699 “we had adequately provide” versus “we had adequately provided”
8.	line 704 “correlated with the activity” versus “correlate with the activity”
9.	line 707 “measuring those molecular property were used” versus “measuring those molecular properties were used”
Some typos like:
1. line 379 “it would indicate that that descriptor” versus “it would indicate THAT descriptor”
2. line 506 “(¡1.08)”
3. Table 2, caption, “was p-value ¡0.05.”
4. line 609 “few chain segements” versus “few chain segments”
5. line 664 “obtained thusfar supports” versus “obtained thus far supports”
A brief but clear explanation, besides what the authors provide in lines 214-222, explaining the CfsSubsetEval algorithm is required, this is a central tool in your analysis, the reader should understand from your work how this algorithm decides which set of features is relevant.
The explanation for Structural descriptors in lines 266-268 is insufficient, you need to provide more details.
Experimental design: In Table 1 how can you explain having a higher performance for 3 activity levels than for 2? Please extend your explanation in line 251.

A more profound analysis of the data sets is required, what is the sequence diversity of each set, what is the sequence similarity of sequences between different strains?
Within the same strain:
1) what is the sequence similarity between highly active sequences?
2) what is the sequence similarity between low active sequences?
3) what is the sequence similarity between high and low active sequences?
4) what about the same analysis of 1-3 but now in the descriptor space?

How can you include the differences found in this analysis to normalize the results shown in Figure 1?

A PCA on the set of data per strain, labeling (with color, shape, etc) the projected dots with their activity levels may produce useful information.
Validity of the findings: As the authors mention (lines 358-360), “That is, if peptides used for building the activity prediction models for a strain is changed, the list of important descriptors and their importance values will also change as well.”
In the context of this statement, how can you be confident of your findings?, answering the questions listed in the Experimental Design section may provide you with information about, for instance, for which strain the descriptors are more informative because you have already the amount and diversity of peptides needed to state statistical significant conclusions.
Additional comments: The authors present interesting ideas, understanding the importance of descriptors associated with a given activity is of utmost relevance. Trying to provide the rationale to the decision taken by ML models and finding biologically relevant explanations is an active area of research. I see this work promising although still in an early stage of development. Technical aspects such as data analysis should be improved a great deal.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TOWARD INSIGHTS ON DETERMINING FACTORS FOR HIGH ACTIVITY IN ANTIMICROBIAL PEPTIDES VIA MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Most comments from the first review have been taken into consideration – the use of the English language has been improved. Numerous relevant references and paragraphs have been added to the original manuscript which makes the document much more understandable and readable. Overall, the manuscript has a professional structure including figures and tables. All speculations have been removed.
Experimental design: The present manuscript is in the Scope of the journal, it describes the application of a random forest (RF) classification for predicting the antimicrobial activity of HDPs/AMPs and understands which peptide molecular descriptor(s) would affect their level of antimicrobial (MIC) activity “The core objective of this study is to provide a readily understandable interpretation of relationship of 287 peptide molecular descriptor patterns and antimicrobial activity”. The authors explored the MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) activity data in uM across 7 bacteria strains (a) Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633, (b) Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, (c) Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, (d) Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, (e) Escherichia coli ATCC 25726, (f) Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, (g) Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853. The different MIC activity values were binned into 3 levels: high, medium and low. Two classification models have been developed – one tertiary model used a dataset of 1460 peptides divided into the aforementioned 3 classes (high, medium, low). A second binary classification model used 972 peptides where the medium class has been excluded. Each peptide was described by 760 molecular descriptors as follows: (a) 2 parameters pertaining to the molecular property namely the molecular weight (MW) and isoelectric point (PI), (b) 20 amino acid composition descriptors, (c) 400 dipeptide composition descriptors, (d) 2 sequence coupling number as measured by Schneider-Werder and Grantham distance, respectively, (e) 42 Quasi-sequence order descriptors as measured by Schneider-Werder and Grantham distance, respectively, (f) 42 composition, 42 transition and 210 distribution descriptors of 14 properties [(1) hydrophobicity, (2) van der Waals volume, (3) polarity, (4) polarizability, (5) charge, (6) secondary structure, (7) solvent accessibility, (8) surface tension, (9) molecular weight, (10) solubility in water, (11) number of hydrogen bond donor in side chain, (12) number of hydrogen bond acceptor in side chain, (13) ClogP, (14) amino acid flexibility index]. Of these descriptors or features, the authors proceeded to the selection process CfsSubsetEval and they identified 30 global, 60 local sequence and 88 structural descriptors as important descriptors for their models. Of these 178 descriptors, 138 were identified as unique descriptors. In itself, this study discusses most parts of building a QSAR model: data collection, data preprocessing, exploratory data analysis e.g. multivariate analysis/supervised feature selection CfsSubsetEval, data splitting and 10-fold cross-validation, model building (500-1500 trees) and minimal model optimization.
Validity of the findings: The authors studied the role of descriptors of different classes (local sequence, global, structural) to predict the antimicrobial activity of the peptides in a strain-specific manner. For example, “the global descriptor patterns agree very well with what is known about the HDP antimicrobial activity mechanism and does not indicate strain-specific activity mechanism.” Despite their efforts, they could not find strain-specific descriptors. Instead, they observed that most descriptors were related to the polarity-solubility property and there was a general dependence of antimicrobial activity on these descriptors and no strain specificity.
Additional comments: This study has the merit to apply QSAR modelling between the molecular descriptors derived from peptide sequences to predict antimicrobial activity (MIC). While their findings are not completely new, their overall analysis and conclusions are satisfactory and worth publishing.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TOWARD INSIGHTS ON DETERMINING FACTORS FOR HIGH ACTIVITY IN ANTIMICROBIAL PEPTIDES VIA MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper has improved a great deal.
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: This reviewer is satisfied with all but one of the answers provided by the authors that I would like to address:

My original comment was:
A more profound analysis of the data sets is required, what is the sequence diversity of each set, what is the sequence similarity of sequences between different strains?
Within the same strain:
1) what is the sequence similarity between highly active sequences?
2) what is the sequence similarity between low active sequences?
3) what is the sequence similarity between high and low active sequences?
4) what about the same analysis of 1-3 but now in the descriptor space?
You can forget about point 4. The authors' argument for not dealing with the suggested analysis can be simplified into two points:
1)	The time cost and length of the analysis
2)	The aim of the paper’s analysis is not in the sequence space.
The time required to perform analysis from 1 to 3 is little, you can use any software for computing sequence similarity. Regarding the length, it can be solved by adding the results as a supplementary file.
I clearly understand the point the authors try to make about the descriptor space, however, we should not forget that we do analysis in the descriptors space because it will be more informative, simpler, and mainly because the sequence space is not enough to discriminate the desired properties.
My point of doing the data analysis has to do with the following reasoning: what happens if you can do better by just measuring the distance in the sequence space?
For instance, assume that, in the sequence space, any two sequences of class A are closer to each other than any pair of sequences one of class A and another of class B, and that the same is true for any pair of sequences in class B. Then the sequence similarity will be enough for separating the classes.
This situation is probably not happening in your case, in your data set perhaps there exist at least a pair of sequences of the same class that are farther away from each other than some pair of sequences from different classes. The experiments I propose will help you to show that this last situation is actually your case and that you need your descriptor’s space approach. However, any other way you have to show that the descriptors approach is needed (i.e., that you will have a problem discriminating at the sequence level) will be sufficient.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF ATRIMITRA DALL, 1918 (GASTROPODA: MITRIDAE) FROM SEAMOUNTS OF THE RECENTLY CREATED NAZCA-DESVENTURADAS MARINE PARK, CHILE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: This manuscript is logically constructed, the science is sound and the illustrations are adequate.

I recommend it for publication after attention to the English, which will require quite a lot of work, and the following points:

38. NW in full.

50. The old “Turridae” is now recognised as representing numerous families. Very few if any of the species recorded here will actually be turrids. Either use the correct families or substitute Conoidea.

56. Should be Atrimitra orientalis (Gray, 1834)

57. Lower case v for von

112, 113. The diagnosis is very poor.

122. Last adult whorl preferable to (meaningless) body whorl.

Throughout. All coordinates should be in this format (e.g.) 25°46.65’S,  rather than -25.7774, etc.

192. Suggest delete “that is” and “Dall, 1918” for clarity.

198. Should be … was listed as a synonym of Atrimitra idea by Cernohorsky (1976), but this has yet to be verified.

213. Should be … 180 and 280 metres on seamounts on rocky ground.

216. A. orientalis (Gray, 1834)

234. Delete word Mitridae

238-239. … cusps on the rachidian tooth.

248. Five

252. This limpet is a hipponicid, possibly a species of Malluvium.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF ATRIMITRA DALL, 1918 (GASTROPODA: MITRIDAE) FROM SEAMOUNTS OF THE RECENTLY CREATED NAZCA-DESVENTURADAS MARINE PARK, CHILE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The records of the new species of the family Mitridae collected from the seamounts of Nazca-Desventuradas Marine Park are analyzed in the context of poor but highly endemic molluscan fauna of the studied region. Given that the areas of high local endemism host considerable fraction of yet undescribed marine biodiversity, investigation of such areas is important and the revised MS is a relevant and valuable contribution to our knowledge of habitats and fauna of one such area. The paper is written in decent English and is generally clear (although see specific comments to the text). The structure of the manuscript is straightforward, although can be further improved. The figures are sufficient for the topic – they clearly illustrate the new species, its distribution and similar species that authors find important to illustrate.
Experimental design: The discovered species of the family Mitridae is certainly new, and its taxonomic description is timely and well-tailored. Nevertheless, strictly speaking, the study does not follow best practices of the modern taxonomic research, and it is pity. The study is entirely dedicated to the description of one new species, and I find that 1) allocation of this species to genus (which is tentative, and authors admit it), would have been more convincing if addressed with molecular-phylogenetic techniques, and 2) a more comprehensive study of morphology would be desirable. Addressing the placement of a new species collected as recently as in 2016, with tissues obviously available for the DNA extraction, only by means of morphology (which is quite inconclusive) is clearly the main drawback of the present study. Unless the new species represents a separate lineage of the family (which would be a very interesting result by itself), the affinities to known taxa could have been demonstrated explicitly. Therefore, there would be no need to speculate about possible relatives that are as distantly related as Isara (subfamily Isarinae), and Atrimitra (subfamily Mitrinae). Furthermore, I find it strange that authors did not consider the deep water genus Calcimitra, with similar shell proportions and sculpture as a relevant placement for the new species. Besides, I find it strange that the authors, having life collected specimens in hands, refer to the poor resolution of the ROV photos as a reason why morphology of soft parts has not been studied!
Validity of the findings: The mentioned shortcomings do not undermine significantly the validity of finding - i.e. a new species is detected and described. The material available for the new species is clearly sufficient for description, and the conclusions are relevant and are backed up by the original data.
Additional comments: Attached is the submission PDF with my comments, which, I am convinced, will help authors to improve quality of the MS. In particular, I would encourage authors to:
1) State clearly how many specimens of the new species were available for study. How many of them were collected life, and how many were dead shells.
2) Provide a list of abbreviation of specimen repositories
3) Review description to remove references to methods of collection / imaging


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF ATRIMITRA DALL, 1918 (GASTROPODA: MITRIDAE) FROM SEAMOUNTS OF THE RECENTLY CREATED NAZCA-DESVENTURADAS MARINE PARK, CHILE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English seems correct throughout the manuscript. The structure of the article, the figures captions follow the format of the journal and are relevant to the content of the article.

The taxonomic background could be improved in the introduction, for instance how and why the species used for morphological comparisons were selected, while other where not (but see my further comments). In addition, there is a lack of consistency with the species names that are used throughout the text. For instance, some species names cited in the introduction are not valid (e.g.  Mitra orientalis Griffith and Pidgeon, 1834 and Mitra semigranosa Von Martens, 1897, line 56 and 57), but become valid later in the text (e.g., Atrimitra orientalis, Line 167). Finally, the full names (including authors and year of descriptions) of the studied species do not appear at the first occurrence in the manuscript.

The morphology of the protoconch is used for the description of the new species and the SEM images are very interesting. However, nothing is said about the inferred larval mode of development. The SEM images clearly show a multispiral protoconch, which is indicative of a planktotrophic mode of larval development (even if the protoconch is eroded, I think this should clearly appear in the description), yet, the authors conclude that because the species was never found elsewhere in the Pacific, it must be endemic of these seamounts.
Experimental design: This is an original primary research that follows the Aims and Scope of the Journal, as it is Biological Sciences based on methodological soundness. All the field study permits seem to have been respected. Line 80: ‘Sample collection was performed under permission Res. Ext N°41/2016 from SERNAPESCA (Chile) to Universidad Católica del Norte.’

This paper fill the gap as by describing a new species, it increases our knowledge of deep-sea biodiversity. The investigation has been conducted rigorously but some information are lacking (notably about the taxonomic background and the hypothesis of endemism). Methods are described with sufficient details and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: I believe that the description of the species is sound and necessary but that some statement about its geographical distribution should be exposed with more caution. The authors selected a lot of paratypes that are deposited in many institutions. These specimens have been fixed in Ethanol which should provide good data for further studies. Some of the specimens are lacking ID numbers. These numbers should be obtained before the final acceptance of the manuscript.
Additional comments: The manuscript describe a new species of Mitridae, Atrimitra isolata sp. n., collected from seamounts located near Desventuradas Islands, off Chile. The description is based on one holotype and twenty paratypes collected by trawling on three seamounts (SF5, SF6 and SF9). The authors tentatively provide some insights into the habitat of this new species based on underwater imagery taken with a ROV on these same seamounts plus an additional one (SF2), which could not be trawled because of the roughness of the terrain. The species description is based on the analyses of the general shell morphology, and on the examination of the protoconch and the radula using scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Shell morphological characters are compared to three congeneric shallow water species from California (holotype of Atrimitra idea (Melvill, 1893)), Chile (Atrimitra semigranosa (von Martens, 1897)) and Peru (Atrimitra orientalis (Griffith and Pidgeon, 1834)) and a fourth species (holotype of Strigatella (Atrimitra) coronadoensis Baker and Spicer, 1930) from Mexico, for which the current taxonomic status is unknown. Although an effort was made to gather this material for morphological comparisons, nothing is said about why other congeneric species from the same geographical area were not examined. For instance Atrimitra effusa (Broderip, 1836) from Central America and Galapagos islands, and Atrimitra catalinae (Dall, 1919) from California.
Given the recent publication of Fedosov et al., 2018 on the molecular systematic and morphology of the Mitridae, which is based on four genes but has no material representing the Atrimitra genus, it is a pity that this fresh material was not used to publish some DNA sequences. However, the morphological comparisons seem robust enough to describe these specimens as belonging to a new species. For that matter, I think that the manuscript has potential to be of interest to readers of the journal. However, I have identified some major problems and advise the authors to revise their manuscript.
The first major problem is the taxonomic background that I think could be improved in the introduction and throughout the manuscript. The second major problem concerns the mode of larval development that is overlooked although the protoconch is examined. Moreover, conclusions are made about the endemism of this new species without any consideration about its potential larval mode of development and the global the lack of knowledge on the deep-sea biodiversity. Please see my comments below for further details.

Detailed comments.
ABSTRACT:
The abstract is quite short, could the authors be more specific here about which characters (at least the most obvious) make them say that the new species is ‘morphologically related to counterparts (..) from the west coast of North, Central and South America’ but ‘has no affinities with species of the family found around Easter Island, ….’?
INTRODUCTION:
Line 49-50: please homogenize the sentence by using either Latin or vernacular names: i.e. Polyplacophora vs. gastropods, bivalves and cephalopods.
Line 56: The species name Mitra orientalis Gray, 1834 is no longer accepted, please use the valid species name: Atrimitra orientalis (Gray, 1834), or specify in the text that the name has changed.
Line 57: The species name Mitra semigranosa Martens, 1897 is no longer accepted, please use the valid species name: Atrimitra semigranosa (Martens, 1897) or specify in the text that the name has changed.
Lines 56-57: The full names (including authors and year of descriptions) of the studied species do not appear at the first occurrence in the manuscript. Some species name used in the introduction are taxonomically not valid (e.g.  Mitra orientalis Griffith and Pidgeon, 1834 and Mitra semigranosa Von Martens, 1897) lines 56 and 57). Even if the correct names are used later in the text, the current taxonomic status of all the species analyzed should be more clearly introduced, in the Introduction section or, as suggested in the Guidelines of the Journal, in a Table.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Line 79 & Line 81-82: The definition of SEM (scanning electron microscope) should be given at the first occurrence (line 79).

RESULTS:
Line 115-120: Although the protoconch is highly eroded (i.e., top of the protoconch I is missing and protoconch II lack of sculpture…), it is obviously a multispiral protoconch, which is a reflexion of planktotrophic larval development. I would suggest the authors to highlight more clearly this point about the larval development. This could be interesting in the following discussion about endemism and the potential distribution of that species.

Line 142, 143 and 146: please provide an ID numbers (CIDA, ANSP and SCBUCN) before acceptance of the ms.
Line 192: please provide the full species name (i.e. with author and date) of Atrimitra idea (Melvill, 1893) at its first occurrence in the ms, which is Line 163.
Line 164 and caption in Figure 4: please provide the full species name (i.e. with author and date) of Strigatella coronadoensis. This species name does not appear as valid. Please provide more information about the currently accepted name for this species. .. Some clarification appear Lines 197-199 but perhaps a bit late. I suggest clarifying this in the introduction. (i.e. the choice of the species used for comparison and an overview of their current status).
Line 216: Same comment for Atrimitra semigranosa (Martens, 1897), which first occurrence appears line 165.
Line 168: Same comment for Atrimitra orientalis (Gray, 1834).
Line 105: I suggest removing the subfamily rank as it is currently unassigned to the genus Atrimitra. Please check out WoRMS : http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=411799
And http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1027672

DISCUSSION:
Line 230-232: ‘The new species is isolated from the mainland and seems to be endemic to the Nazca Plate, where it lives in deep water and associated with seamounts’. Given the paucity of the deep-sea biodiversity exploration and the larval development of the described species, I would suggest the authors to be more cautious when stating that this new species might be endemic.
Line 238-250: It is not clear what drawings the authors are talking about. It is mentioned Line 240: ‘only drawings of the radula have been published (Fedosov et al., 2018).’ However, no drawing was produced in Fedosov et al., 2018. Are the authors referring to older description such as Melvill, 1893 or Cernohorsky (1970)? In that case, the in-text citing should be more precise.

Line 248-249: ‘However, there are not enough SEM images of radulae of this type (see Fedosov et al., 2018)’: again, can the authors be more specific about what part of Fedosov et al. 2018’s paper they are referring to? This paper did not use Atrimitra material and consequently did not provide any diagnosis for that genus.

Line 264: ‘The new species has no affinities with them”: It is not clear what the authors are meaning here. What kind of affinities are the authors referring to?

Line 265: ‘available evidence suggests that it is found only on these seamounts’: What evidence is the authors referring to? Also, as mentioned earlier (Line 230-232 comment), given the paucity of the deep-sea exploration, and the larval development of the described species, which clearly is planktotrophic, the authors should be less assertive when stating that this species is endemic.
Conclusion about

REFERENCES:
Line 246, 254, 257: the authors used “pers. obs.”. As recommended in the PeerJ guidelines to authors Reference as 'pers. comm.', must include the name and year.
General remark: I did not check them all, but some available DOIs are missing from the reference list. For instance:
Lines 318-320 the doi is: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx073
Lines 331-332 the doi is : 10.3897/zookeys.219.3994

FIGURES:
Figure 2: CIDA XXXX please provide an ID number


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF ATRIMITRA DALL, 1918 (GASTROPODA: MITRIDAE) FROM SEAMOUNTS OF THE RECENTLY CREATED NAZCA-DESVENTURADAS MARINE PARK, CHILE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I find that the English improved sufficiently and the paper can be accepted in its current state
Experimental design: Experimental design did not change since first submission
Validity of the findings: The findings remain valid, however I am convinced that authors should make efforts to obtain sequencable material of Atrimitra isolata in future.
Additional comments: I am satisfied with the revisions that authors have made, and recommend the paper to be accepted for publication. Nevertheless, I would like to still make some comments that may be useful for authors in their future studies. 1. Breaking shell is not necessary to find out whether the specimen is life taken or dead. Drilling a hole ~1.5 whorls above aperture would be enough, and the dentistry drills and bores perform really well. 2. I did not understand what did author mean under DNA intergrity? If they assert that the extraction of DNA was 'effective' - how then the integrity test was 'negative'? What do author mean by that? This response is very vague, and I would like to have details - have the authors checked the total DNA quality by gel-electrophoresis, and what results were like? What primers were used in the attempted PCRs? 3. Do authors know, how the bulk specimens were preserved? I.e. whether they were fixed with Formaldehyde or ethanol? If by the formaldehyde, announced future attempts with the use of forensic techniques won't likely be efficient either.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF ATRIMITRA DALL, 1918 (GASTROPODA: MITRIDAE) FROM SEAMOUNTS OF THE RECENTLY CREATED NAZCA-DESVENTURADAS MARINE PARK, CHILE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English could be improved in the Introduction and Discussion sections.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has been largely improved since its first submission and it seems that many of the reviewers’ comments have been integrated to the present version.

I only have minor remarks concerning the English writing and the structure of some parts, which could be improved notably in the Introduction and the Discussion sections. Please see my detailed comments bellow.

Therefore, for the comfort of the reader and for the clarity of the text, my recommendations is that the manuscript should be thoroughly red by an English native speaker and reviewed accordingly before final acceptance and publication in PeerJ.

Detailed Comments:

INTRODUCTION
Line 45: Add « the » before « estimated endemism »
Line 47-49: This is an awkward sentence. I suggest:
“Conversely, information on the invertebrates of the area is sparse. Most of the existing references are associated with research expeditions carried out between 1973 and 1987 by the former Soviet Union and limited to the area beyond Chilean jurisdiction east of ~83°W.”

Line 51: “in general” is repeated twice.

Line 52: remove « s » to « report »
Line 53: replace « a polyplacophoran » by « one polyplacophora species »
Lines 52-55: It is not very clear. Are the 42 molluscan species listed here endemics of the SYGN ridges? Or do they represent the total number of mollusks reported in the area?
If they are endemics, an easy way to formulate would be: “For mollusks, these authors reported that 42 species are endemic of the 22 seamounts along the Salas y Gomez and Nazca ridges explored”
Lines 53-54: As suggested in my previous review, taxa name here could be homogenized as follow: one polyplacophora species, 27 species of gastropoda, seven species of bivalvia, and seven species of cephalopoda.
Line 55: “the latter most probably pelagic”: I do not think that “pelagic” is the right word. It really depends of the species but I believe these cephalopoda to be sedentary, suprabenthic or epibenthic. (i.e. swimming bottom-dependent animals living in the water layer just above the sea floor).
Line 55: “In this,” is cryptic… and “as well as in subsequent studies of mollusks of the area” is a bit awkward. I would suggest: “In Parin et al. (1997) and subsequent malacological studies in the area, no representatives of the family Mitridae have ever been mentioned.”
Line 57-59: awkward sentence. I would suggest: “However, in the westernmost side of the Salas y Gómez ridge, at Rapa Nui (Easter Island), Osorio (2018) mentioned the occurrence of the three following Mitridae species: Strigatella flavocingulata (Lamy, 1938), Imbricariopsis punctata (Swainson, 1821) and Neocancilla takiisaoi (Kuroda, 1959).”

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Line 100-103: As mentioned in my first review, the definition of SEM (scanning electron microscope) should appear at the first occurrence (line 100).
Line 105: Replace “cleaning” by “cleaned”

RESULTS:
Line 158: “L: 20.4 mm, W: 7.3., AL: 10.2”: Either keep or remove the “mm” for all L, W and AL.
Line 158: “10.2; Seamount”: Replace the semi-colon by a colon.
Lines 159, 193, 197, 198, etc.: “Lat. -25.7774°, Long. -83.163°”: If coordinates are given in decimal then the degree, (°), should be removed.
Line 160: I do not understand what this mean: “specimen 3 of 6, C22 SSF9 A,”
Line 186: As mentioned in my previous review, what is the current valid name of “Strigatella coronadoensis, holotype SDMNH 44409-667”?
Line 187-189: Remove the spaces after “(Fig. 4A–C)” “(Fig. 4A–C)” and “(Fig. 4G–I)”.

DISCUSSION:
Line 251: Atrimitra isolata sp. n. is one of the only few Mitridae reported from Chilean waters
Line 252: remove the “it” -> “so far has been”. Replace “at” by “on”: “only on the Nazca”.
Line 253: I am not sure but I think  that here “with” should be replaced by “to”: “associated to seamounts”. A more easy way to say that would be: “where it lives on deep-water seamounts”.
Line 255: the “Although” here make your sentence unfinished.

Line 291: replace “live” by “living”
Line 299: Replace “ecologic aspects” by “ecological aspects”
CONCLUSION:
Line 304: Atrimitra isolata should be in italic
Line 309: Atrimitra and Isara should be in italic

GENERAL REMARKS:
Lines 278, 294, 297: the authors used “pers. obs.”. However, as recommended in the PeerJ guidelines to authors Reference as 'pers. comm.', must include the name and year.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH PROTEIN HYDROLYSATE FROM PARROTFISH (CHLORURUS SORDIDUS) HEAD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Very good English.  Sufficient references.  Data supported with good discussion.  Good tables and figures presentation.
Experimental design: The research question stated clearly.  Information on sample preparation and analysis needs to improve.
Validity of the findings: The finding useful to use a head by-product from parrotfish.
Additional comments: Abstract:
Line 24:  This research is less correlation with endogenous enzymes,  more o the effect of pH, time and sample ratio on characteristics of FPH.   Suggested to change the term  "endogenous enzymes" to  "different pH, time and sample ratio"
Line 32.  Since the level of essential amino acids of the sample is lower than the provided comparison (FPH from tuna and Commercial FPH), the statement "with a high level of essential amino acids" needs to delete except authors can come with some evidence.

Introduction:
Line 42:  FAO, 2015.  Please change with updated data (2017 or 2018) - if available.  Any data on parrotfish production and utilization in Indonesia?
Line 45:  19% for general fish head or dedicated only for parrotfish head?
Line 46.  Please also highlight the utilization of head scale and bone fish-by products as material for gelatin production - (Fish bone and scale as a potential source of halal gelatin.	Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 2011, 6(4), pp. 379-389).
Line 59:  Please also refer to additional reference for the production of FPH using fisheries by-products  -  Protein quality of hydrolyzed dark muscle protein of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2016, 16(1), pp. 177-186.

Materials & Methods
Line 70.  Need to state the size of the parrotfish head sample (weight or dimension).
Line 75:  Need to state the procedure to mince the head of parrotfish.
Line 77:  Need to state the exact temperature of the experiment room.
Line 137.  Probably amino acid analysis uses the Acid Hydrolysis method for sample hydrolysis preparation since data of amino acid tryptophan,  methionine and cystine are not presented.

Discussion:
Line 246.  Need to provide discussion on the proximate composition of Parrotfish head. Comparison with the head of Nile fish not suitable since not belong to fresh head, but consider as dried head as indicated by lower water  (moisture) content.
Line 261.  Please check why the total component of protein, fat, ash and water on (dried) FPH at Table 2 is not near to 100%, just around 36 - 55%.   What components contributes to the resat of  45 - 64%?
Line 285.  Please check and compare the resulted degree of hydrolysis with the references  - Degree of hydrolysis and free tryptophan content of Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) protein hydrolysates produced with different type of industrial proteases. 2012. International Food Research Journal
19(3), pp. 863-867   and Optimizing the enzymatic hydrolysis of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) dark flesh using Alcalase® enzyme: A response surface approach.  2013.  	Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 8(4), pp. 494-505.

Conclusion.
Good and Sufficient.

References:
Please refer to the above-provided comments for additional references.

Table 3:
Need to mention that the Total Essential Amino Acid refer to Total Essential Amino Acid without tryptophan and methionine.